What, if anything, has the EU done for gender equality? Please give us your views

[RowanMumsnet]

Justine has been asked to speak at an event next week discussing issues around the EU and gender equality. It's part of a series of events marking 40 years since the UK joined what was then the European Community.

The questions the event aims to discuss are: What role has the EU played in shaping gender equality for women in Europe and in the UK? And what opportunities and dangers might arise in this field from any renegotiation and repatriation of powers by a UK government in the years to come?

As ever, we'd love to know what you think. What are your thoughts about the effects on women and gender equality of legislation and directives that have originated in the EU? Is it your impression that these measures have helped or hindered British women in their working and domestic lives? For example: measures like the Social Chapter are thought by some to have contributed to women's welfare by improving their working conditions and bargaining rights; others see them as having made it expensive and difficult for small businesses in a way that has impacted negatively on employees.

You can see some information on this page about specific European initiatives on gender over the years.

The panel debate will be held on March 7, and as well as having your views beforehand, you're welcome to use this thread or the Twitter hashtag #UK40 on the night to put questions to the panel members or relay your thoughts.

Thanks,
MNHQ

I think what comes over quite strongly is that it is really only those of us who work int he area OR who have studied this issue that really know about what EU directives have and can have done. This is interesting, if the beneficiaries of an institution remain ignorant of what it has done then democracy cannot work. Lots of women may for example vote NO in any future referendum but would vote YES if they knew that lots of the policies they are in favour of are coming from the EU.

btw i hope this did not sound patronising, the fault lies solely with the channels of information we get, it is interesting that such a media and politically aware group as MUMSNET is so ignorant

The European Court of Human Rights also ensured that "man" and "woman" are defined by feelings, though. Give with one hand and take away with the other.

CoalDustWoman Thu 28-Feb-13 10:27:35
The European Court of Human Rights also ensured that "man" and "woman" are defined by feelings, though. Give with one hand and take away with the other.

THAT depends on your POV though... many people would support that decision...

"The European Court of Human Rights also ensured that "man" and "woman" are defined by feelings, though. Give with one hand and take away with the other."

I don't even know what that means. As in trans* is considered? And that's a bad thing?

Criticising the ruling on car insurance is hardly fair when it also equalised pension annuities, massively to the benefit of women.

The fairly recent ruling on increasing maternity leave to 20 weeks will have a positive benefit for lots of European women.

every time i see this on active i hear: 'what did the romans ever do for us?'

i have recently become aware how important it is that we stay in europe. the sudden announcement that if re-elected they'll give a referendum from the tories made me cotton onto the fact that actually a lot of our human rights, stuff to do with living conditions, work conditions etc etc are driven by europe now. if the tories want out it's so they can fuck us over more royally (excuse my language but it's the most succinct way to put it).

sadly most will knee jerk vote for us to leave without realising what they'd be paving the way for in doing so.

To continue RedToothbrush's point, it's also about what the EU does for women outside Europe. As one of the biggest international aid donors in the world, there have been huge numbers of programmes to improve conditions for women in developing countries, e.g. education for girls, ante-/post-natal healthcare, fight against sexual violence, support for micro-credit. Given all the evidence that shows how important education for women is for economic development, this is part of a really significant push to help countries lift themselves out of poverty.

not to mention we may need a massive bail out from europe very soon.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and answer that question with a question; does the EU actually have a role to promote gender equality? The question assumes it does when I'd argue that it doesn't - to this day it's largely concerned with trade and finance.

Oh, and as a man I can't think of anything the EU has done to promote equality for men as fathers.

It has given us the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, plus the associated directives. Great for both trafficked men and women.

so paternity leave did nothing for fathers then john?

You can find a handy summary of the influence of the EU on our discrimination laws here:

UK law relating to sex discrimination has been influenced by a number of EU developments including:

• Equal Pay Directive 1975 (75/117)

• Equal Treatment Directive 1976 (76/207, as amended by 2002/73) Moreover, the principle of equal pay is enshrined in the Treaty of Rome itself (article 141). There has also been a flow of significant cases from the ECJ. Seven EU sex equality directives have been combined into one, 2006/54, for implementation by member states by 15 August 2008.

• The EU's race directive of 2000 (2000/43)has principle of equal treatment irrespective of race or ethnic origin is found in it. A general framework directive (2000/78) aims to eliminate inequalities based on religion, belief, disability, age and sexual orientation

This site is also useful.

straightened cucumbers?

Oh and yes - ignoring the huge very reliable stats about the differing risks of males and females having accidents in cars - to the computers working out the risks they were just another set of variables that provided a reliable indicator. Insurance companies must have been rubbing their hands in glee at the thought that they could raise their female prices to the same as their male prices and make significant profits from them.

Shame they didn't legislate that they could only make the same amount of profit from males and females, rather than charge them the same!

You can't blame the EU for car insurance, blame the insurers! The EU said insurers had to have equality so did they reduce men's premiums and not make quite such massive profits, no they increased women's premiums, and thus their obscene profits yet further. They are just as big crooks as banks but as they fund the Tory party, it goes unnoticed

The EU does a good job, despite this governments best efforts to avoid implementing any policies which might actually help British people.....ooo I've proper got my dander up!

shureshotty we can blame the EU for saying that we had to have 'equality' for the car insurance though.

The thing is - the insurers didn't just pluck a number out of the air when we needed a quote and decide that 'ooh she's a pretty wee female so I'll give her a good quote'. They have huge data sets on which they run massive analyses of loads of different variables - of which gender is one, but also include where we live, how old we are, our occupation, what sort of car we drive and so on. The evidence very clearly shows that, as a group, young male drivers are significantly more dangerous on the road (and therefore cost them more in insurance payouts). As it shows that young drivers are more dangerous on the roads than older drivers.

As it is, this has made things unequal for females paying for car insurance. We now get a quote for insurance that is based on all our major risk factors, bar one that insurers has a significant impact on the likelihood of us needing to claim on insurance. Why didn't the EU go the whole hog and say that they can't use age in their risk assessments either? Why not say that they just have to charge everybody a flat fee regardless of whether or not they are a high risk driver? It's just extrapolating the same principle (and isn't age discrimination also illegal in the EU?) and yet most people would think it was an absurd thing to do. There would be a few winners (think boy racers...) and a lot of losers (pretty much everybody else, especially if you are older and/or female).

Looking at the amount paid by men and women and saying that equality in this case is that they pay the same amount for their car insurance is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at an issue that shows no understanding of true equality. What has actually happened is that equality in this case means that women have to pay a higher percentage premium for their insurance cover when compared to their known risks as a group when compared with an equivalent group of males with the same risk factors (apart from the male/female one obviously).

And yes, I know it works in reverse for women's annuity rates but again, I don't think that is discriminating against women per se, it's making an informed judgement on the risks faced by the different groups that is backed up with lots of data. And yes, I do think that they should charge/payout men and women differently - even though I'd lose out on that one.

Sex is one of the things insurance companies use, and there is a correlation, but that doesn't make it a causal or fair risk factor. It might be that different races or ethnic backgrounds are also associated with higher or lower insurance claims, but we don't as a society allow insurance companies to use that. Why do we let them use sex?

Equally with annuities, there is a correlation between being female and living longer, but it's not clear that it's causal. It's also true that women tend to drink less and smoke less, are more likely to be a healthy weight and more likely to look after their health. Even when things like smoking and drinking are factored in, they tend to be factored in in a gross way, and women are still at the lower end of usage statistics (e.g. when you look at "smokers" as a group, or any level of "smoking", women on average will smoke fewer cigarettes than men).

Correlation is not causation. In a gendered society many factors will cluster around each gender, it doesn't make it "fair" that an individual has to play within their gender though. That is one of the big things that anti-sex discrimination legislation is supposed to try to fight, leveling the playing field so people can act without the oppression of gendered expectations. I think the EU's ruling on the insurance industry was a big step forward for women's liberation.