Not all Romans

[AskBasil]

The Romans built the first roads in Britain.

But not all Romans

The Vikings built ships which sailed as far as America.

Not all Vikings.

Rabbits are known for reproducing really quickly.

Not all Rabbits.

Etc. etc. I think I will add "not all" whenever anyone refers to anything ever, until people stop saying Not All Men as a first response to a class analysis of men's behaviour.

Wish I hadn't asked the question about not all men now

The most simple way of judging whether something is equal is reversing the genders and seeing if we still think the situation is fair. If it isn't, then we have uncovered an example of sexism. Of those pro female promotion policies Larry talked about, let's reverse the roles and now look at it again. We now have a company that states they are keen to promote men specifically. Is that fair? Of course it is not. So it cannot be fair to have a pro female promotion policy.

Jeff, so when a woman encounters a strange man in an alley late at night she is "a bit of a coward" if she worries he might attack her, and likewise if it's a man encountering a strange woman? WTAF!

Actually, that's just ONE definition of equality ('same for all'). There are also persuasive arguments for equality-in-difference.

Furthermore, positive discrimination is simply a recognition that equality doesn't YET exist and an attempt to create it. If there is a serious gender imbalance in a workplace that might be the result of discrimination in the past, then actively promoting the employment of more women is one way of achieving parity. It probably needs to be accompanied by other strategies to address the underlying reason why women don't want to work at that company (e.g. hours, childcare arrangements).

Pointless to talk about "as a rule" because "as a rule" people don't act violently towards each other. Those who break the rules however do. And there are both men and women who break those rules. I feel sorry for someone who would let their guard down upon encountering a strange woman in an alley late at night, and promptly get beaten to a pulp and relieved of their wallet and phone in the process. All because women are all good and pure, and men are evil scum.

Disregarder,

But it is not so simple, is it? If a woman has to take time off to have a baby, maybe there should be some pro women policies to get them back on the career ladder. Or maybe there should be some support for women on maternity leave so that they can keep their skills up.

What we really want is for everyone to achieve their 'fair' potential, placing appropriate support in place to even out disadvantages but not so many that it turns the whole situation on its head.

It is really not black and white at all.

Dis- I think you're misunderstanding the aims of feminism

Why would I feel relieved upon seeing the stranger was a woman?

Because - as even you managed to grant further up the thread - women are much more rarely violent. It is normal to feel relieved if your chance of being harmed has suddenly dropped.

larry, women don't have better outcomes than men in 'education' as a whole. Look at academia (or even postgrad work, in some areas).

Women are still struggling behind men in most areas of life. Focusing on the few where they do not, and moaning about what is 'unfair', sounds rather selfish to me.

That analogy would only hold if the civil rights movement was also about one group of people being superior to others. You cannot compare a movement that is all about discriminating against one gender, to a movement like the civil rights movement which is about equal rights.

Feminism is not about discriminating against one gender.

I suspect you know this.

Or do you want to do the 'why isn't it called equalism' dance? We can do that, but it's really dull, so let's skip to the end and admit you're pulling a straw man argument here, yes?

'Using your logic, perhaps everything should just be made 50:50 everywhere. Half spots for men, half for women. What do you think of that?'

No idea whether that was to me. However, I favour equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I cannot imagine being a person who lost an opportunity because it was reserved for someone of the other sex. I imagine you would hate to be passed over for a promotion because there were too many women in your area, if you were the best candidate for the job?

Equally, if, on average, more well educated intelligent women choose (if this is a free choice) to drop out of the workplace to focus on family life, then it makes sense that more top jobs would go to men. Of course, this assumes that there is no historical context around this, which I know that there is. On the other hand, you cannot know that, absent the patriarchy, many women would still not choose to drop careers in favour of families. None of us can know this. So, I still think the fairest way of doing things is to put appropriate support in place for women during maternity but then to let the best candidate win, regardless of sex.

Jeanne,

You (and some others) seem very focused on the top tiny percentage of the population (such as FTSE boards or the top of academia). Girls way outperform boys at school now and a vastly higher percentage end up at university. I feel strongly that this will naturally reverse the pay gap all the way by the time our children are middle aged (certainly mine). The vast majority of boys and girls are not going to become professors or FTSE directors.

Disregarder, are you a Men's Right's Activist?

larry, I am focussed on the vast majority of the population.

Across the world, poverty is gendered. Violence is gendered. And educational attainment is also gendered.

You are focusing on a small slice of women - women in the UK, under 35 and without postgrad education - and claim their outcomes as a success for women. But those women cannot avoid being influenced by the situation for women over 35, and 50% of them will be being taught by men with postgrad education.

So you are really looking at a very, very small 'plus' for women and claiming it as a massive success, as if this justifies your attitude towards feminism, which is consistently negative and - frankly - whingy.

Jeff, so when a woman encounters a strange man in an alley late at night she is "a bit of a coward" if she worries he might attack her, and likewise if it's a man encountering a strange woman? WTAF!

NO, because women spend their entire lives learning of male violence. Men are violent. I'd think she was smart to be aware. I'd think you were a bit of a coward as you have no reason to assume women are generally out to get you. See? Easy.

Women have babies.

Not all women

Men can grow beards

Not all men

he most simple way of judging whether something is equal is reversing the genders and seeing if we still think the situation is fair. If it isn't, then we have uncovered an example of sexism. Of those pro female promotion policies Larry talked about, let's reverse the roles and now look at it again. We now have a company that states they are keen to promote men specifically. Is that fair? Of course it is not. So it cannot be fair to have a pro female promotion policy.

Either you believe that men and specifically white heterosexual men, are the most intelligent and best qualified to do everything, you must surely see that is already the case everywhere? Or do you think women prefer long hours, poor pay and bad working conditions in shit job instead of management and politics?

Btw, if anyone wants to see what a tiny object larry imagines is 'vast' (no sniggering in the back, please), we can look at this:

www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/men-in-higher-education-the-numbers-dont-look-good-guys/2011807.article

Highlight: The proportion of female students in UK universities hit a peak in 2005-06. Ever since, it has been coming down, despite the widening gap in application rates recorded by Ucas.

In 1996-97, women were only slightly better represented at university: 52.5 per cent of students were female. This proportion shot up over the next decade, hitting 57.3 per cent in 2005-06. Since then, however, it has gradually shrunk, to 56.2 per cent in 2012-13, according to Hesa.

These are not 'vast' gaps. They are, in fact, much smaller than the gaps between the number of men getting firsts at Cambridge and the numbers of women, in some subjects. I'll leave you to guess which way around that gender gap might be, and I'll leave larry to explain how Oxbridge degrees are completely irrelevant to anything, including who ends up running the banks and the country ...

".However, I favour equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I cannot imagine being a person who lost an opportunity because it was reserved for someone of the other sex."

Imagine being a woman then.

And before you come with some sort of poltroonery, it doesn't have to be formally enshrined in law or policy, to be reserved for the opposite sex.

Chickens have beaks and feathers.

Not all chickens

Poltroonery is such a wonderful word.

Jeanne,

'The number of UK university entrants passed 500,000 for the first time in 2014, with women a third more likely to enter higher education than men, Ucas admissions service figures show.

Among 18-year-olds, 34% of women were allocated university places, compared with 26% of men, the widest ever gap.'

Your numbers are slightly out of date. This is a BIG gap.

Oddly enough, larry, being able to read a date, I know where my numbers are from.

You are not comparing like with like, as you'll see if you read my full article.

It is not talking about percentages of women allocated places via UCAS, but about numbers at university.

However, even so, it is not actually coming up to the gap you get for men getting firsts, let alone for men represented at higher levels of academia. And these things do matter - what they tell us is that women are allowed in, just so long as we don't expect them to be highly successful. We'll let women do degrees and become nurses, or social workers, or teachers. We won't expect them to earn the big bucks or 'master' mind the research, or run the country.