http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... di-toksvig

I'll certainly consider sending them some money if they can organise (recently saw a perfectly good, new party implode over here). They'd be the one party I'd vote for! Defined policy about serious wider issues that will benefit EVERYONE, not just women.

There's absolutely no reason they couldn't pressurise the other party leaders since they clearly have links to the media or indeed are the media! And if Corbyn gets the leadership (despite how the media spun the carriages bit), they'd have one hell of a friend in opposition. Also, apparently women tend to vote Tory - Cameron would likely freak out if he even thought he was being portrayed as misogynistic. Again, after the 'calm down, dear' bit...

Think they stand a chance? Would you vote for them?

Sounds a bit like the SNP. Only interested in governing for a few, not for everyone.

Though in fairness, they sound a lot better than the SNP.

I'm not so sure they're interested in governing anything really, they're more about specific issues IMO, but the sort that would benefit everyone. Equal pay. Health and education, and so on. That affects every household. I mean it's first and foremost women-centric, but what's wrong with that? FFS women are still actively encouraged to look down their noses at other women by the media. And sadly, they do. It's divide and conquer IMO and it friggin' works at every level, not just the media. There are girls in my office in their early thirties who obsess about their weight, want botox and think it's OK for a guy to sexually assault a woman just cos she was wearing a bra in front of him - I think anything that boosts the general female confidence is sorely needed. Like I say, it benefits everyone.

On a simple level, it's incredibly sexist.

They've already said they'll field male candidates and want equality for women, I'm not seeing any sexism so far myself

You can't campaign for equality for some people in some things. This is exactly the opposite of what equality is.

You have to campaign for fairness and equality for all, or you're not actually campaigning for fairness and equality at all. You can campaign for fairness and in the process make the lives of women in the area you're dealng with better because they're being treated unfairly but if you're not equally bothered about the unfair lives some men in your constituency/country are living, you're actually no better than the guy you're campaigning against because you're not actually about equality, you've just picked a different group of people to campaign on behalf of.

In one sense, I'm a feminist - I want every women to have exactly the same opportunities and possibilities as every man, each to the limit of their individual physical and intellectual capabilities. But that's because I'm a humanist - I want every person to have all opportunities within their individual physical and intellectual capabilities. if you pick one group to worry about, you're always leaving other groups behind. And if you accept that's your agenda, fair enough. But don't use the word 'equality' in your party name if you do.

If they want to say they're a party who campaign in the cause of better things for women, that's entirely fair and, tbh, good luck to them. Women need advocates as much as any other subset of our society does. But they're using the word 'equality' when in fact what they're campaigning for isn't that at all because you can't have equality for some people, that's a contradiction in terms.

Just fielding male candidates doesn't make them automatically non-sexist - UKIP had non-white and female candidates at the last election, but they're still generally a bunch of racist misogynist bastards in the main.

It's all relative semantics and likelihood of success at the end of the day - that's why they're starting off by saying they want to see certain things enacted before seeing where the party goes from there. There's also the matter of who else is there? That's why I consider it relative context as opposed to truly defined sexism, if that makes sense. Too grand a plan right at the beginning and everyone will just assume they're wishy-washy and haven't a hope, but focus on a theme the other parties haven't time for? That's worked quite a bit recently, the real issue might be shelf-life in the end (one trick pony or swamped by the larger political process).

It's not semantics, it's spin. If they said they were 'The women's party' or some such, they'd rightly be accused of sexism. If they say they're a 'Women's Equality party', well nobody can complain about that because nobody but a bastard would complain about equality, would they, I mean, that's about 'fairness' isn't it, and everyone's in favour of that... But as I say they're actually not about 'fairness', they're about improving the lot of some portion of the population. And helping one without helping another who is also disadvantaged is not 'fair' or 'equal'.

It's using the word 'equality' as a blind to make them look a bit less like the 'special interest' group they actually are. If they want to be about making things better for women, again, that is absolutely fine. But just ruddy be honest about it.

Women's equality doesn't exist. Good luck to them.

Just saying

Women's Equality party to fight for free childcare and equal parental leave | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ntal-leave

Most of that seems sensible to me*, though I'm always uneasy when it comes to quotas for anything. I don't think they've ever solved jack sh1t.

*I'd be out of digits counting the mothers I know where it didn't make sense to go back to work with childcare costs, or who were totally reliant on their partner's wage also and a grandparent looking after the kid(s). And it's only getting worse. My sister works in a nursery - these places get by on treating the staff like crap while charging ridiculous sums because there's always a supply of young girls needing a job and parents who have one to go to.

Oh good - can I be the token man please

Under the current 'pooled' parental leave legislation you're going to find both parents probably going back to work after about six months (some friends of mine had a baby last week - she's an accountant, he's a mathematician and if that's the best deal they could come up with looking at the legislation that's probably the best deal there is). So that seems to leave a three month window the parents will have to pay for child care after which it would be free, which is odd. Unless they expect one parent to go back to work after three months leaving the other to look after the child for nine, which is an interesting interpretation of 'equal'.


See above. if they want equal parental leave that lasts nine months, they're going to be significantly upping the amount of parental leave the legislation allows for. Which is admirable IMO, but they're going to have a fight on their hands about it. The CBI for one will blow a gasket. Not that I'd be too unhappy to see that happen of course...


Fair enough. Most places don't seem to have them in the women's lavatory anyway any more but if it's an issue... To me, quite a lot of them look pretty inadequate for the job which seems more important ('wretched cupboards' is the phrase that springs to mind) but I guess that's also on the list.


Gah. This has been tried multiple times and never worked, ever. And usually ends up with women being treated far,far worse than if you legalise and regulate prostitution instead. If we start with the assumption you can't eradicate people wanting to trade sex for money (and if you do actually think we can, *cuckoo* *cuckoo*) then making it illegal in any form just hands it over to criminals to control, and they're not inclined to treat anyone involved well. All this does is add blackmail to the list of their potential lucrative activities.

Still, good luck to them, at least it's something new.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but over here the parents often stagger their leave, so that, usually, the mother has the first 6 months, the father then takes his leave and overlaps for a month or two and then the wife goes back to work, leaving the father at home. If they do that, you come out at 9 - 10 months, where the parents are at home. If you don't have any overlap, then you have 12 months.


Again, the baby changing areas are generally not in the toilets, but a separate room, like the disabled toilets are, so that usually means there isn't a problem with male or female changers.


It is regulated over here, there are brothels and nightclubs - some even offer discounts for the unemployed! It is illegal to pick up a prostitute on the street, but there are still a lot of them, but brothels are regulated and taxed like any other normal business.