In response to Caroline ffiske: Do our Conservative feminists give a hoot about the less well-off?
But Caroline, you seem to think that people would want to leave working in a call centre to work with children. Yet we KNOW that women don’t like being around children – feminists tell us so!
Mina Christina wrote:
The feminists don’t give a hoot about anyone, of either gender, unless they fall in line with their bipolar philosophy of how a woman should be seen in the world. There are two camps – perpetual victim or empowered heroine. Any deviance from these assigned roles, and you are the next persona non grata.
Tony Dark wrote:
Conservative feminism? A phrase that exquisitely illuminates the absurdity of contemporary politics. It is no less insane as a proposition than conservative Marxism or conservative transgenderism.
Feminism has won a massive victory across the western world and in doing so has turned conservatism into a joke. Feminism is now central to the official ideology in country after country. And don’t have any illusions. You can make a few compromises, or hold yourself aloof hoping that the gender warriors will eventually shut up and go away. But they won’t.
And bloviating about ‘common sense’ and ‘traditional values’ hasn’t exactly worked as an opposition tactic over the last 30 years, so it is unlikely to start working any time soon. Nor is it enough to make grand philosophical statements about core principles and so on. That’s been tried, and if it had worked Roger Scruton would be prime minister now. But of course he isn’t: his recent career trajectory has taken a very different turn.
So something more is needed.
We need to take them on, directly and in detail in the hard-core, grinding social policy areas that they have dominated for decades. Genuinely alternative policies and programmes should be evolved, and yes, drawing on traditional values and philosophical insights.
To be fair some relevant work has already been done by groups such as the Centre for Social Justice, but much, much more is needed and soon. What, after all these disasters, have we got to lose?
And of course the irony of this is that it is the ABC1s who continue to live the more ‘traditional’ life in terms of marriage, career/job choices and the ‘one and a half income’ pattern in families with school-age children. Precisely because they can afford to do so, and can afford the hired help to do the things they want. To a very considerable degree, for ABCs feminism is a theoretical thing doing nothing in their lives other than perhaps boosting the pay and prospects of ‘professional’ women in the public sector and providing an excuse not to do irksome stuff like looking after older relatives or offspring.
Of course C2DE women suffer both from the idea that their dull jobs should be a fulfilling ‘career’ and from the stalled or reduced wages of their partners in labour markets beset by competion from immigration and ‘equal pay’ claims which frequently downgrade pay for jobs, unsocial hours or unpleasant, done by men. Not to mention reduced promotion prospects as experience is replaced by fast-tracked female graduates’ paper qualifications.