Can you think of a situation where women should NOT be treated equally?

[beansmum]

I'm writing a law paper on (various things, but mainly) different approaches to equality. I've just written that arguing for formal equality (i.e. no special/different treatment) has several benefits for women, one being that it is almost impossible to imagine a situation where an argument that women are not equal, and should not be treated equally by the law, would prevail. I'm thinking of cases where a woman is arguing her treatment is unfair, not a man.

If I say it's impossible to think of one, I'm pretty sure my tutor will immediately think of 4 examples. So I need my own and my brain is refusing to work. Any ideas?

[I don't actually think formal equality is a good argument, I just have to pass over it on my way to something else].

I'm tired so I might be a bit confused, but would pregnancy be a good one- such as if two fire fighters are suposed to go into a burning building and one is pregnant maybe she should expect to be told not to go in?

Not sure if i'm on the right track but would something like abortion be an example ?. as that is something unique to a woman.

The only thing I can think of, and I don't know if I'm on the right track, but I find the idea that a government can tell a woman what to wear ie the French and the burqa, thus treating women differently to men.

In other words, a woman is not treated equally to a man on the grounds that only women wear burqas and therefore to appease the non-secular society/security etc French Govt men and women are not treated equally as men do not have such restrictions (I think - having said that, I wonder if the law is drafted in such a way that it's not put in such a sexist way as that...)

Rambling now, but do you see what I mean?

I don't think I explained myself very well, sorry!

To take Vegan's example, I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I could say the woman is arguing it's unfair that she can't go in and do her job, and the court (or whoever she's arguing with) say discrimination is fine in this case, because pregnant women should be treated differently and barred from dangerous work. I don't think they'd be right, but the argument might win.

IIRC, discrimination is acceptable when casting acting roles - so it's OK to say no women can audition for the part of Hamlet in a professional production.

Early stage clinical trials of new drugs are still routinely excluding women on the grounds that menstruation may affect the results .

HTH.

In the pregnant firefighter case, I'm sure the same rules regarding fitness could be applied as apply to men. Nobody wants people below physical par to risk their lives by doing dangerous work. In early pregnancy I can't see any reason why a woman should not be able to continue to work in exactly the same way as before, and preventing her from doing so would be discriminatory in my view (not writing a paper though so no need for me to provide evidence). No reason why a woman should not be allowed to maker her own mind up about whether to volunteer for dangerous tasks.

I am also struggling to think of a single example where not giving a woman equality would be desirable.

Kim, there are, albeit very few.

mens toilets attendee

The burqa thing can apply to men too - a man or woman can't wear a crash helmet in court, for instance: so it's anything obscuring the face that applies.

Have you read "Eve was framed" by Helena Kennedy? She outlines at the start how in the law people should not be treated the same as we aren't all starting from the same point i.e. we are all coming from different circumstances. She was meaning this in relation to men and women.

The overall message was treating people equally does not mean treating people the same under law.

She also had plenty of examples where men and women should be treated differently.

If you treat a pregnant woman differently, it's not because she's a woman, but because she's pregnant.

Some nutters in the US made the suggestion that women should be always treated as "pre-pregnant", which would be treating women differently for being women. And that's a bit ugh.

There are some jobs that are exempt from sex discrimination laws, carers for vulnerable adults when they require a same sex carer, support worker for women who've suffered domestic abuse and a support worker in a men's sexual health clinic are some that I've seen advertised - but there must be others.

You could argue both sides of whether that's right or not.

Why do we need to celebrate difference? What exactly do you want to celebrate?

Perhaps the better way to ask this question is to say:

"Can you think of a situation where the sexes should NOT be treated equally?"

That way, it become less focussed on 'women' but on 'the sex of the person'. If the arguement still holds when you interchange the words man, woman, male, female then it is correct and legal. If it doesn't then it is discriminatory.

For example, male and female athletes in most events cannot enter competitions with each other where physical strength, height, reach, speed make a difference to performance so discriminating on the basis of sex is correct and legal in this case.

Paying male and female athletes different amounts of prize money if it is based on the same fixed percentage of advertising/sponsorship revenue is also correct and legal.

not sure exactly what you mean? there are loads of cases where it's not in women's interests to be treated " equally" (ie held to standards designed and devised by men for men). Eg the height restriction that used to apply to the police force, the requirement to do exactly the same shift pattern as someone without caring responsibilities etc. also having to lift heavy stuff as part of the job when the safety standards have been set to be suitable for a person bigger heavier and stronger, than the average women. is that that sort of thing you mean?

I can think of one which I encountered at work. I worked for a professional services firm which sent staff to work for clients overseas from time to time. Some of those overseas clients were in countries where women were not allowed to work (couldn't even get a visa) like Saudi Arabia, or else would have found living and working exceptionally difficult (some North African and Middle Eastern countries).

Men who took those difficult assignments (they had no choice) routinely got accelerated promotion thereafter. I think that was unfair.

Widow- that's a bit of an academic distinction since only women can get pregnant!

That is a good example Bonsoir.

duchesse - it's not that academic, as anything which only affects pregnant women doesn't affect women which aren't pregnant.

Bonsoir I had a relative who encountered similar issues in the Middle East - and her job related to geology & engineering for water supplies so pretty damn essential for that part of the world! She did go down the route of trying to take her company to a tribunal to establish that they ought to offer the equivalent work to women as well as men, but got frustrated by the process and gave up.

Ironic that her skills were so specific and suited to the very part of the world where, as a woman, it was hardest for her to find work. The equivalent job in a Western country would have been fine...but the work is less urgently required there.

Generally different rules apply in the military.

Some cultural because of discomfort with women on the front line. Some practical a lot of the equipment assumes a man's hight and strength.

Don't contemplate suggesting they change it in the foreseeable future

Yes, but legislation or rules that affect only the pregnant will only affect women- just because they don't necessarily affect all women doesn't mean they are not discriminatory imo. I am quite certain that H&S rules etc could be widened to "physical fitness" to make them non-gender specific.