J S Mill and the demise of the Women's Equality Party

The disappointing news this week is that the WEP, the Women's Equality Party, has dissolved, preferring to continue as activists.

What would J S Mill and Harriet think about this? 

In a word: Disheartening. 

J S Mill and Harriet would see it as a huge step backwards in terms of social progress. He thought parliamentary reforms were more effective, solid and longer lasting than activism. It was, he thought, a democratic process rather than relying on sporadic activism which could result in harm to oneself and others. Hence, he was more in line with the suffragists in wanting to bring about parliamentary reform, rather than the suffragettes who were more in the activist mode. Besides, his early experience of activism didn't go well so this could have encouraged him to use the wheels of democracy in the shape of parliament. Indeed, J S Mill became the man to lead the first parliamentary debate on women's suffrage in 1867. 

Nonetheless, famous for her militant activism, the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst was instrumental in bringing forward the issue of women's suffrage and the right to vote. Her pressure for reform possibly sped up women's suffrage. This shows that activism has to lead to parliamentary debate and the introduction or amendments of bills and acts.

But J S Mill was also right in that women's right to vote was brought about by two acts of parliament in 1918 and 1928, albeit well after J S Mills' death in 1873. These acts gave women the right to vote. A right they could exercise and would count. 

But it was the Pankhursts that set up a women's political party not J S Mill. This party, and later the Women's Equality Party, were the only political parties to be based on the concept of gender instead of class. It was created in 1917 when Emmeline and Christabel repackaged their Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), turning it into a political party called Women's Party. 

So there's always been a demand for a women's political party. 

Therefore, it's a dark day for women today because many were pleased they could vote for women and a woman's party. They felt they counted. They were on the ballot sheet. Now it's hit and miss whether there's necessarily a progressive woman candidate on the ballot sheet and it's back to the same tediousness of right/far right fighting the less right with the Liberals holding the middle ground. 

So I'm not sure what women are talking about when they refer to womens' spaces. Surely having their own space in politics is more important than worrying over trans women using the same group of cubicles. Especially since I've seen loads of men wander off piste into women's toilets. Interestingly, so called Gender Critics /TERFS never mention this phenomenon, yet it is a common sight and these men  are the ones that'll be the problem there, not the trans women. You cannot target the trans women in toilets (on the excuse that they are men really) yet conveniently overlook all the cis men (dressed as gender conforming men and clearly not gay) who unashamedly walk straight into women's toilets, without contradicting yourself in a transphobic way. 

It's also somewhat of a contradiction to profess such apparent fear and disgust at men and such an attachment to women-only spaces, while drastically failing to support a Women's Party in two consecutive centuries, so that both collapse quite quickly after they are founded. 

Why do women prefer to sit around and pick over the policies these women political parties did or did not adopt, so leading to their demise, instead of simply supporting the existence of a women focused political party in the first place, before it's too late and they're gone?