Odd chat with DH

[MegCleary]

He was watching question Time and was annoyed by the Womans Equality Party felt it should be the Equality party. His opinion. Then we started discussing how women and men are not equal, he was saying men can never carry children so therefore the sexes can never be equal.

Has anyone else had this discussion take that turn, is it a common opinion?

Can he not understand that people can be both different and equal at the same time?

Black people can be white doesn't make them unequal, does it?

I think it is a pretty common opinion, and I think what people mean by it is that the sexes can never be the same, not that we can't reach equality. He means that our needs are different.

However some people take this further and believe that women being child-bearing points to insurmountable differences in personality between the sexes and means that men and women are suited to doing different things, so true equality would be undesirable as we are too different.

The first I agree with (no point having abortion rights for men, for example) but the second I don't at all.

The third point is that under capitalism, being the sex who carry babies is a disadvantage because it reduces the ability to work. So perhaps he was talking about that?

Or even can't be white - fat fingers!

It's a question of

Does equality = sameness?

Personally, I think no, not in the world we inhabit. E.g. I think that some positive discrimination legislation can be a really useful tool to try to bring about equality in unfair societies.

The trouble is, once you accept that to have equal opportunities and treatment, we have to have special rules in place for certain populations, it becomes very, very difficult indeed to figure out what those rules ought to be.

Going back to your DH's specific point about the Women's Equality Party, there has long been a problem about this. Should women as feminists be fighting alongside other marginalised groups, such as non-white people, LGBTQ people and so on, given that there are certain common goals? Or does that just dilute and blur the issues? I think the biggest problem feminism has had (apart from patriarchal misogyny, obvs) is that we are just such a heterogeneous group - so many different experiences, so many different issues depending on age, race, location, sexuality, income, education, culture etc etc etc etc

I think the trouble with having one Equality Party to represent all minority groups is that it would have too much bloody work to do.

If your DH wants an Equality Party, he can found it!

Does he criticise the Green Party because environmental damage isn't the only issue? That party now has many policies, but environmentalism underpins them.

And the hoo hah about women in the shadow Cabinet underlines the current inequality in politics for women.

Oh no have I misunderstood completely?

The Men's Rights Activists already exist.

Had the discussion with DS2 about WEP and he was all well then don't complain about MB's Mens Party. If they are prepared to stick theior money where their mouth is then that should be okay. I just said when he is 18 he can vote MB if he wants to (or if someone stands locally) but he better start looking for a new home at that point. MB wants more power for men in areas they dont have the whip hand and that isn't many places without giving up other privileges in return. Besides MB is an opinionated arse.

The worry about WEP is it trying to cut across areas where we have different opinions in comparison to those areas we can all agree. FGM, trafficking and Rape all need to be tackled and I doubt there are many women who would disagree with those but when it comes to sex work you will get different schools that wont agree. So will WEP ignore those issues and concentrate on the ones people will agree with or will it alienate sections of feminism by taking on liberal or radical ideals? Think that will be where the problem will come as the party forms strategies.

Thanks for insightful replies, it is not something I have given much thought too, but shall start reading more round it.

What does your DH imagine equality is, MegCleary? (I would imagine that he has never thought about it in his life as he's never needed to). Does the ability to have children make us better than men? Or worse? Or does it just make us different from them? Or does it make them different from us?

If he views equality as sameness, then it makes no more sense for WEP to be the Equality Party than the Women's Equality Party. Gay people can't be straight, black people can't be white, old people can't be young, disabled people can't be able-bodied, we can't all be the same. So, now with that as the starting point - what is equality?

Blimey tribot if he and i are going to start that chat tonight I may need to get another bottle of wine in. Its probably not an issue we have ever delved into. From what I understood Men can never physically carry children and women can so they will alway be inequal.

Yes you've already said that, but what does it mean? What does he think equality actually is? He seems to have strong enough views on it think WEP should be the Equality Party so no doubt he can elaborate further!

My first thought from reading your op is that if he thinks men and women can never be equal then surely a WEP should make perfect sense.

Second thought, as has been said by many others I think he needs to examine the idea that equality does not mean being identical.

I like that equality does not mean being identical. Maybe that's where j am falling down in my argument with him.

I'd imagine his argument goes "these bloody women want to be treated as if they were the same as men but still want the door held open for them [actually a basic courtesy anyone should do for anyone] and to get to go into lifeboats first [actually a myth]".

Meg "he was saying men can never carry children so therefore the sexes can never be equal."

does that mean he thinks women are superior or inferior because to me, unequal has to mean one of those two things.

I will say, in fairness, the Women's Equality Party has a bunch of publicity saying it's not just a women's issue and I too thought it would have made more sense to call it an Equality Party but that's because they seem to be going for equality as their main issue - which is a great thing to have as your main issue, but does then beg the question - if they are about Equality for all, why have they specified women IYSWIM.

I don't often come on here because I don't understand a lot of the academic references and I suspect that there will be a lot of that behind the title of the party.

I don't think there is, lorelei. I've had a look at their website and there seems to be a complete lack of underlying theory. It just seems to be about bringing women onto the men's level in the world's of work, politics, media, education and parenting, and ending violence against women.

Or is that libfem? I've lost track.

I don't agree with positive discrimination legislation, I see it as being as damaging as negative discrimination. It's like saying you as a person can't manage to achieve this on your one so we'll change the law to let you manage it. Equal doesn't mean difference. Gays can't be straight and blacks can't be white. Men can't be women and women can't be mean, but being different doesn't mean we can't be equal.

So if we all acknowledge that we are different, why are we not equal?

I don't agree with positive discrimination either, DontHaveAUsername. And yet it's alive and well and keeping board rooms full of white males. What do you suggest we do to tackle it?

Yy sera.

Dont, as overt discrimination has been illegal for decades, are there fewer women in positions of power because, in general women are just a bit shit compared to men? Or is there something deeper going on about role models, hiring in one's own image, expectations of men with wives who gave up work that a woman they hire might do the same etc?

Don'tHaveAUserName - I know. I'm quite worried I'm in current job because they wanted a non-white woman - I'm amazed I even got through the application stage but apparently it was anonymised, which is a relief as it does make me think I got to interview stage on merit. And we did all click at interview...probably overworrying.

I was talking about this with some friends and emphasising the PC nature of the current place, they said "well it's entirely possible that it was a factor in you getting previous jobs and it just didn't occur to you because those orgs were less PC, but you have no way of knowing whether your colour and gender was discussed or not". Depressing.

Ninokuni - yes, I saw something entirely different when they were in development - I saw something months ago and now looking at the website, it is all emphasising women. Which makes more sense, given their name.

Every job I have gone for or helped recruit for in over a decade of working life, many applicants would have been well qualified to do. Once you are at the shortlist stage, it usually comes down to the elusive quality of "fit". And fit means conscious and subconscious judgements on how a person will gel with the team.

Lorelei, why depressing? You are obviously capable of doing the job and evidently are not the only person in the world who could do it competently. Same is true for every job in the world.

yes, I saw something entirely different when they were in development - I saw something months ago and now looking at the website, it is all emphasising women. Which makes more sense, given their name.

That's interesting! I'd love to see how they got to where they are now in that case. In my (admittedly fairly brief) googling efforts, it all seems to be a bit 'Sandi Toksvig therefore WEP'.