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].

Annie - impressive. You learn something new every day. I think the point stands, though, if you modify the role - a boxing movie/biopic, for example, is likely to require a man in the title role (assuming it's about a male boxer, of course...) or a very large amount of CGI or prosthetic work.

I await further learning...

Thanks everyone! I still don't think I have worked out what I mean though...

Obviously there are LOADS of situations where women and men are different and should be treated differently. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, healthcare etc. I didn't word the question very well. The rest of my paper argues that formal equality, where equal rights is taken to mean identical rights, doesn't result in similar opportunities/rights for women. Or something...gah.

Anyway, I was trying to think of situations where a woman alleges she is being discriminated against, a court agrees that this is true but says unfair treatment is acceptable.

The acting thing is a good example. I've also mentioned jobs that are dangerous for a foetus, although I think it's a pretty dodgy argument. I'm not sure that a potential person should have the same/more rights than an actual living woman. Who is not necessarily an idiot who can't decide for herself whether she wants to carry on doing a job that might be risky.

Has anyone mentioned potential fertility? Eg women in the workplace who have to avoid prolonged exposure to things that might affect fertility (eg errr X rays?). Might also affect male fertility too I suppose.

Women should ALWAYS be treated equally. However, treating people equally does not mean treating them the same.

Regarding the risks to a pregnancy at work, if the woman cannot be redeployed to a job of equal standing (same t&cs, responsibility, status, pay etc) where there is significant risk to her/her unborn child, she should be suspended on full pay so she isn't disadvantaged. There should be no question otherwise. In that case she should be getting better than equal treatment - she gets all the employment benefits without having to do the work.

Realistically no woman who is well with a wanted pregnancy will risk harm to herself or her unborn child - and health and safety laws says she doesn't have to as an employee so that's a none argument. She has extra protection and extra benefits by law.

Not extra benefits. Just extra protections that are designed to ensure her employment and health are protected.

Anyway, I was trying to think of situations where a woman alleges she is being discriminated against, a court agrees that this is true but says unfair treatment is acceptable.

Haircut price differences is an area where the courts (a couple of decades ago) acknowledged that women are discriminated against but said it was fair enough (because it's important that it takes longer to cut our hair, otherwise we might not look pretty enough).

anything around the army?

Maternity leave is argued as a case where discrimination is "a good thing".
After the first month there is no particular reason why it should be taken by one parent and not the other, or some combination.

I'm not convinced that it is a good thing.

I've sort of changed my approach...I've used a couple of examples where the law has been changed to stop unfair treatment continuing. The hairdressing thing is interesting though...might put it in a footnote.

So...
US fetal protection laws - It used to be lawful to ban fertile women (not just pregnant women) from jobs that could be dangerous to a fetus. Not allowed anymore - women can decide for themselves whether they want to take the risk.

Defence forces - women used to be barred from combat roles here (NZ) - totally unfair, explicitly recognised as unfair but still allowed by law until fairly recently.

Do you just have maternity leave in the UK? Not parental leave that can be shared? Here we get 52 weeks to split.

Other examples where the law have been changed is that women used to get cheaper car insurance. What about a company that only insures women drivers.

www.sheilaswheels.com/

Men used to pay less for annuites than women because women live long.

Another area of sexism is that women's retirement age is lower than men. Surely there is more logic to women working until 65 than men as women live longer. I don't understand why women's retirement age isn't made the same as men's rather than raised gradually.

I actually would do it completely about the military. It has nothing to do with pregnancy, nothing to do with fitness, nothing to do with strength, nothing to do with anything, but women are still barred from certain roles because of their sex. Legally.

It is reconsidered every few years, but the suggestion that allowing women into (certain) front line roles would harm unit cohesion, mean the blokes would unnecessarily put themselves on harms way etc etc bollocks, and ergo women are still barred from those jobs. for absolutely no reason. Legally.

I wanted to join the marines at 18.

Fecking Demi Moore had to go prove a point, eh?

It would be interesting to use the no model as context, in that internationally there are still countries where this is legal...

I'm in NZ. We're a little bit ahead of the UK by the sounds of it.

having parental leave rather than maternity leave doesn't mean that men actually take the time off though...

Kim, Tis exactly the same argument. All about ruining unti cohesion. It's the biggest pile of bollocks.

And of course, it's all sorted out now (with gazillions paid in claims) but it wasn't that long ago that women had to sign a contract stating they would not get pg or married, and if they did, they would leave. So women had terminations so they could keep their jobs. And then got oodles in payouts. And those that played by the rules got, erm, nothing. Ya gotta love the military.

Kim, it is fascinating. It is of course completely illegal now to discrimate by sexuality in the uk military, but not by actual sex. Tres amusant (and no idea if you follow the army / trans chat, or look on proud2serve, but increasingly people are able to change sex whilst still serving with v little hassle. This is proving most entertaining for folk who serve on single sex units. )

Unti? Unit. Pesky homosexuals would be unable to concentrate on the job at hand with all those fit young uniformed chaps. And the fit young uniformed chaps couldn't concentrate on the job at hand with all the fit young uniformed wimmin...

All horse, obv.

Quotas.

The revolution hasn't happened yet so equality is not a live study.

There was a case where a newsreader who was a BBC employee tried to claim her clothing, hair and drycleaning expenses as professional expenses for tax purposes. The tax tribunal ruled against her, even though she worked in a culture where women were expected to wear many different outfits onscreen while men were not.

FairPhyllis, now that is a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

One would laugh, if only the irony were not so painful.