My Two Cents: If you’re gonna be a d**k, at least be original
Women, as we know, are weak, ineffective leaders, obsessed with kids, too emotional to make good choices :(
Um. Two whole days to go before the most depressing general election of my lifetime and not only have the Tories resorted to lifting techniques from Trump’s playbook, they’ve even stolen his insults! Anyone remember ‘Sleepy Joe’ , the (admittedly, kinda funny) nickname that really stuck to Biden during the 2020 US presidential elections? It was effective, partially because it touched on a possible nugget of truth and partially because it was ridiculous, simple and catchy – perfect meme material. There were layers to this name, but ultimately, the implication was that Biden was weak and pathetic, and Trump was capable and strong – the most masculine choice, physically and intellectually. American politics, just like British politics, is marinated in gender stereotypes, sexism and a whole lot more.
On Monday, July 1st, Starmer was doing some godforsaken interview somewhere and said he wouldn’t work past 6 p.m. on a Friday to spend time with his children. Whilst Starmer/Labour have disgusted me to the core recently (I won’t be voting for them. Though, obviously, I would rather them in power than the Tories/the right, who I will also never ever vote for etc etc), I actually thought this answer was pretty awesome? Healthy workplace boundaries? Committing to parenting as equally as you possibly can in the position you’re in? Respecting your wife’s religious practices and building them into your work/life balance? All good, all necessary. I won’t heap on any more praise, but I liked his answer. It was determinedly not shit. But Sunak and his team took it as an opportunity to strike a low blow, framing Starmer as an uncommitted candidate, and a ‘part-time prime minister’. They also started calling him ‘Sir Sleepy’, an obvious pandering to their extreme right-wing base who might love Trump, and who draw parallels between the US election and this one. It was lazy and uncreative and didn’t land anywhere near as beautifully as ‘Sleepy Joe’. As Starmer said, it just made them look desperate.
The obvious mimicry isn’t what caught my interest though – it was the explicit connection between working part-time and being uncommitted to your work. Not only is that a false equivalence, it’s rooted in sexism, and it’s offensive! The government’s own (2020) figures show that 38% of women work part-time, compared to 14% of men. The reasons for this will vary of course, but the biggest, most pervasive reason will always be caring responsibilities. Women make up something like 90% of single-parent households, women overwhelmingly take on the majority of care work, including childcare. To equivalate part-time employment with commitment/suitability to the job is to say that part-time workers (again, majortively women) are less valid than full-time workers. And that therefore, you should pick the candidate who boasts, “I haven’t finished at 6 p.m. ever,” because this somehow implies that they’re the better person for the job. Because fuck working mothers, am I right? Or, say, Disabled people? Sick people? Long-covid sufferers?
Again, the implication is that Starmer prioritises his family over his children – a stereotype almost uniquely levelled at women. And women, as we know, are weak, ineffective leaders, obsessed with their kids and far too emotional to make good choices. Starmer is behaving like a woman, therefore, he is not a real man and he is also a bad leader.
I’m not even here to defend Starmer – he is not a victim, and given his recent transphobic rhetoric I wouldn’t call him a proponent of women’s rights either – I’m here to point out how low of a blow it is to imply a political candidate could not possibly be a good leader based on their commitment to their children, a charge rooted in gender stereotypes and almost exclusively weaponised against women. The fact that Starmer is a man doesn’t make what the Tories are doing less sexist – in fact, Starmer’s gender is precisely why an accusation like this probably won’t stick, even amongst the ultra-right.
And even Angela Rayner got dragged through the mud by association. Conservative Campaigns HQ sent out a fake out-of-office email, telling people to contact Angela Rayner after 6 p.m. Maybe my tinfoil hat is a little too firmly jammed onto my head – but would the Tories have done this if the shadow Deputy Leader were a man? Would it have hit the same (misogynistic) undertones? The implication that Starmer is so pathetic that he clocks off and secretly hands the reigns to the real person in charge, who also happens to be a woman? How embarrassing for Starmer, the email suggests, to be the puppet of Angela Rayner.
Regardless of how I feel about the current state of the Labour party, I don’t think it’s ever acceptable to attack on the basis of gender, parenthood, religion etc. The Tories have a history of weaponising identity though - even against their own. Remember when Andrea Leadsom outrightly told a journalist she’d be better Prime Minister than Theresa May, because she had children and therefore cared more about the future of the country? Wild.
One more thing before I sign off, tin foil hat quivering in indignation (it’s what makes me fun at parties). Sunak’s response might also be considered offensive to Jewish people, given the religious tradition of keeping Friday nights free for Shabbat. Possibly not a judgement for me to make, though important to note.
Better get going – it’s almost six. I wouldn’t want you thinking I was committed to the posts I put out, or anything.
A quick favour. I love writing these posts, and I intend to do them for free for as long as I can. If you enjoyed reading this, forward it to a friend (or three) who you think might like it too. It helps massively, because validation from strangers is truly the only thing that makes the horrors bearable for me.