To pick up the points in your earlier post MarySue
1) the number of women in Parliament/in the Cabinet is decreasing rather than increasing
Agreed, not good or fair. I'd replace the House Of Lords with the most representative reflection of all sexes and classes, but what do I know? In the meantime, I don't mind all women shortlists but really I'd rather stick with 'best person for the job' and hope that women keep proving its them - and women vote for them too. If they are, which is hard to tell as they are all mostly a shower of shit.
Women only get to vote for the best person for the job from a narrow choice of candidates (quite often all male) who have already been selected before the country ever goes to vote. As discussed, politics is notoriously male dominated, so it is no surprise that the selection process tends to confer advantage to male candidates. All-women shortlists merely address this imbalance. I hold the same principles for better representation of ethnic minorities/disabled people etc, although it is worth remembering that women make up 51.5% of our nation so they're not really a minority in the same way as say black people are.
2) abortion rights are constantly under threat
Don't agree.
I think abortion is less under threat in the UK than in other countries, but it is constantly being challenged. Just two recent examples off the top of my head - Nadine Dorries' abstinence bill and the dropping of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in favour of the pro-life organisation LIFE.
3) women continue to be objectified in the media
Personally, I don't agree with this objectification idea. Women are pretty things, both men and women like looking at them. I think the wider non-feminist society has heard this 'objectification' argument, thought about it, and rejected it. The same for porn, sorry porn-haters, more people either like it, don't care, or think it falls under freedom of choice.
And as for media images, never before in my life have women been portrayed as so perfect and men as such silly little boys or potential paedos/rapists etc.
I find it very disturbing that the rise of 'pornpop' has coincided with the sale of padded bras for toddlers, high heels for babies and pole dancing classes for 8-year-olds. I accept that money is the driving force behind this, rather than it being a deliberate attack on women, but the fact that those making the money do not care about the effect it is having on women is misogynistic IMO even if it not the main intention. It also does no favours for young men either.
I used to be very liberal about porn - each to their own and all that. Then a few feminists pointed out some facts to me. Someone who knows more about it than me will correct me if I am wrong I am sure, but given that something like 85% of women in porn have been trafficked/coerced/given-no real choice about it, I'd say porn is extremely harmful to women even if there are 15% who have chosen it willingly and even though some of the people watching it may be abhorred if they knew those statistics.
4) 2 women a week are killed by their partners in the UK. This hardly registers on the news - imagine if it was the other way round.
I think domestic violence against women gets a lot of attention, it's a soap favourite, it's in The Guardian every other day... consequently every one agrees it is a terrible thing - and the other way around gets very very little attention, until very very recently. It's one man killed by a female partner every two weeks apparently. Ever hear that stat before? Oh, and even then, it was his fault he got killed because he was probably an abuser and it's being a 'DV apologist' to suggest that people use the door rather than a kitchen knife to solve their problems.
I agree that DV with men as victims needs a higher profile. I do not agree that DV against women is taken seriously enough. Getting attention is a start but it's not the same thing as being taken seriously. There are still too many myths about DV in circulation and while I agree women should not stand for it, wouldn't it be better - given that they are the primary carer in 92% of cases - for there to be legal powers to remove the perpetrator and keep him away instead of requiring a woman to leave, with her children and whatever she can carry, to live in a refuge. Surely removing the perpetrator instead of the victim means less cost to society (re-housing costs, crisis loans, etc) and also sends a clear message that DV is unacceptable. This would benefit male victims as well as female ones too.
5) Only 3% of the CEOs of the top 500 companies are women - and that number has not increased for 3 years.
How many are from poor bgs? Or black? As I have said before, the world is run by the super-rich - and the super-rich men do the one main job. Combo of best person for the job and yes there is institutionalised sexism there - but then again, how many women, like how many men, are ever going to be in that position either? And if they are, are they going to help other women? I doubt it. Don't care about helping super-rich anyone, they'll be fine.
We couldn't possibly know, but I do believe that if the House of Commons had a 50% female make-up it's working practices would change.
6) women outnumber men at University and as graduates - and have done for more than 10 years. But men still occupy the vast majority of higher echelon jobs.
The first bit is a success, yes? Maybe we need all-men short-lists or affirmative action to help those boys? Again, higher echelon jobs, bit of dying Patriarchy/jobs for the connected boys, mostly don't care about anyone earning over 50 grand.
But men are not suffering because of the fact hat women do better than men at university. Despite the fact that women outperform them, it is still men who go on to get the top jobs and get the top earnings. That suggests that something is happening to women after they graduate that is scuppering their success rates.
7) Women working full time earn on average 16% less than men.
I've looked into this argument, and despite not being an economist, I am convinced by the argument that the 'wage gap' is explained by the different jobs and hours men and women choose to do. Where it isn't, er, more laws that say it's illegal to discriminate... or what are the other solutions on the table?
Firstly the gender pay gap, even when balanced out over like-for-like roles, is hard to police unless you have a job with a recognised pay grade structure. That's why it's so hard to enforce and why so many women are attracted to the public sector where there is greater transparency over pay and a greater emphasis on allowing flexible working.
The "different jobs and hours men and women choose to do" is a part of the problem. Why are so many women working in lesser paid jobs or working fewer hours? Is it really a genuine choice or one people find themselves pigeonholed into because there isn't an alternative? Bellamy and Rake's investigation for The Fawcett Society report link here concludes that women's lower earnings are mostly due to their caring responsibilities. Men don't have to make a choice between parenthood and career in the same way women do on anywhere near the same scale. Surely a few years out for a woman to be a SAHM or to work part-time should not result in her career being affected so long term. But it clearly does. Part of the solution is to get more men being primary carers (which requires legislative change as well as cultural drive), part of the solution is to change society so that we achieve a better balance between work and children for both genders, and part of the solution is to create more flexible, more affordable childcare so that women who do want to get straight back to work are not hindered by prohibitive costs of childcare.