should apply!
By Jenny Fisher ENGHSHAANGUALE
Woman= AFREAK AFREAK =OUTRAGE Islate That Worl ANGELA MARTIN YOU might think, that with less than a dozen women Labour MPs in Parliament, the current round of reselections would be undertaken in spirit of trying to redress the balance. Not so. The reselection process has barely started, but it's already proving an excellent arena for displaying the white, sexist, patriarchal prejudices the Party's riddled with.
The first hurdle we have to cross often comes from the "anti-positive discriminationists": "I'm not sexist, but I think women should be treated on their merits, patronising This is a very good woman through is a very "theoretical" argument when you feel your power's being threatened. But it doesn't fit the facts.
You can't blame the small number of women Labour MPs on the scale of the overall electoral defeat. A analysis of the 1983 General Election result shows that few women came first in their constituencies; but very few came second. The vast majority were third lower — and often a poor third at that. Obviously, in some constituencies the Tory vote may, for the first time, bave split with the Alliance, or the SDP may have taken some Labour votes, giving a new balance in the result. But you can't account for it all like that, or you'll have to start arguing that Labour voters will vote Alliance in preference woman. The truth is that Labour men were given the vast majority of the safe seats, and women were left with the pickings, like mediaeval serfs allowed the scraps from the Lord's table.
Partly this is because the actual winning of the constitutional reform of reselection did not in itself challenge the prevailing Labour view that MP-ship is a career structure rather than a system of democratically selecting accountable delegates. So those who'd established themselves at the top of
650 sits. vac.: MALE DERINITION Shock nomor the career structure (men) have to be pro- tected. Partly, also, Parliamentary dominated GMCs their sexist selections. make sure that women many seats. That means starting now in CLPs, looking at the lists of women who are prepared to stand, ting to know them and supporting them, as this doesnt anior. seek nomination. or it's Party will pre-empt the selection debate by will get comforting choosing their woman candidate, getting her nominated, and then campaigning for the woman candidate. Women's Sections should set themselves a target of what they think they can manage: if your shortlist will be about 5 or 6, make sure you have at detailed least 3 women nominated: and try for 5 or S if you can manage it. Then you can have " real choice of the most suitable womar for your constituency, after real debate. - or To get this number of nominations in most areas, some wards or union branches will need to nominate women: women's sec- tions can organise for this, aswell as con- centrating on their own nomination. ment sometimes appears in a much cruder form (I don't know if anyone else comes for the across this, but I do). This time not pretac- ed by "I'm anti-sexist, but... to a Labour "you can't say we should have a woman candidate, because that's sexist. " This one I do find irritating. that when we talk about sexism, we're not Yot te hot alisetist ust by remember- about a You're not ng to pair oit each joke about a womai driver (joke?) with one about how useles men are at changing nappies. Nor can you round on women who are active members of a women's section and tell them they're
GAN DEN divisive 3women = TAKING OVER pression, Mobilige NATO are question To often, AMAs It doesn't help stands up and women due to male. it's etc., incorporating their prejudices into To overcome this situation, we have to assertive are selected in accord. more safe and winnable margina contacting them, get- that women in the as good The "anti-positive discrimination" argu- They " it is merely MP, It's time that Party members understood of equality. babies; these days. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 3, February 1985. Page 16
being sexist because women's sections are
Tan oppression of women nen, which has been going on for cen turies and is one of the fundamental props of capitalism. It's about women sharing ex. periences in order to help define that oppression; and realising their collective strength to fight it: hence the "divisive' women's sections. Women's Sections, etc.
Ano more divisive than having a separate Party — the Labour Party - to promote working class interests as opposed to just mixing along in with the Tories.
Fighting sexism is about forcing men to
their ways and attitudes, to understand their role as oppressors; to change, and to add to that collective strength without taking it over, which would be to staunch it.
Othe nature of the fight against sexism is by-passed, especially when the male can get away with appearing to be non-sexist by learning the right responses.
when a male supporter says that of course the should be able to get together (poor things), to give each other the confidence they need (timid little dears), so that one of them can come forward and stand for a post, one of the ones that isn't
enough to stand of her own
This isn't being anti-sexist: it's patronising. Support is generated by women's sections, often helping women to do things they wouldn't have done alone. But if we won't do them alone, it's because we won't turn on ourselves and adopt the agressive, elitist, careerist behaviour that is required if one is to be an "acceptable" woman, that is, acceptable on the men's terms by being
Tat the practice which is used to keep us in our places as the men are. Some of us could do this pertectly well. It's not that we need a head start betore we can run the same distance in the same time, it's that we don't like the rules of the race And, often, we don't want to get elected He bit of pover, gly he hi of tiesent,
1 but we want to represent and be a channel for, that collective strength of organised women.
If anyone still doubts that our Party is riddled with sexual oppression, listen to the stories of a few women candidates.
Orange from stories of selection meetings where male Party chairs were so nonplussed at being faced by a woman candidate they decided it was best to ignore her (she must have been a wife of one of the men) to meetings where men question women about why they want to be an
wouldn't they want to have babies soon? Presumably it's the only questior hey know how to ask (why don't they tr asking what we think of the AES?). They don't ask them men if they intend having
Tand probably not because it doesn't necessarily take two any more
Even worse, this questioning will go on at a meeting where they haven't thought to arrange a crêche, either for
these potendidates es rete me.
candidates' experiences aren't exceptional. Women Labour Party members will come up with stories about being patronised, ignored, chatted up, sexually harassed, ( and, yes, even about being beaten up and raped by their
We expect this treatment in everyday
- though we don't accept it. don't know how many times I've heard a woman say that she didn't expect it from a Well, she should expect it in the Labour Party too; her advantage is a place to go to organise collectively against it.
The problems are serious enough when it comes to sexism against women. I can't
Tin favour of an begin to contemplate the furore that would cause. The difficulty would be so great, I think, because the support network for lesbians in the Labour Party is so small. The impact of the Labour Campaign for Gay Rights and of Labour Movement Lesbians has been far short of that of the whole Labour women's movement. That women's movement has had a very heterosexual bias overall: not only does it not promote lesbianism outwards to the Party, I'm not sure that it's considered sexuality seriously
though it does give token support. At least the movement to get more black MPs is very members of the Party are being very uncompromising in their demands, though the demands are modest. against looking for a woman candidate to support is the one which tries to prioritise women's issues over women:
Abut let's make sure she's got the right politics; you may find there's a man on the shortlist that better on women's issues than the woman.
At first sight, this is just insulting. It assumes that a woman's politics are likely to be less correct (i.e. lett, or socialist) than a man's as a general rule. In other
Fmen have the monopoly of being socialists and defining socialism.
But the underlying assumption is still
Wright to appropriate "women's issues". Well, yes, we do want men to educate themselves in the issues that Labour women put forward and see as important: we don't want to allow them the cop out of leaving it all to women.. Labour women's movement isn't just about the issues: the issues are founded on the asis that women are powerless vant, and intend to take, a share in the argue that as long as we have men taking surrender any part of that power.
In all this fighting for more women canmust not lose sight of? What is the actual ooint of being an MP? It's easy enough to orget to ask this question in the rush to get the next thing on the Labour Party agenda
The value of being an MP is something I've always been very dubious about: I'm not sure I can see any use in them. For me,
Cof fighting for more women Labour MPs is the opportunity it gives to, issues and women's interests; Party on the spot, and, through the fight, to make gains. It goes back to part of the against the sexism of the Party, so that it is in a position to unite the whole working
This is probably a jaundiced view of the
value of MPs; for if there's an increased opportunity of making women's voices heard during reselection, what bigger and more lasting — opportunity there'd be with more women in Parliament and in the PLP. But the question should be discussed. Have, for example, women Councillors been in a position to promote the interests of working class women? What lessons can we learn from them? Does the Hosti can about wore at me?
Labour women WOMeL Labour MPs work together and share the job? If we can do that, how can WE generalise that experience, and make an impact on the Party as a whole?
Certainly, having won reselection, we should use it. But let's try to be longsighted in our planning. Pregnant by A QUEUE of people are waiting patiently to go to Heaven. Suddenly a man in a grey suit, carrying a black case and a bleep" pushes to the front of the queue and goes straight through the Pearly Gates without permission from anyone. Some of the people who have been
vaiting for ages are incensed by the 'udeness of the man and ask St. Peter who the he is. St. Peter says: "Oh, that was God. He's all right normallyes a every now and again he thinks FOR once in gratulate the Department of Health and Social Security. They are challenging the Appeals Court ruling on their decision to prevent doctors giving contraception (or even advice on contraception) to women under 16, without permission from their
If the Appeal Court ruling is upheld by the House of Lords the effect will be noticed very soon. Whether you think women should or should not be having sex before 16, some not only are, but will continue to do so - contraception from the doctor or
While many of us have argued that men should take more responsibility for conresponse to this argument. After 15 years of the "permissive" society and "effective" contraception (taken or used by women) it's been a long time since young men have seriously thought about contraception as their problem. In fact, the Pill has been around for the whole of their lives for their right and they are not entitled to something that they expect - rightiy or
- does not mean they will stop
the under as and with e ganes n the under 16s and with against abortion it will mean an increase in Gillick wants to prevent her daughters beng given contraception without her per nission (1 assume her sons can still buy condoms over the counter at the chemists) Socialist Viewpoint, No. 3, February 1985. Page 17
YOU MEAN THERE'S MOTHiNG iN THİS TEMINISM FOR ME? BAH! THAT'S NOT DEMOCRATiC. CATHJACKSON Gillick wins Appeal Court ruling: C