Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Women Problem’ – The Cases For And Against His Shadow Cabinet

We got two writers to debate the pros and cons of Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet appointments...

Jeremy Corbyn's 'Women Problem' - The Cases For And Against His Shadow Cabinet

by Debrief Staff |
Published on

Against – Sophie Wilkinson, News Editor, 27, The Debrief

As the disappointing results of the election showed, Labour lost some key support. Many of the working class were lost to UKIP, young people went Green and Scotland buggered off back to Scotland. But up until the Labour leadership contest, women were always a safe bet. It was the Tories who had a ‘women problem’, David Cameron heralding in the cuts that would see women set to suffer more than men, and a Cabinet made up of mostly old white blokes.

That was all set to change, though, with the arrival of Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing revolution. But his new set-up doesn’t look that different. While the new Labour leader has appointed 16 women to the cabinet, making them a majority (for the first time ever) over the 15 men appointed, the roles they’ve been handed are questionable. The top roles – beyond the elected leader and his deputy, Tom Watson – of Chancellor, Foreign and Home secretaries, have all gone to men (John McDonnell, Hilary Benn and Andy Burnham). Meanwhile, women have been placed into junior roles, or new ones, like Young People and Voter Registration and Minister for Mental Health. While these are welcome roles, they’re still junior.

Corbyn’s appeal was to muck about with the rules. And as his offices today explained in a statement, ‘The so-called “great offices of state” as defined in the 19th century reflect an era before women or workers even had the vote.’

But so long as the political agenda is set by the Tories, these great offices of state – even those in the Shadow Cabinet – will remain more influential than the rest of their cabinets. Now, Chancellor George Osborne won’t have to explain sexist benefit cuts to a woman on an equal standing, and Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond, won’t have to face-off with a woman asking why female asylum seekers are turned away from domestic violence refuges for not having the right documents.

It’s also worth noting that Corbyn, clearly not shy of lengthy or specific secretary names, has got rid of the Shadow Minister for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls role previously held by Seema Malhotra. Maybe this mandate will be absorbed into the other jobs, but there’s nothing like an actual job title to make you think that something will be looked after. A milkman’s always going to bring you milk, right? Meanwhile, due to political differences, experienced, talented female politicians like Yvette Cooper, Emma Reynolds and Caroline Flint are now to retreat to the backbenches.

Some people might argue that Corbyn, Tom Watson (his deputy) and the other three men in the top Shadow Cabinet roles aren’t there because they’re white men, but because they’re just very talented. To them, I might say, how convenient, then, that in your opinion, the best people for the best jobs all happen to be white middle aged men. Again.

To have a situation where *The Sun* – along with prominent feminists and the Women’s Equality Party – can accuse you, on the same grounds, of sexism is pretty damning

The shame is, I don’t think any of these people in the Shadow Cabinet are half as bad or as poorly chosen as David Cameron’s Cabinet. What I do worry, though, is how Corbyn’s inability to play even by his own rules helps further the unfair stereotypes being bandied about by a media keen to quash any threat to the status quo. He’s done himself no favours when he really could do with some. Yes, 59% of the Labour voters is a great deal of people to have on side, but 50% of British voters went to the right of the Labour party at the general election.

To have a situation where The Sun – along with prominent feminists and the Women’s Equality Party – can accuse you, on the same grounds, of sexism is pretty damning. It also puts Corbyn further in cahoots, at least in delivery, with those famed brocialists, George Galloway and Ken Livingstone. The message reads, ‘There, there, dear. You think you know what’s good for you, but trust us, we know better.’

My hope is that, in the same way Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard never actually saw an election, Corbyn won’t face an election. Instead, he’ll be there to hold the current leadership to account – something Ed Miliband’s silences repeatedly failed to do– and to gently pad the way for a shiny new leader to emerge.

For – Jade Jackman, 21, writer

If you had a glimmer of a childhood, you’ll have heard of Albus Dumbledore – a slightly wizened hero, but one with a mysterious twinkle. That is sort of how we should think of Jeremy Corbyn. Like Dumbledore, Corbyn might be able to be a figurehead for the movement but shouldn’t be considered as the sole force for change - you know, he’ll need a sort of Corbyn magical army to fend off the dementors (read: the Tories). In short, Corbyn cannot make magic happen in British electoral politics alone hence why we should be offering him our support.

On Saturday, Corbyn won with a 59% percent majority in the Labour leadership race. This was an astounding result given that many had previously declared him totally unelectable. For others, Corbyn’s victory signified a return to Labour’s ‘true values’ and the arrival of a political who is brave enough to challenge the establishment. In a way, this is the caveat, whilst he can critique established views- such as those on gender equality and British foreign policy – he cannot bring about monumental changes to politics in the snap of his fingers. After all, he is just a man – not a magician.

As an intersectional feminist, I’d love nothing more than to have a woman of colour leading my movement for change. The day in which there is a woman of colour being given a mainstream platform to pull down the patriarchy is the day that I’ll actually celebrate the dawn of the revolution. But, for now, Corbyn’s decisions do not make him a hypocrite. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, gender inequality in politics is an institutional issue. Society is saturated by male leaders and politics does not exist in a vacuum, so it is unsurprising that is no different. However, that does not mean that the result is not disappointing, but it is not a fault of Corbyn’s alone. From following coverage of his election race, I have seen him nurturing young female leaders in his campaign and it gives me hope that he’ll make room for them to shine in the future.

There is little point appointing women who do not support women from all echelons of society. To do so would be tokenistic

Secondly, there is the issue of tokenism. Feminism, women and gender equality have become buzzwords. Truthfully, a lot of these articles, debates and discussions are just dissolving into noise. There is no point talking about feminism or women’s rights if the discussion does not transform into some useful change. What is the point of all this chat if I still have to walk home at night in fear, or if Amnesty’s decision to support sex workers is still deemed as controversial? There is no point. Women who could have taken higher cabinet roles, such as Yvette Cooper, supported austerity politics. Not only does this go against Labour principles in general, it doesn’t take a genius to work out how such cuts will directly affect women the most. Therefore, there is little point appointing women who do not support women from all echelons of society. To do so would be tokenistic.

In fact, Corbyn’s choice of John McDonell is a very feminist decision. McDonnell has amplified and supported the voices of those in the sex industry in Parliament which is an incredibly brave thing to do. Not only does this demonstrate real concern for some of the most marginalised women in society, it would contribute to the destigmatisation of female sexuality in general and this destigmatisation will help all women. Furthermore, McDonell was praised for listening to the voices of these women and Corbyn should be lauded for selecting ministers who are listening to the voices of women and responding appropriately to their demands.

Like this? You might also be interested in:

Your Need-To-Know About Jeremy Corbyn

What The 'Jeremy Corbyn Effect' Can Teach Us About Young Women And Politics

The Problems With Jeremy Corbyn's Women-Only Tube Carriage Consultation

Follow Sophie on Twitter @sophwilkinson

Follow Jade on Twitter @JadeShamraeff

This article originally appeared on The Debrief.

Just so you know, we may receive a commission or other compensation from the links on this website - read why you should trust us