The co-founders of the Women’s Equality Party – Sandi Toksvig and Catherine Mayer – have published a long, rambling article in the Observer explaining why they’re backing a motion at their forthcoming conference next month proposing to shut down the party. Having read it, I’m none the wiser.
They begin by blaming money problems, which sounds very plausible:
Money has always been a problem, with most of the party’s income coming from members who were already cash-strapped before the one-two punch of the pandemic and cost of living crisis. Unlike other parties, we have never received large donations from corporates or super-rich individuals. In fact, in the early days of the party we turned down a gamechanging sum after the potential donor explained the strings attached: we would have to change the name of the party. Yep, ditch “Women”. Thanks, but no thanks.
But they immediately go on to say that a lack of funds isn’t the reason they want to pull down the shutters:
If funding were the only issue, we would almost certainly advocate for keeping going. But business as usual is not an option. The world has changed and so we are calling for an end as a new beginning.
So, er, what’s the reason?
It’s because they’ve been too successful, apparently.
Our founding idea was simple: if we could show there were votes in feminism, the old parties would attempt to neutralise us by mimicking us, just as we had seen them do with Ukip and its successors.
The ploy worked. WE racked up a whacking number of votes in our very first election, triggering the anticipated response. From then on, WE delivered each of our successive manifestos to other parties with a label reading “please steal us”, and they did. They put up women against us, too, and echoed our positions on vital subjects they had previously ignored.
So, is that the reason the party is hitting the self-destruct button? It’s a victim of its own success? Not so fast. Even though it’s been astonishingly successful – really, really successful – there’s still a great deal to do in the cause of “intersectional feminism” and it’s getting harder and harder to do because of the… “hard Right”:
It even used to be possible to work with those Conservatives who regarded gender inequality and climate change as urgent issues rather than fodder for culture wars. As recently as Theresa May’s premiership, one of her chief advisers called us to Downing Street to discuss which WE policies the government might incorporate in its legislative programme. Now we operate in a political landscape where the Tories’ attempts to contain the electoral threat from the Hard right has instead seen them fully captured by it.
Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s Labour has also veered to the Right, fixated on discipline, both fiscal and within its own ranks. The leadership barely listens to its MPs and wider membership, so it is hardly likely to pay heed to us. Nor would they be tempted by our policies. WE view care as an investment; they see it as an expense that can be cut.
All of this means that merely tweaking our approach cannot be enough, and this isn’t just about WE. The last Westminster election might have looked like a return to safer ground, just as the 2020 US presidential contest did, but such results are misleading. In many countries, populism and tech-driven polarisation are winning, to the benefit of the far right and other extremists, dictators and repressive regimes around the globe.
We must do more, not less, to confront the storm.
How, exactly, shutting down the party is doing more, is left to the reader’s imagination.
In short, their explanation for wanting to wind up the party is completely incoherent.
So, do we know the real reason?
One clue is contained in a piece in the Mail, which points out that the party was roiled by an internal row when Dr. Heather Brunskell-Evans, then the party’s spokesman for violence against women and girls, was dismissed after saying on BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze that some parents and medical staff were too quick to diagnose gender-confused children as being trapped in the wrong body. As Dr. Brunskell-Evans pointed out:
I am a woman, I’ve worked for women all my life and one trans woman made a complaint about something which I think was a reasonable statement to make.
When I first joined the Women’s Equality Party, I thought it was going to be revolutionary and that we would all be free of gender because it is a restrictive, socially constructed concept.
But now the party is acting as if biology is a social invention and gender is inherent in a person from birth.
I didn’t sign up to that. I feel betrayed.
So, another feminist organisation torn apart by the schism between those who believe women’s sex-based rights should trump trans rights, e.g. women shouldn’t be forced to compete against biological men in women’s sports, and those who think the opposite? Perhaps. This schism is referred to in the Observer article, although there’s no reference to the party’s shabby treatment of Dr. Brunskell-Evans.
WE held a members’ assembly to try to shed light and diminish heat in the fight between trans inclusive and gender critical feminism that is weakening the women’s movement to the delight of regressive populists.
Not surprisingly, the gender critical feminist Julie Bindel is unimpressed by the Observer article, describing the founders as “posh wazzocks”.
The Spectator can also throw some light on Sandi and Catherine’s decision to close the shop:
It comes after a decade of stunning electoral success that saw them win a single seat in Hampshire in this year’s local elections. At this general, they then fielded four candidates across the country who won a combined total of 1,275 votes. How will Westminster cope with their absence?
So, is that the real reason? Because the Women’s Equality Party couldn’t persuade anyone to vote for it? It seems this was the original aim, given this rather sad ‘counter’ on the party’s Wikipedia page:

I’m looking forward to a seditious, gossipy account by a disgruntled insider, along the same lines as Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie’s and The Rise and Fall of News on Sunday about an unsuccessful attempt by a group of Lefties to set up a tabloid newspaper.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Didn’t Trump say something like “everything woke touches turns poop…?”
It sounds like the Sisters of Intersectionality didn’t get on very well with each other. I guess that’s a risk if you base your entire life philosophy on one big overarching grievance.
Another reason i think the entire meaningless ‘feminist’ label should be put to bed is the hypocrisy. I mention the nonsensical support of predatory and mentally ill men posing as women being allowed to gain access to toilets and changing rooms etc below, but there’s the massive elephant in the room that is Islam, and the total and utter assault that particular ideology is for female rights. But, again, the vast majority of feminists are on board with it. Any meaningful misogyny in society is coming from these two camps: trans nutters/perverts and Muslims. Any stupid women who are supportive of these two ideologies are actually enabling the abuse of females, not fighting against it. So it’s all completely back to front, hence why I say the feminist movement is obsolete now and 100% should be euthanized. They’ve become a laughing stock and fill me with contempt. They’ve become co-abusers, to be honest, such is the complicity.
KJ and her “Let Women Speak” posse are at Speaker’s Corner now, speaking out against the Taliban and the dehumanising of women and girls over there, so God only knows what kind of reception she’s getting from you know who. But this is the inconvenient truth that the feminists dare not go anywhere near, because what sort of women would defend, or at best completely ignore, such a huge and obvious example of human rights abuses?
I totally agree.
The feminist movement improved women’s lives about as much as Stalin liberated the proletariat.
Mostly they just seem like a bunch of frustrated, screaming man-haters.
Interestingly, as you say, they don’t seem to have any objection to Islam’s treatment of women, or sex-selective abortion in China and India.
The vast majority of women who call themselves feminists are idiot woketard lefties. They actually advocate for men in dresses to gain entry to female-only spaces and to invade female sports. So basically they are the polar opposite of what anybody advocating for female sex-based rights should be. They are the biggest backstabbers and traitors to girls and women, in my opinion.
I always used to think Kellie-Jay Keen was a feminist ( one of the few nice ones ) but she’s actually not, and I totally agree with her in why she wants to distance herself from this divisive and destructive label;
”I’m not a feminist. I am grateful to feminists of the past for the many freedoms I enjoy. But feminism has been taken over by pimps, punters, pro men pretending to be women, pro womb rental, anti child morons. Stop trying to tell me that I should be a feminist….”
https://x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1677574265711869953
Speaking of backstabbers and traitors, Clare Balding. You shameful disgrace of a woman. Bet she’s a feminist.
“The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed”. Indeed;
https://x.com/AjaTheEmpress/status/1850470923997990940
I think we all have our own idea/definition of feminism and I too am grateful to feminists of the past for the many freedoms I enjoy. The Womens Equality party started out talking about equality for all. I agree with that. I also agree that Islam treats girls and women as 2nd class citizens at best and lesser beings at worse. Men in dresses are men in dresses and I agree with Germaine Greer. There is no grown up debate about these issues only name calling and the threat of cancellation.
The other article about Labour and female leaders is interesting. In the guise of being caring and not wanting to “hurt” others we end up with the worse of all possible worlds i.e. the “plandemic” where I suspect women were more keen on restrictive measures and pharmaceutical products “just in case”, “better to be safe” and to go along with the status quo.
We all need to practice changing our minds when the facts change. We need to be able to admit we were wrong and to ask to be forgiven. Women have to bring up the next generation, sometimes on their own. They need a lot more positive support from society as a whole.
Yes and regarding your first sentence, therein lies the problem. Feminism should surely have an actual definition, so that women can clearly see what it is and what it stands for, then decide if it’s something that resonates with them. Instead, what I see is some sort of undefined, fluid concept which is open to interpretation so that there are contradictions all around. Once again, this speaks to the meaninglessness of it all because it’s like it cancels itself out, plus, I don’t believe there’s any need for feminism at all in this day and age. The entire thing is redundant. It’s now become completely regressive and actually disempowers females, certainly regarding the whole trans ideology thing, and Islam is just a lost cause when it comes to anything resembling gender equality.
It all gets a bit confusing and complicated when you start talking about the different ‘waves’, how feminism has evolved over time, and whatnot, and I’ll admit I don’t have sufficient interest in the topic to have read much literature or followed any particular writers at all. I suspect it’s now similar to the whole LGBT+/Pride bandwagon that’s been hijacked by the woketards and the trans activists, so much so that gays and lesbians want to distance themselves from the entire warped shebang. I think the current form of feminism is similarly alienating a lot of women. I’d argue feminism and the LGBT+ are harmful to kids too, and there’s a lot of overlap there because how many women consider themselves feminists and they’re fully onboard with ‘transing’ their young child and affirming their chosen gender because they’re supposedly born in the wrong body? This is both deranged and tragic.
I don’t want my daughter playing a team sport with boys and then those boys go and change with the girls afterwards, or her seeing men compete in the women’s events on telly, inevitably beating them and stealing the medals, and this is being normalized and is somehow supposed to be inspirational to young girls who aspire to enter sport professionally. It’s off-putting, not inspirational! But feminists support this? Like they support ‘aborting’ a baby at full term? These things are wrong on every level.
While I’m on my soap box I must add that I think saying you’re a feminist is immediately exclusionary to men, because men cannot be feminists. However, any man worth his salt should also oppose the trans lunacy and fight to keep men out of women’s sport and protect female’s personal spaces. Don’t men have daughters, partners or female relatives whose welfare and rights they give a toss about? Sadly, as long as you have women screwing other women over ( I’m looking at you, Clare Balding ) I can’t see this ever going away, especially on the international circuit. Therefore, it seems plain to me that one doesn’t need to identify as a feminist in order to fight for female’s sex-based rights. Stick the dratted ”F word” in a museum like the relic from the past that it is. It’s more bother than it’s worth.
“Don’t men have daughters, partners or female relatives whose welfare and rights they give a toss about?” Exactly and they should be more alert to what is going on and have the courage to say something about it. It is all very well blaming “the feminists” of the last 50 years for stuff but we are all involved and should all care for and look out for each other. “Actual definitions” of say feminism or communism or christianity do not survive the test of time but change and go in and out of fashion: my definition of 40 years ago is not the understood definition of today. Labels are convenient but too simplistic: we need to listen to each other and try to understand the other point of view (don’t have to agree with it but listen nonetheless).
I do enjoy reading your posts – thank you for all your writings.
Toksvig is one of those BBC comediennes whose act is pure bile.
Do you remember her from that ’80s kids’ breakfast show called ‘Number 73’? I think that’s the one. It was in the days of ‘Saturday Superstore’, ‘Why Don’t You?’, and that thing with the alien. We’d sit and watch our Saturday morning telly eating Frosties on our lap. I think she popped up in episodes of Ab Fab too, didn’t she?
Jo Brand comes to mind here.
I remember Joe Brands TV debut on the Saturday Night thing that Ben Elton fronted. She was ushered on stage with the name of ‘The Sea Monster’, did a few self deprecating fat jokes (‘Greenpeace has firebombed my knicker draw’ etc etc) and was quite amusing. Little did we know that was the high point of her career.
Try to bindel this one, Julie: For as long as there are men with money who want sex, some women will be willing to take this money in exchange for sex. And men with money who want sex will continue to exist for as long as men and money exist. Ie, your only option of ever changing that is to sexocide about half of mankind, or, considering the consequences of that, eliminate all of mankind in a genocide of gargantuan proportions.
That’s the logical consequence your stance on “sex work” and this defines what kind of person you really are.
No great loss to the world.
Trans ideology is neo-Marxist circular logical divisive nonsense… kinda like critical race theory.
There are only two sexes, male and female. How these theories go uncontested in academia is astonishing, and fundamentally dangerous to a well-functioning society.