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].

How about insurance. It used to be the case that women paid lower car insurance premiums because of being lower risk but I think that is now being challenged under equality laws. This sounds negative for women and an area where it would benefit us to be treated unequally but a ban on discriminating between men and women for insurance purposes will actually work out in women's favour because we get less on annuities for our pension (a form of insurance) because we live longer. Getting rid of that different treatment would be worth a lot more than we gain on car insurance.

So in that case there is a good reason to treat men and women differently (on average they behave differently for insurance purposes so risks are different) but it would be better for women in the long run if they were treated equally.

Obviously only for some jobs or they would discriminate against disabled people! Things like front line policing or firefighting or other jobs where physical fitness is required (bang goes most of the Metropolitan Police...)

"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."

I see where you're coming from, but not sure whether rewriting them with regards to "physical fitness" neccessarily helps, as pregnancy doesn't neccessarily affect a woman's fitness.

It's a difficult one.

The only occasion where sex can and should make a difference is pregnancy/maternity. Until men can have babies there is no comparison - women deserve special protection from discrimination during that time.

The rest of the time equality should take precedence except in cases where there is a risk of harm - eg men working in a women's refuge may prevent women from using the refuge. Male midwives or other professions should be totally equal.

Much of the rules about firefighting etc are about strength and ability not about sex as many of the arbitrary rules of height/weight have been removed.

Sport?

I would not be in the interest of women to compete with equally with men (ie in the same competitions) as men in a lot of sports?

You need to hope the person reading it hasn't heard about ultra-marathons though I guess

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

Maternity leave
rape procedures - keeping name out of the public domain (I know applies to males who have been raped)
Uniforms - women often required wear a skirt and high heels but men are never required to

If you look at legislation regarding miinimum wage going baclk to 60s 70s you will find arguments about women being priced out of the market and men needing enough money to support a family.

"Male midwives or other professions should be totally equal."

I think it is fine for men to elect to become midwives providing mothers-to-be can elect to see a female midwife if they prefer.

"I think it is fine for men to elect to become midwives providing mothers-to-be can elect to see a female midwife if they prefer."

I think that depends on the situation though - if it' an emergency situation, no other female midwives/drs are available then there's not much space to elect to see female hcps only.

What about in medical situaitons where a woman is pregnant? Has she a right to refuse treatment if it endangers her unborn child? I beleieve in the US you can get a court order to compel a woman to undergo a C section whereas I can't think of a reason why a man's wishes could be over-ridden if he was of sound mind.

Arctic - that's a very good and incredibly difficult point, and one where I really struggle where I stand. I firmly believe in a woman's autonomy over her own body, which should not be affected by "vessel status".

But when these choices possibly affect another human being's life severely then I find it's incredibly difficult to make a call, especially at the end of pregnancy, where a child would be viable without extra support.

I think women must be free to make those choices even at the end of pregnancy to avoid the risk of the mother's well-being to be relegated to second place, and because of the pro-life lobby's relentless anti-women agenda.

At the same time, every time a woman makes a choice against medical advice which lead to detrimental effects on the child's quality of life, it's a tragedy.

It's not easy being liberal.

treefumaster - the issue over car insurance premiums was one of the worst examples of the application of equality law I have ever seen.

It is widely accepted that young men pose a higher risk of accidents in cars than older men. No one argues young men should pay the same premium as older men. Insurance is a market for risk. If women pose a lower risk they should pay a lower premium. It is a pure economic arguement not an issue of equality.

Where it gets more controversial is around the question of credit risk. Banks used to discriminate against women in making loans. Go back to the 1950/60s and women found it almost impossible to get a mortgage. Even in my lifetime my wife faced much more difficulty in getting a student loan as compared to me. Is that justified discrimination?

The question is - do women really pose a greater credit risk than men? If they do then banks should charge a higher interest rate and refuse loans to women more often than men. That would be legal and economically correct.

Actually, I've just remembered something. I used to work in healthcare in a prison (self-employed) and I got unceremoniously kicked out because I was pregnant and it was considered unsafe for me, because of the baby, to work there.

Does that count as one?

I can't see any justification for males being kept out of pregnancy/maternity KatieMiddleton - I've only ever met male gynocologists. Does being able to bear a child make one suitable to the profession? What about infertile midwives? The one male midwife I encountered was just fine. The only midwife I met who I would describe as very mediocre was a very young woman. Surely personality counts more in this area?

There are those police liason-type people that are always women - I think they bring them out when helping rape/violence victims - who themselves are often women, or male victims of other men...

I can't see how your post relates to what katie said, lebfg. Did you misread it?

She said that pregnancy and mat issues should be protected and also refuges but that other professions eg midwives should be totally euqal.

Think some religions - eg no female Roman Catholic priests. There are various legal exemptions for employees of religious organisations, aren't there? I suppose it's arguable whether these are all "acceptable", but the different rules are legal.

Anything relating to pregnant workers and agricultural? For ex. farmers not being allowed to ask pregnant workers to work near pregnant/lambing ewes?

Is there something relating to whether the father of a baby is named on a birth certificate? Or that if the parents are not married, the mother has to be present at the registration (I think).

Ooops - missed the bit about male midwives, yes. So, what preg/mat jobs is katie referring to?

She is saying that women should be protected from discrimination over pregnancy & maternity issues, as is currently the case.

"The only occasion where sex can and should make a difference is pregnancy/maternity. Until men can have babies there is no comparison - women deserve special protection from discrimination during that time."

I didn't realise that referred to employment rights. Have a bad habit of reading and firing off replies too quickly!

Thanks SQ. Nicely summed up.

As far as I understood from the (fairly cursory) discrimination law training I had to do when I started my current job, all of the discrimination legislation has exceptions for "Genuine Operational Requirements". Basically, as long as your aims are not discriminatory, you are allowed to discriminate on a protected characteristic (sex/disability/race) if your aim forces it on you and there isn't a reasonable workaround.

For example, you may turn down wheelchair users who apply for a scaffolding job without further justification. Although you are discriminating against people based solely on their disability, your aim (putting up scaffolding) is not itself discriminatory, scaffolding is not by nature accessible to wheelchairs, and I cannot imagine how one could redesign it to make it so.

That's the line of reasoning that lets you reject female applicants for Hamlet and restrict male staff access to female mental patients - not that those jobs are somehow exempt from the law. The costs (not just financial) of not-discriminating are unreasonable.

Is that an answer to your question, in fact, OP? Imagine you're putting on a "realistic" Hamlet for TV; the best actress in the world turns up and auditions for Hamlet. You can't turn her down, you can't afford to make her look convincingly male on HDTV, you can't sell a female Hamlet (or wholly swapped-sex cast) in a "realistic" production, etcetera etcetera. The only option you have is not to go ahead - and everyone has lost out because of equality legislation taken too far (gone mad! as the DM would say). It's very much an edge case, but that's kind of the point.

Personal/ inimate care roles can insist that the applicant is a man.

Roman catholic Priest, church of england bishop

Actor

Prehaps an uncover police role where it has to be a man or a woman for it to work.

Ahem

ach, bugger, link fail.

www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=643&q=sarah+bernhardt+hamlet&gbv=2&oq=sarah+bernhardt+hamle&aq=0&aqi=g1g-S1&aql=&

Healthcare. Certain screening and treatment available to men (or women) only because of biology

Ooh, and...

<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=sarah+bernhardt+hamlet&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=643&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=I-OeSayDXHxMVM:&imgrefurl=shea.mit.edu/ramparts/co" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/imgres?q=sarah+bernhardt+hamlet&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=643&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=I-OeSayDXHxMVM:&imgrefurl=shea.mit.edu/ramparts/co

... which I didn't know.