YVETTE COOPER IS RIGHT TO BE ANGRY
By Councillor Salma Yaqoob
Yvette Cooper is quite rightly angry. She has been accused of undermining the fight for women’s equality by not standing for the Labour leadership and supporting her husband Ed Balls instead. Her reasons are not political, they are personal. She wants more time to spend with her young children. Nor is she withdrawing from politics. She will continue in the demanding role of shadow work and pensions secretary. Despite this Johann Hari suggests her actions are a throw back to ‘a 1950s world of brilliant women stepping aside for their less impressive husbands’.
I find this kind of judgemental attitude very patronising.
As a woman who has to juggle politics with being a mother, I know only too well how exacting political commitment can be on family life. I also know how undervalued a mother’s role is, despite all the political rhetoric about the family being the corner stone of society. You can be sure that if Ed Balls had withdrawn from the Labour leadership contest to spend more time raising his children he would have been praised for his actions. Yet when a women acts in such a manner she suffers the double whammy of being portrayed as weak and undermining the cause of women’s advancement!
Feminism for me is not about making the same choices as men. It’s about having any barriers removed that would prevent us from exercising those choices, if we want too. One indicator of real advancement in gender equality is not the extent to which women have proven themselves to be able to adapt to, and ’succeed’ in, ‘male dominated’ professions, but the extent to which these institutions have adapted to reflect the needs of women. And should we decide we want to spend some or all of our time raising children, that should be recognised as valuable a contribution to society as if we were to follow professional careers. Women should not be limited by ‘traditionalists’ who would deny us our contribution to society or ‘progressives’ who would devalue our contribution to family.
Hopefully one day a woman who refuses to bow to the expectations of others, and is unafraid to put caring for her children ahead of a leadership challenge, may even persuade people that such choices illustrate exactly the strength of character and the kind of humane qualities that would help make a good leader.
Good post, Salma.
I do personally think Yvette Cooper is a more impressive political figure than her husband, but the personal choice is hers, and it should be respected as much whichever way she chose. She is an individual woman, not a cipher.
(Off topic, just like to say I’m very sorry to see you came so close but not quite in the General Election. Although I started out very wary of Respect, your own campaigning was inspiring and made me end up really wanting you to win. I hope we’ll see a lot more of you fighting for the left in whichever form and forum, hopefully Parliament itself one day.)
Comment by Matriksi — 31 May, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Good statement as usual from Salma, the Labour Party bars most leadership candidates with its rule requiring 33 MPs to publically nominate, this closes down choices and renders the Party undemocratic.
Comment by Derek Wall — 31 May, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
1you clealry have no awarenesws of the plight of disabled people, single parents and claimants then as they generally despise and /or fear her: she has been zealous in promoting NL’s welfare reforms, and looks like she is hoping to carry on supporting the Tories reforms, which are basically the same anyway.
Comment by History tells us things — 31 May, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
reposted for errors
@1
‘I do personally think Yvette Cooper is a more impressive political figure than her husband, but the personal choice is hers, and it should be respected as much whichever way she chose. She is an individual woman, not a cipher.’
You clearly have no awareness of the plight of disabled people, single parents and claimants then as they generally despise and /or fear her: she has been zealous in promoting NL’s welfare reforms, and looks like she is hoping to carry on supporting the Tories reforms, which are basically the same anyway.
Comment by History tells us things — 31 May, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
Is there really anything to choose between these two shitbags?
Comment by KrisS — 31 May, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Yes, I’m afraid Yvette is no friend of the poor and disabled. Expect she’s all nannied up and all. Nevertheless Salma is right and it is only when we are all working a max 21 hour week will there be true domestic and workplace equality between the sexes as well as full employment. Three urgent necessities.
Comment by David Ellis — 31 May, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
History tells us things
thanks for pointing that out. It needed saying.
Comment by only-two-teams in essex — 31 May, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Completely disagree with Johann Hari. By inference, she’s describing Yvette Cooper as a “brilliant woman” - that’s stretching semantics a bit too far. Anyone who’s judgement is so poor that she chooses to marry Ed Balls can hardly be described as brilliant. Happy to concede she’s a woman.
Comment by Rob Atkins — 31 May, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Does the fact that a monkey on a stick would have more chance of winning the poll as party leader not have any influence on her decision?
Comment by Harvey Dogg — 1 June, 2010 @ 10:38 pm