Turn on thread page Beta

Why is it a problem Corbyn didn't appoint women in the most senior roles? watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It doesn't. It's just another shameless smear aimed at Corbin. Since when have the Tories cared about gender equality?
    They dont. But Corbyn is the new threat so they will be in overdrive to bring him down as hard as they can.

    Its all political spin.

    The guy could find a cure for cancer and the Tories would find a problem with it. Most likely about taking money from the mouths of the poor pharmaceutical companies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Jeremy Corbyn has been heavily criticised for not putting women in the most senior shadow cabinet roles, but I find this strange.

    Surely we want the people most qualified for such positions, irrespective of their sex. Deliberately forcing women into such roles to be PC seems not only inappropriate, but an affront to what many feminists say they want: equality between the sexes. Putting women in senior roles just because they're women is mad. People should get into their positions by merit, and merit only. Sex, race, sexuality etc. should have no influence. If more men or women are in senior roles, so be it. The matter of equality comes from whether men and women are having equal opportunity to enter senior roles - which they are.

    Corbyn isn't the type to be sexist either. He's as left as this country has seen in a long time. I'm not a fan of him either before anyone asks - I just find this smearing tiresome. People are just looking for any reason to label him a sexist or misogynist.

    Just my two cents anyway.
    Finally, some common sense on here.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It is common to attack left wingers at every occassion
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It doesn't. It's just another shameless smear aimed at Corbin. Since when have the Tories cared about gender equality?
    It's because he doesn't subscribe to the neoliberal agenda. He is a threat to national security in the Tories eyes because he will no longer subsidise the corporate elites or the plush lifestyles of these self serving politicians at our expense. He is a threat to their luxurious lifestyle of signing in in the morning to get paid before slipping out for a day on us. He is a threat to their plush breaks in Brussel's funded for by the EU taxpayers (not the corporates who can afford to avoid tax) and he is a threat to everything they've been building since the days of that witch Thatcher, that drove millions into poverty or the brink of poverty to further her political agenda. Yet, people continue to trust these morons even when the establishment has been riddled with pedophiles, people covering up things like Hillsborough and involvement in torture. It does make you really wonder who the ****ing idiots are: The people in power or the morons who continuously vote them in like happy clapping seals going YAY VOTE BLUE WE CONSERVATIVE OMG and on the flip side OMG WE RED GO TONY BLAIR WAHOO! Bunch of deluded prats who are like tribal football fans without a brain cell between any of them if you ask me. The true epitome of idiocy.

    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Then when their boy gets in they're talking about positions on merit and "feminazis" etc etc. you think I'm joking or exaggerating? You don't even have to leave TSR to find these creatures. The whole debacle just exposes these idiots for who they really are. Bandwagon mongs who just follow the latest fashion and the latest vehicle for them to display to everyone else how enlightened they are.
    1. If you vote for a neoliberal party like the Tories or Lib Dems then you're the bandwagon sheep, not people against it. Even the morons who voted for Blair's Labour are just as bad as he is a neoliberal as well, and one who got extremely rich, along with his pal Bush, out of such policies.

    2. I really couldn't care before or now how many women were in any of those positions. I'm voting Corbyn as an attack on neoliberalism and nothing else. I don't care if he eats a bacon sandwich the wrong, ****s in the morning or evening or if he rides a bike or takes a tram to work. Couldn't care less about that trivial nonsense.

    3. You talk about bandwagons but you seem to be doing a very good job of jumping on the 'hate Corbyn' and 'white knighting' bandwagons - reality check needed much? Pot, kettle..........
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    They dont. But Corbyn is the new threat so they will be in overdrive to bring him down as hard as they can.
    They hate him because he's not a neoliberal.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's the PC right wing of the party trying to turn impressionable young feminists and Guardianistas against the socialists. It won't work, one wonders why they bother
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    He's spoken out about gender equality more than probably any other man in a position such as his in UK politics. But people don't like his leftism, so they will pick at anything they can. Anything he does will be criticised, using both 'look how socialist he is' or 'he's not even that socialist!' depending on the situation. And in this way he will be chipped down until he is unelectable in 2020 - it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

    BTW - I didn't want Jeremy Corbyn to win, but I am disappointed with the intense scrutiny and criticism he is already facing for anything he does
    I know what you mean, but it isn't really surprising that he will be under the spotlight - his election represents a huge change in Labour politics, not since the 80s has Labour gone for a seriously Left leader.

    I think there is a case to answer on the choice of all men for the top jobs - even the Tories manage to put a woman in cabinet. I don't really buy the concept that there was nobody of relevant ability. What it really means is there was nobody of that ability level who Corbyn (and presumably McDonnell as he is apparently Corby's left hand man :teehee:) considered suitable. That is something worth scrutinising.

    I like a lot of the policies Jezza is recommending, but I think we are in for a fair bit of the sexism that infects the British Old Left, along with healthy doses of anti-semitism (another favourite in some Left circles) and perhaps some rather traditional attitudes in one or two other areas.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's a Tory smear, the main whingers seem to be Labour MPs who are bitter that their vagina did not entitle them to a top job in the shadow cabinet.

    These objections are self-serving sexist and moronic. Token identity politics of the worst sort. There's plenty of cause to attack the opposition cabinet without resorting to this. Meritocracy should be encouraged and not vilified
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because each party has to have its tokens, whether they be female, minority, or something else.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I don't think it's a Tory smear, the main whingers seem to be Labour MPs who are bitter that their vagina did not entitle them to a top job in the shadow cabinet.

    These objections are self-serving sexist and moronic. Token identity politics of the worst sort. There's plenty of cause to attack the opposition cabinet without resorting to this. Meritocracy should be encouraged and not vilified
    A slightly coarse, but apt synopsis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Jeremy Corbyn has been heavily criticised for not putting women in the most senior shadow cabinet roles, but I find this strange.

    Surely we want the people most qualified for such positions, irrespective of their sex. Deliberately forcing women into such roles to be PC seems not only inappropriate, but an affront to what many feminists say they want: equality between the sexes. Putting women in senior roles just because they're women is mad. People should get into their positions by merit, and merit only. Sex, race, sexuality etc. should have no influence. If more men or women are in senior roles, so be it. The matter of equality comes from whether men and women are having equal opportunity to enter senior roles - which they are.

    Corbyn isn't the type to be sexist either. He's as left as this country has seen in a long time. I'm not a fan of him either before anyone asks - I just find this smearing tiresome. People are just looking for any reason to label him a sexist or misogynist.

    Just my two cents anyway.
    It's a problem because it was one of the key issues he campaigned upon.


    Personally I believe that appointment should be on merit, of course I do accept the argument that historic and present sexist attitudes could potentially make it harder for women to succeed even if at the front end there is little discrimination, but the real issue is that if he promised to empower women and people voted for him, expecting him to empower women, he should ****ing do it.


    He presents himself as being different to the current crop of politcians, but in what was literally the first thing he did, he broke his pledge.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Jeremy Corbyn has been heavily criticised for not putting women in the most senior shadow cabinet roles, but I find this strange.

    Surely we want the people most qualified for such positions, irrespective of their sex. Deliberately forcing women into such roles to be PC seems not only inappropriate, but an affront to what many feminists say they want: equality between the sexes. Putting women in senior roles just because they're women is mad. People should get into their positions by merit, and merit only. Sex, race, sexuality etc. should have no influence. If more men or women are in senior roles, so be it. The matter of equality comes from whether men and women are having equal opportunity to enter senior roles - which they are.

    Corbyn isn't the type to be sexist either. He's as left as this country has seen in a long time. I'm not a fan of him either before anyone asks - I just find this smearing tiresome. People are just looking for any reason to label him a sexist or misogynist.

    Just my two cents anyway.
    It's a problem because people care about symbolism rather than action in modern politics.

    It's all pathetic


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    They dont. But Corbyn is the new threat so they will be in overdrive to bring him down as hard as they can.

    Its all political spin.

    The guy could find a cure for cancer and the Tories would find a problem with it. Most likely about taking money from the mouths of the poor pharmaceutical companies
    Corbyn and his brand of seventies Socialists have a dismissive, chauvinist attitude to women. This proves it. Together of course with the fact that most of the capable non loony lefty women (Cooper, Kendall) won't work for him as he is a national embarrassment.

    Look at his first couple of days, a total disaster. Botched forming his
    Shadow Cabinet, humiliated in front of the PLP over wearing the white poppy, bends his knee to the Queen yet refuses to sing the national anthem to honour our RAF heroes, then steals the lunch reserved for a veteran.

    You couldn't make it up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Jeremy Corbyn has been heavily criticised for not putting women in the most senior shadow cabinet roles, but I find this strange.

    Surely we want the people most qualified for such positions, irrespective of their sex. Deliberately forcing women into such roles to be PC seems not only inappropriate, but an affront to what many feminists say they want: equality between the sexes. Putting women in senior roles just because they're women is mad. People should get into their positions by merit, and merit only. Sex, race, sexuality etc. should have no influence. If more men or women are in senior roles, so be it. The matter of equality comes from whether men and women are having equal opportunity to enter senior roles - which they are.

    Corbyn isn't the type to be sexist either. He's as left as this country has seen in a long time. I'm not a fan of him either before anyone asks - I just find this smearing tiresome. People are just looking for any reason to label him a sexist or misogynist.

    Just my two cents anyway.
    Exactly, and they've just ignored the fact that his cabinet as a whole is 50% female, which I think is a first
    It's quite difficult for him when a lot of people and women like Yvette cooper don't want to serve under him, who knows, she could've been in Burnham's seat had she been more cooperative
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Surely we want the people most qualified for such positions, irrespective of their sex.
    I agree completely. Corbyn's main problem is that he has worked himself into a trap of his own making (appointing women as a matter of principle) without considering the usual strategy (appointing competent people as a matter of principle). It is severely compounded by the fact that most of Labour's competents do not wish to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet, leaving him with a shadow cabinet of limited talent or, in the case of the shadow chancellor, no obvious talent for the job at all and a record of trying to subvert the UK economy.

    It will be interesting to see how the party gets itself out of the problem. A leader popular with the membership but not seen as viable by the MPs and most of the electorate is not a nice early Christmas present to receive, and Corbyn's own record of disloyalty to the party will not stand him and the party whips in good stead in the period to come.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    The guy could find a cure for cancer and the Tories would find a problem with it.
    Supposed, or even actual, cures are not necessarily without problems. A very effective cure for sickness in pregnancy you may have heard of (Thalidomide) is a case in point. Ironically, it is now used against some cancers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    As far as I can see Corbyn has appointed twice as many women to his cabinet as Cameron has, with a total of 15 men and 16 women in his cabinet...

    What more do they want from him (other than to just be a Tory in disguise like so much of the rest of the Labour party)?
    Women in the posts traditionally seen as more senior instead of in posts created for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    because he said he would appoint more women. Fair enough to point out saying one thing and doing another.
    he said half would be women, 16/31 seems as close to half as you can get, there are more women then men in the group and I agree with some of the ministers that actually the general view of the 'top posts' isn't really what I care most about
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    because he said he would appoint more women. Fair enough to point out saying one thing and doing another.
    He has appointed more women! 16 In fact compared to 15 men. What you mean to say is there isn't any woman in any of the "so called" top jobs. The fact that many of the Blairite women refused to serve under him didn't give him much choice in terms of experienced/ideological candidates for filling the great Secretary of State roles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol feminists! Give them an inch and they will want another mile. This is why people should just stop pandering to them entirely.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.