The announcement of Corbyn’s first appointments for shadow cabinet caused an early rift between some feminists and Corbyn supporters – tricky, given that there is a large overlap between the two groups.
In one camp, some feminists argued that fact that the top positions in the shadow cabinet were going to men was indicative of “brocialism” – with Corbyn’s revival of old Labour values such as redistribution being parcelled up with other old-school values such as, well, sexism. In the other camp – and quick to point out that, in the end, more than half the shadow cabinet posts went to women – came the defence of Corbyn and the male members of his shadow cabinet as anti-austerity; as such, they are inherently more pro-women, since austerity has disproportionately harmed women (as it has all structurally disadvantaged groups).
But it’s telling that female candidates for the tortuously protracted Labour leadership contest both came from the centre-to-right of the party. Surely left-leaning women who agree with Corbyn’s politics shouldn’t have supported Cooper or Kendall just because of their gender?
Good politics of representation is kind of “necessary but not sufficient”. We all know why those who govern us should broadly mirror the makeup of society: they work as role-models, and a range of life experiences amongst those who make decisions affecting us all are likely to lead to policies that recognise our different realities. Standpoint theory has demonstrated the impact that good politics of representation has in public institutions. But sharing the same gender or race as a politician obviously doesn’t mean they will “speak for you”. Thatcher is the obvious example of a female politician whose policies harmed other women, and who sought to differentiate herself – in that classic sexist trope – as “not like other women”.
A focus on politics of representation at the top can distract from the daily realities of everyone else; it isn’t as though systematic racism has disappeared in the US because Obama became president. Still, the argument that Corbyn’s policies are pro-women (so women should rally behind him) does bring to mind the Onion parody Man Finally Put in Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement.
Do women have to shift rightwards to win?
There was a missing link in the brocialism debate: that women have often had to go rightwards to win in electoral politics. If you already have one mark of “weakness” against you – a criticism routinely levelled at female politicians– a logical way to demonstrate you’re “just as tough as a man” is to go rightwards: tough on security, tough on immigration.
Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness as secretary of state can be partly traced to the gendered criticisms she faced to prove she was “up to the job” of defending the country. Golda Meir used her time as Israeli foreign minister, before her premiership, to construct a persona conveying traditionally masculine values entwined with militarism. Women working in foreign policy generally have to fight harder to prove their seriousness and “strength”, where men with the same qualifications are taken as experts.
The right will never be the home of women’s interests, which include – as core concerns – bodily autonomy and economic equality, where the right has perpetually failed. But the left’s treatment of women has often been neglectful if not obstructive: just look at the sexist savaging of Ségolène Royal by the male “elephants” of her own party in 2007.
This isn’t to apologise for Kendall, Cooper, Hillary’s hawkishness or Thatcher pulling the ladder up behind her. And the anti-austerity politician is the pro-women politician. But one solution to this impasse is to take female politicians seriously from the start, instead of forcing them to contort themselves to gendered ideas of seriousness and strength. It would make for more interesting political figures, too.