Senior Consultant, Nina Dohmel-Macdonald, writes about her first ever party political conference and the rise of the female voice.

Senior Consultant, Nina Dohmel-Macdonald, writes about her first ever party political conference and the rise of the female voice.

I’ve thought about female anger a lot in recent weeks, particularly in the wake of that US Open final.  Without it, there would be no #MeToo. Without it, there would be no Amika George, fighting to stop any girl in the UK from missing school simply because she can’t afford sanitary products. Without it, I wouldn’t be asking friends and colleagues to stop saying ‘I’m not sure whether that’s been helpful’ every time I hear them finish a sentence with those words. I can’t imagine the countless articles, thought pieces and books on the subject will die down any time soon - especially given this weekend’s news that Mr Kavanaugh has become the new Supreme Court Justice.  

It’s worth looking back to 1991 when Anita Hill, a reserved law professor, testified to the Senate about her former boss, Clarence Thomas.  Despite his confirmation, her testimony electrified women in the US. She sparked an unprecedented political movement that lead to an increase in the number of women serving in Congress. The year that followed was christened ‘Year of Women’. Sound familiar? And maybe history will repeat itself in more ways than one.

There are 60% more potential candidates than there were in 2016 for America’s upcoming midterms. Eleven female nominees are running for governor and at least 185 for the House of Representatives. Record breaking numbers. There are also five woman vs. woman races. Another record. Women have won more primaries than ever before. Yes, there’s an argument that a large part of this is just lip service, as nearly half of those standing may lose in 'likely' or 'safe' Republican seats.  However, even with this being the case, I believe a record breaking number of female candidates still represents a reaction…a reaction to the thousands of stories that have come out in the wake of the Weinstein scandal, and Trump’s anti-feminist stance.

WEP conference banner.png

Anger was certainly something I witnessed when I attended my first Party Conference – the Women’s Equality Party Conference - at the beginning of September.

Over the course of two days, so many issues were deliberated, discussed and debated.  Motions were passed and pulled apart.  Some of these stopped me in my tracks. Did you know that Westminster is proposing to write off £2.5bn of historic child support payments – most of which is owed to single mothers – simply because the cost of maintaining the records is too high? Or that this year the failure of evidence collection in just four rape cases has resulted in the review of all live cases, whilst the failure to convict thousands of rapists has had no effect on the system, at all? No? Me neither. 

I saw the obscure functionality of a political party, and just how long debates about seemingly straightforward motions can go on for. I left feeling inspired too. Yet my main take away was much bigger. Yes, without anger, there will be no change - we know that from both the present and the past. But what I’d hadn’t considered until then is that anger needs to be collective, not personal. Yes, we can do small things on our own. But anger is better when it’s a collective act, when everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet and when it’s channelled in the right way. Only then can it be as galvanising and productive as we so desperately need it to be.

Comment