Why, when we are equal in number, worth and ability, are women discriminated against?

Why do we have to put up with idiocy like this in the feminist section of all places? It makes me sick.

Dittany,

Otherwise you would be talking to yourself, which is a bit pointless.And if you don't talk to people who disagree with you, how are you ever going to find out when you're wrong and develop your thought?

Is this the feminist section? Seriously, I thought it was just a thread asking a question likely to lead to a discussion on issues affecting women. Is there a feminist section on Mumsnet? I'm relatively new and might have missed it.

Why do you have conversations with him about how badly portrayed men supposedly are in adverts. Now that's idiotic.

Why is that idiotic? Are you saying that men are not being objectified and belittled in adverts? Or that it doesn't matter because it's worse for women? IMO the fact that women are objectified to an appalling degree in our culture does not mean that the same is not happening to men now to some degree. It is happening, they are noticing it and they don't like it. The advertisers are doing it because they are selling to women who they believe will enjoy seeing the man belittled. Presumably the individuals involved think that it's all light-hearted, so no harm done in much the same way as men put down women who complain about their sexist jokes. I would see this as an opportunity to convert more men to feminism that a reason to tell people not to talk to their spouses about it.

Heroine,

I don't think that women in the 1800s had such a bad deal - for many it was a time of wealth, travel, privilidge and status, for others their lot was worse

Surely you mean that not many had wealth, travel, privilege and status and for most others [including men] their lot was worse? Otherwise, have you ready any history?

The OP's question was, I think, answered a long time ago: because they are the ones who have the babies. Clearly that is not going to change, unless we opt for test tubes and synthetic wombs in future. (Since we're in the realms of science fiction, maybe some woman scientist will develop a male pregnancy option, but I can't imagine many men would take it up.)Setting that aside as science fiction for now, surely the question is how we enable women to achieve their full potential despite the drawback that childbearing represents in the workplace, but perhaps that's another thread?

"The irony is that it's other men, of course."

Yes. Of course. They are protecting their genetic investment. This is MY WOMAN!! Uggg uggg!

Find a man that is 'protective of his 'woman' and you find something rather ugly IMO. Find a man that empowers a woman to respect and protect herself and you find a feminist with a penis.

Society would have been built slowly you really have to go back to the origins of humanity to find the basic structure that exists to this day. Such a stucture would not have simply appeared overnight afterall humans did not spring from dust one day.

A lot of our behaviour would have followed us as we evolved to what we are today. The more complex ideals will have been built up on those foundations and based also on the logic of the time I.e women give birth with a high fatality rate involved with childbirth it is important that they are not risked men in genral are stronger and faster and less are required to maintain a population so it is logical the more dangerous jobs would be assigned to males. Eventually societies embellish these and differences are made depending on culture etc.

As to men making the rules that is true in a way originally it would have begun as what is best for our survival but not all men or even most are in power it is actually a small number that hold true power.

Himalaya wrote - The explanations tend to favour socially embedded differences - tradition, power structures, rather than biological instincts and characteristics. ... Biology isn't destiny, but it is a good starting point for understanding society.

I think the consensus on the thread about the root cause has been overwhelmingly biological - having children.

The environmental and social factors are brought in when thinking about what men were doing with all their free time, while the women were occupied with the biology of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Himalaya wrote - "something like a global conspiracy theory between men of all cultures around the world to subjugate women."

Rather than a global conspiracy theory, I'd say that it might have been more like this:

After one or two very dominant societies got their anti-woman views enshrined in laws and institutions, other societies came along and saw that domination and success correlate with misogyny. They confused correlation with causation. They drew the conclusion that being anti-woman causes success. e.g. the Romans took a lot of their anti-women views from the Greeks. That worked well for Greek men and Roman men for one thousand years.

The question, and some of the answers here seem to be based on the assumption that there was at some time a starting point of equality, and then men 'took over', 'invented rape' etc... The explanations tend to favour socially embedded differences - tradition, power structures, rather than biological instincts and characteristics. Apologies if I am misrepresenting, but looking only at it this way is only half the story and ends up with something like a global conspiracy theory between men of all cultures around the world to subjugate women.

OP - I would recommend Reading Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (at least the gender chapter, but the whole book is good).

Biology isn't destiny, but it is a good starting point for understanding society.

Men often talk about protecting their 'women'. But who or what are they protecting them from?

The irony is that it's other men, of course.

As someone pointed out much earlier in the thread, ideas are absorbed into traditions and then people don't even think to question them anymore. My whole family, consisting of 3 men and 2 women (mother, father, and 2 brothers) are pretty sexist and I'd say the worst person for being sexist is my mum. She is far too afraid to question the status quo. Any perceived feminist argument is quashed immediately.

I think that the answer to the OP's question is the fact that women bear babies. Many women I know are doing well career wise until they have a family and then they put it all to one side and let a husband/partner care for them and the children. By the time they are ready to go back to work, their male peers at work will be much further ahead of them.

I had this discussion with my SIL last week. She argued that a child needs its mother and criticised any couple she knew where the mother was in the position of having to work because she is the main breadwinner. From her perspective, the family should be making sacrifices so that the mother can work part-time/stay at home and look after the child.

I found this point of view quite frustrating. Whilst I accept that a child needs its mother, I would argue that a child needs its parents. The world has changed now and men need to start taking their part more in parenting otherwise women will never achieve economic equality. And tied to that is the freedom to provide for themselves if they need to. I have read many threads on the relationships section about women who want to live their partner but are unable to because they are concerned about surviving financially.

I really like the Swedish model of parenting which I read about in the New York Times a few months ago. Much more egalitarian!

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html

Heroine wrote - "DHs current hate is the microsoft ad that shows the women in the photo being sensible and grown up and 'george being george' and daddy being the 'pain' in getting the photo right -he feels that the men ere portrayed as stupid, annoying people who just don't understand things"

Microsoft is run by men. Perhaps you should ask those men why they chose to make the advert.

Heroine wrote - "its that pedestalising that means that women were 'protected' from the evil men's world"

"A pedestal is as much a prison as any other small space." - Gloria Steinem

I don't think reality is a sock puppet

Do you really yearn for the life women had in the 1800s, and think that women in Darfur are being raped because they are uneducated and weak? Rather than because they are in a dire situation where they are being attacked and their levels of education and personal strength have nothing to do with it?

Why do you think that?

Do you think that women who are raped should be "held accountable". There is a theme in your posts but I'm finding it difficult to pin down.

Heroine seriously have you looked at the link I posted earlier and come to that conclusion?

When you hear about what is happening in darfur do you think "well they're obviously uneducated and weak"?

I'm really genuinely shocked. Most people think that women who are raped in those circumstances have had something awful done to them, that it is not their fault. You have a different view, you think if the women were stronger in some way (what way?) they would escape these atrocities? That is some of the most extreme victim blaming that I have ever heard.

and for the record DV is not always helpless, blameless little flower getting attacked by evil ogre - a couple living next door to me where always getting reported for DV incidents - the women was drunk in the morning calling him all the names under the sun, ridiculing his 'manhood' and shouting about how he was shit in bed, was fucking other women etc etc, and then they would go drinking together, still arguing, then it ended up in her throwing things at him, sometimes in the street, then him trying to hold her arms down then her crying about him 'battering' her and then trying to get the neighbours to beat him up.

A nasty situation, but not big size tens trampling a delicate flower.

I think women should be accountable and seen as possibly abe to make situations worse, this 'blameless women' idea is the same as pacifying, disempowering and weakening in my view.

and to ISNT I didn't say that women are weak and helpless, I think you are saying that. I am guessing that the women you are talking about in your charity are probably uneducated and weak, yes - otherwise there would be no justification in 'helping' them.

Sometimes your logic goes out of the window doesn't it.

No they haven't!!! Those shelters would be taking in 35million women if what you say is true get some perspective!!

I have converstations with my husband because weirdly although his is clearly a cybotic member of a darkly evil overlord race of opressors, he is also a person, and my husband and i love him. Perhaps you should try loving the men around you?

"I see your post as being a characature of hoards of men attacking weak timid vulnerable unintelligent creatures in mud huts waiting to be raped - that's just ridiculous "

Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? When I posted earlier about that charity in Nigeria it was a genuine post, I thought people would be interested. How can you say that about those women? I don't understand. You think the women in that situation are weak and unintelligent and that there shouldn't be charities to help them? What is your point I don't get it honestly can you explain?

(also wasn't this internet thingy largely instigated and produced by hoards of geeky men working for the good of society??!)

It's not idiotic at all - if you look at the rights that women had in early 1800s and what their lives were like, and then look for a modern day equivalent, then that's where you end up.

A society where women are literally owned by men, with no rights to their own children, property, inheritance, their own money. It was legal for women to be raped by their husbands. They had no rights to their children, if the husband wanted he could desert her or divorce her and take the children with him. However it was very difficult for women to obtain divorce and if they did the husband could keep the children and not let her see them.

Please can you explain to me why you think the comparison is idiotic.