Quick question on legal instruments

[Keepithidden]

I was involved in a conversation yesterday about womens rights and I put forward the suggestion that:

It may be that there is legal equality as far as legislative instruments (Acts of Parliament, Regulations etc.), are concerned, but I thought the key issue is who enforces and how they are enforced that causes so much lack of equality. That is the patriarchy operating through the judiciary, police and other authorities.

I'm not sure this is correct though, are there any laws that do discriminate specifically against women while allowing men a different degree of freedom?

I don't know, but if there are, they may be linked to reproduction. Xenia One could argue that enforcing at least 2 weeks off after birth limits a freedom for women that it doesn't for men, but as the aim is protection, I'm ok with that.

Thanks Bill and Buffy.

Bill - I suspected there may be one or two linked to reproduction, but as men and women are different in this respect anyway I don't see how a comparison could be made. I was thinking of instances where discrimination was specifically allowed, but I'm not sure there are any.

Buffy - Yes, that was my point really. It isn't the Act of Parliament or the Regulations they are translated in to that is the issue. It's the way they are actually used.

I don't want to discuss it here, as there are so many threads about it already, but if you look at some of the threads about transpeople, Keep, you will see the issues there are around legislation allowing transwomen to declare themselves female and that then being used to argue that people with penises (who consider themselves female, and are recognised as so under the law) being allowed into female-only spaces, including changing rooms, and even rape crisis centres. It is a relatively small but important issue around how "equality" legislation for transpeople is being used to erode women's rights and endanger their safety.

all female shortlists for MPs? although it's a bit different as a party is sort of like a club so maybe they can make their own rules, it;s an unusual situation

of course all male shortlists are not noteworthy and are the norm in many situations

also while laws may state equality society has a much bigger pressure eg someone might be discriminated against at work for being female / pregnant / black etc BUT it is a rare and unusual sort of person to actually start going to tribunals and sueing and things. I'm sure it's no accident that when I read about successful sex discrimination cases, the victim was often a lawyer! Average people in average paid jobs don't tend to go around sueing people. Especially when in our society the likely victims are the ones who are socialised to put up and shut up and not make a fuss - not that the conditioning always works! but you know what I mean. People who are part of oppressed groups are less likely to feel the entitlement and confidence to act when they are treated badly.

Is there something around that laws are written by rich white men with a big sense of entitlement who don't understand why the law "being on someone's side" might not be enough to actually do anything if the victims are from a less entitled group. Don't know if that makes sense.

So eg the workplace discrimination laws are great from the perspective of someone who expects things to go tehir way and will make a hell of a fuss when they don't. Not from the perspective of someone who has been socialised not to make a fuss...

And I think you have to pay to go to tribunal now so that will shut a whole line of recourse off for most people.

Sardines makes a very good point. If there has to be legislation in order to ensure you are treated with respect, then surely that says all you need to know about your place in society? What I mean is, the very existence of legislation reinforces the idea that men are the norm, and their needs will automatically be catered for simply by how the system is structured, and then women's needs must be shoehorned into the system under the threat of prosecution.

To add to that, legislation tends to put the onus on the oppressed group to "speak up" and fight for rights that are automatic for the non-oppressed group, with the assumption that if they don't speak up then nothing is wrong. It doesn't take into account the fact that the oppressed group tends to feel voiceless and finds it harder to fight than the non-oppressed group.

Cailin - I hadn't even got round to considering the transpeople and how legislation affected them and the knock-on effect of that. It was a much more general discussion about why there is still inequality despite the law saying there shouldn't be....

....which leads on nicely to Sardines (and yours Cailin for that matter) regarding the administration of the law, the too-often reliance on the victim to push and persevere against the tide and the obstructions put in the way at virtually every opportunity.

If there has to be legislation in order to ensure you are treated with respect, then surely that says all you need to know about your place in society?

Completely, it is an admission that there is a power structure and if you're not part of it then you need protection from it.