Men, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

'And 30% isn't equality'

Will somebody explain to me what equality is? In this instance, equality is suggested to be 50/50 or close to that. Is it possible to split everything equally? I don't see how you can do that, so equality can never be achieved then, unless we lived in a dictatorship.

Women only shortlists work, they just aren't used very often.

30% women in the boardroom is a very recent initiative run voluntarily. Not sure how quickly you are expecting change to progress Sigmund. And 30% isn't equality - just thought I'd point that one out. Just in case anyone thought that men still having 70% of the power was equality.

The current Minister for women is not known for her feminist tendencies (although she has been surprisingly good on a couple of things), again is a relatively recent initiative and the cynic that I am suspects that it is a position meant to silence the masses not engage with them. Time will tell on that one.

The other question to ask with Sigmund's assertions is why aren't men wanting to prioritise children? They are their children too? Could socialisation have something to do with it? Just maybe? The off chance perhaps? As kim said several times up thread. Cultural and socialisation changes take a lot longer to overcome.

Re the article that kicked all this off - if Ms Penny had written the last paragraph;

You can choose, as a man, to help create a fairer world for women ? and for men, too. You can choose to challenge misogyny and sexual violence wherever you see them. You can choose to take risks and spend energy supporting women, promoting women, treating the women in your life as true equals. You can choose to stand up and say no and, every day, more men and boys are making that choice. The question is ? will you be one of them?

then there would be no argument. It's common sense and common decency rolled into one. But she didn't. She introduced hate into the article twice, and that was my objection. I also questioned the title of the OP, but that is another issue. We don't need division, we need co-operation.

I then asked why a culture that actively hated women would even allow them a foot in the door, re legislation, healthcare, education etc. I don't think anyone even bothered to answer this question.

Also, Buffy said that men's response to the problem of sex discrimination had been 'What problem?'. What about he womenz on here who have made exactly that point? Why do you highlight that some men question the extent of sexism, but not women? I never get that attitude. If women, who are the victims here, question it then why wouldn't men, who would be less aware of it in the first place?

In summary, I liked the last paragraph. I think the rest of it was Ms Penny trying to be Jeremy Clarkson. Perhaps journos these days think that shock tactics are the way forward.

'This thread really is like a sort of debate about feminism bingo, isn't it? We can now all tick off "make statement, then claim to be too busy to provide references when challenged" We've already had "make statement then disappear" and "make statement then suggest anyone questioning it googles"'

You do know that feminists do the same?

Hi Buffy. There was a report just out about a survey taken in which 7 in 10 women prioritised family over work. That's certainly true of all but one in my family/extended family/friends.

I'm sorry, I see the discussion has moved on but I've just come back to it and need to respond to GoshAnne's post.

I know that sometimes people talk about women in other countries as a silencing tactic. I can't see how on earth you got that out of this thread though -- we all said it doesn't mean not talking about sexism in the UK. In a discussion about culture and oppression I think it's pretty natural to start talking about other cultures.

I'm incredulous that you could accuse people you don't know of using women in other countries as props and not caring about them. I've spent the last eight years researching and working in the area of civilian protection, I have been to a number of conflict-ridden countries and seen firsthand how women suffer, and I can assure you that I do have 'actual concern about these women as humans'.

I am frankly gobsmacked at the amount of privilege inherent in the sentence "I really wish people would leave "women in the Middle East and some parts of Asia" out of conversations like this." I mean.... really? In a conversation about how culture oppresses women, we can't talk about how different cultures oppress women differently? Is that really such a huge distraction?

It's important if for no other reason than to argue that oppression is not simply a spectrum with the UK on one end and Afghanistan on the other. That is far, far too simplistic. For one thing it neglects the role of female agency the extent to which women can respond to and fight oppression. Yes, there is sexism structural, violent, overt -- in the UK. There are also a huge number of things that women can do about it, which hopefully over time will improve things. You cannot say the same for Afghan women. They risk being beheaded or having acid thrown in their face for daring to do things that we don't even have to fight for anymore.

It's not about making Brits feel bad or like they can't complain. To me, it's about making our arguments and language more precise, which should attract more people and generate better counter-strategies. And it's also about solidarity. I'm not saying every conversation has to include Afghanistan, but let's not stick it in a little ghetto of 'problems over there' that we cluck over sympathetically from time to time.

Apologies for ranting, this is obviously something I care deeply about, but I don't want to 'derail' the thread any further so can bow out.

Minister for women, 30% whatsit onto the boardroom, women only shortlists..of the top of my head. Women don't want these jobs because of prioritizing family life, they just don't want them, accept & move on. I CBA to wax lyrical about this one today, I have 6 children in my house, causing mayhem.

What are these 'huge efforts' of which you speak, Sigmund?

'Do you think these things are on a par with the massive lack of women in the boardroom, parliament and other positions of power?'

Women choose not to take these roles, despite huge efforts to get them into them...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink etc.

being blind to male privilege is a manifestation of that privilege

insisting that women embrace your lack of awareness as the truth about their own oppression definitely makes you part of the problem

Oh hell yes.

" I certainly don't think women (in the UK) are the only, or even the large majority of, victims of sexism."

blimey.

Posted too soon.

Remnants of the old order in psychiatry can still be seen in the way that Female clients with personality issues are still demonised by many staff with shades of the 'Hysteria' Freudian approaches.

How I see it - 'We don't have the skills to work with personality disorders but won't admit it = These people are too difficult and cannot be 'managed'. It is their fault.

also @ Buffy....

Curlew hat is kind of the point of my example. Take a female dominated profession and the men in it are more likely to rise to a senior level. It is not because men make better nurses per se either. But statistically you would expect more nurse trained female bosses and executives within the NHS because there are more female nurses still.

And patriarchy within psychiatry is a whole little cesspit of its own in its historical abuse of power against females. Coercion, sectioning, the use of the term 'compliance' have all been used to dominate women who did not fit into the patriarchal mold of what they should be (institutionalisation of single pregnant women for example, the treatment of Nymphomania but not of their 'male' counterparts.)...