sexist bias at Labour Home?

DenDen Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I note that both the Streathem (London) and Hull East selections made it onto the Home page, but that Nottingham South remained on Blogs.

I further note that the first two selected men, the later a women.

Interesting.





tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
sexist bias at Labour Home? | 14 comments (14 topical)

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#1)

by swatantra on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM GMT

Good point. Bias runs through all aspects of society. Its unfair on those who have to work twice as hard to fight the system.


Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#2)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:30:23 PM GMT

Gimme a break!

A number of factors come into play on such matters.

The over-riding factor though is that the debate on the Hull and Streatham pieces was both set very early in a congratulatory tone. Given past tension over the Nottingham South selection, I didn't want to promote the story if it looked like it might turn negative.

However, it seems OK.


Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#3)

by Prbo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM GMT

This really is beyond parody...!  Why does everything for the left come down to either racism or sexism?  something's not quite right?  It's gotta be one or the other.  Or evil right-wing prejudice of course, probably peddled by 'public-school toffs'. 


Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#4)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM GMT

Actually, as the target of this proto-criticism, I'm perfectly happy to be challenged on this score. I have been giving some thought as to how I can get more women involved with this site, and we're not there yet.

Prbo, so many things to come down to racism, sexism or other bigotries. We can't end poverty or achieve the good society until we have equality of opportunity. Bigotry inhibits opportunity for some and so it is necessary to oppose and challenge it at every turn.

You are young, Grasshopper, but you will learn


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#5)

by Prbo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM GMT

"We can't end poverty or achieve the good society until we have equality of opportunity"

True - but equality of opportunity isn't something you can force or legislate for.  This is one of the fundamental differences I see between left and right.  I believe just as much as you guys in having equality of opportunity - but that doesn't mean having blanket targets of bare equality, such as having 50% of posts in parliament/a company/society as women, a certain % ethinc minorities etc.  The answer is not always intervention by a higher authority - that usually makes the system worse, and usually introduces discrimination.

...and on how do you get more women involved in the website?  That's their affair, isn't it?  It's not up to you to necessarily determine the type of people who use your website.  Why does it matter, anyway?  Political websites tend to attract male readers, from what I understand.  Is that a problem?  Should be looking at websites with lots of female readers and try to get more men looking at them?


Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#6)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM GMT

We can and have legislated for equality of opportunity - or at least to reduce the inequality. Legalising abortion, providing birth control on prescription, maternity and paternity rights, anti-discrimination legislation, universal education and healthcare.

Do you think we would have the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy today without the Labour movement?

I don't say that the people should thank the Labour movement: the people ARE the Labour movement


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#7)

by Prbo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:01:40 PM GMT

Thanks Alex.  In terms of equality of opportunity, I'd probably disagree with some of those, but that's off-topic.

However, I notice you haven't addressed my fundamental point.  Much of equality of opportunity cannot be legislated for.  Imposing quotas on companies or political parties for having a certain percentage of BME people, or women, or whatever, is in my opinion providing inequality of opportunity.  If a person going for a parliamentary seat is the best candidate, but doesn't happen to black, or doesn't happen to be woman, and is therefore excluded from selection, how on earth is that equality of opportunity?


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#8)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM GMT

It comes down to whether or not you believe there is a bias in the system. If you don't, then the fact of 1/7th MPs being women is an indication that men are six times better at being MPs than women.

I happen to believe that a number of factors bias politics in favour of men, and one of those factors is the current and historic dominance of men in politics. This perpetuates both a macho culture and an underlying presumption that politics is not "for women". It's hard to instil in a girl child a belief in her capacity to be a politician when the vast majority of politicians she sees on television are men.

Your argument also presumes that politics is meritocratic. I'm not certain where you get that impression. AWS effectively increases the meritocracy in politics by opening the door to half the population for whom it was effectively closed.

If politics and democracy were more meritocratic, there would be no need for positive discrimination.


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#9)

by Prbo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM GMT

I very much see your point Alex, and I wish it were so.  However...

you're right that politics isn't necessarily meritocratic.  No profession is.  However, you're right to ask how we should make it more so.  I don't know whether the system is wrong.  What I do believe is that we should not right a perceived injustice by another injustice. 

It's good to have a general approach of getting a wide group of people involved in politics.  However, we shouldn't aim to have 50% of involved, neither should we have all-women shortlists.  AWS are a monstrosity, with racism and sexism being permitted only because it's seen as 'positive.'  AWSs have frankly lead to some dreadful and incompetent people being elected to parliament when far more capable candidates were turned down simply because they weren't women.  That's not good for anyone.

There's also an element of different people being suited to different jobs.  If, as is the case, many women are trying to juggle looking after children with a career, it's no wonder that many don't want to enter parliament with the 24/7 work culture.  I used to work in Parliament for a female high-flying MP and saw the enormous strains it put on her family & children.  Many women (and men, for that matter) simply choose not to go into politics.  Is that bad and a sign of inequality?  Not necessarily - it's simply people making their own choices. 


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#10)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM GMT

I would contest that the point of parental rights is to ensure that people can make choices that are good for them and their families without having to conform to an age-old fantasy that women stay at home and look after babies. There was never a time in the past when working class women had that luxury.

I would also suggest that far more dreadful and incompetent MPs have been elected from open shortlists than from AWS.

You have a point about positive discrimination being discrimination. But it's a trade off between equality in the process and equality of outcome - and for the reasons I have discussed earlier, I believe equality of outcome is particularly important in the case of democracy.

AWS is an unfortunate compromise. It's a case of Labour seeking to change its own rules, for very good reason, in order to avoid making a large constitutional change that would go further towards rectiying the problem. I would rather see a constitutional change that imposed better behaviour on all political parties. There is a notional argument that religious groups should be exempt from equalities obligations but I don't see how that logic gets extended to political parties.


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#11)

by Prbo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM GMT

Fair points, and I know with AWS it's not necessarily a deliberate attempt to discriminate, but a lesser of two evils.  However, I'd disagree on implementing them at all...but then you won't be surprised to hear that!


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#12)

by jkitleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:04 PM GMT

Identity politics is by far the worst kind of politics.
Feminists going on about mysogyny against Clinton.
Those fighting racism, going on about how 'Obama can't get elected, because he's black'.

Alex you made a point of saying we can't fight poverty unless we fight other forms of discrimination. I think the corollary is stronger. We can't fight other forms of discrimination, until we fight poverty. Altso, identity politics fuels the credulous political correctness, and stifles debate, while negating the seriousness of what their purporting to be fighting against.

My examples earlier, only make their cause more difficult to fight. What does it say about anti-racism activists, if they can't think of Obama as a person, and just black? Would feminists campaign for Margaret Thatcher? Why isn't Trevor Phillips calling for an end to young black men, having a choice between an Army uniform, or a McDonald's uniform? Why aren't the feminists condemning the regimes of Saudi Arabia, and Iran, instead of condemning black women for having the 'audacity' to support Obama?


Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#13)

by jkitleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM GMT

'they're'


[ Parent ]

Re: sexist bias at Labour Home? (#14)

by alexhilton on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:18 PM GMT

The reason for the things you describe is that we haven't finished yet. This is not the end of history, a time on which humanity can be judged. We're just a bit more enlightened than we were and a bit less than we will be.

When a generation of children grows up without having experienced discrimination, maybe the job will be done, but that's a long way off and it will be unreachable if we refuse to take the steps that are our responsibility to take.


[ Parent ]

sexist bias at Labour Home? | 14 comments (14 topical)