“Women basically already have equal rights in the West”

[Ethelfleda]

I’ve heard this statement from a few people over the past year or so, always from men.
I know they’re wrong but I so rarely know how to tell them they’re wrong.
I want to tell them they’re wrong without patronising them because it is my belief that once you do this, you alienate your audience and they won’t ever come around to your way of thinking.

What do you say to this statement??

But Currently young boys who may have similar yearnings at a young age currently have that quickly beaten out of them by other men/boys as that would make them “sissies.”

I don't think that is automatically true. Lots of young men very much see having a family as one of their goals........but they don't necessarily dream about staying home; they see having "a steady job" as pre-requisite. To be able to support a family.

Really?

Sure if that’s what he wants I would say a man has a good shot of finding a woman willing to give up/compromise her career to support his, yes.

At the very least his chances are much better than an equally situated woman.

Yes, I'd say women in the west generally have the same rights as men. Better rights in some cases, such as maternity leave. However, this does not mean there are no longer sexist pig-men around, who will do everything they can to make women's lives difficult. We still see women having to fight their way through court to have their rights recognised.

One interesting thing (to me anyway) that a connects with some of the earlier comments: I've been told that in countries with the best sex equality - we're basically talking Nordic nations here - women choose even more to go into caring-type roles. The stay at home more to look after families, and choose nurturing, caring, and nursing jobs. These countries have fewer women going into scientific, technical, and engineering work.
Has anybody else heard this? Any good studies anyone can link me too?

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France pseudonym for Jacques Anatole Thibault (1844-1924)

This pointed out over 100 years ago and not for the first time the difference between de facto and de jure.
"The term de facto is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law"). Something that is de jure is in place because of laws. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates what actually happens in practice."

@FWLurker the reason for this is that women are more hypergamous relative to men. A man is more willing to date and marry a woman from a lower economic class/ lower level of education. Women by contrast prefer mates at the same relative level of wealth/education or higher.

Oh it's been a while since we last heard about "hypergamy"!

Depends what they mean, I think sometimes hypergamy is defined somewhat incorrectly.

There is certainly a difference between women's rights in law, and women's rights in reality and in practice. Just look at how girls' and women's single-sex spaces are so easily and readily tossed away.

While women are still abused for sexual thrills by men, nobody will ever be equal.

My DD is 11 and the YouTube videos she watches have convinced her of this. She is too young for me to tell her the ins and outs. But the day will come!!!!!

Equal rights in law are only one part of the battle, we also want an end to violence against women and children.

Household tasks and child care are not divided equally

Then that is for women to sort out with their partners. It's back to this idea of "wife- work" and expecting society magically to change but doing nothing individually to stop being a martyr.

When women try to get men to help, they become the "housework manager" and it becomes easier to do it herself than to keep on at him to do it.

The Equal Pay Act is 50 yrs old and yet we still have an enormous gender pay gap which we only started reporting by law 2 years ago.

Plus as a pp said theft is against the law but we still have a lot of it.

Some sectors (for work) are better then others but the world's still not equal overall.

Better rights in some cases, such as maternity leave.

Except that is a double edged sword because the perception that a woman will take maternity leave increases discrimination against women.

There are things you can do to change behaviours and perceptions - create parental leave for men and ensure they take it, shift the burden of paying for parental leave away from small businesses and towards government - but you can only do these things if you first accept the principle that equal participation in society can only be enabled if the different needs of different groups are accommodated.

This will always be an ongoing discussion because society is always changing and there will always be changes that affect men and women (and other groups) differently.

This is a bit like saying because we have a theft act enshrined in law, theft is no longer a problem.

Is the perfect riposte.

*Oh it's been a while since we last heard about "hypergamy"!

Party like it's 2009! No MRA comment will ever beat that bloke whose book cover attempted to suggest that women oppress men by having nice arses, though.

I love that link to woman as ‘household managers’, bd67th.

justhadathought is right that sometimes differences in the division of household tasks arise for practical reasons - eg if one partner (usually the man) earns more. The cost of child care (and housing) here makes it more likely the lower paid partner (usually the woman) will work part time.

I don’t think it’s always simple for women to insist on an equal division of tasks, Didolamenting. Just one example of research from Scandinavia Showing how even in countries where there is much more equality in the workplace, women do more household tasks.

www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200303-how-sweden-is-fixing-the-housework-gender-gap

So far, I think the de jure/de facto argument, especially the Theft Act example siring1, are the best examples.

Had never heard of ‘hypergamy’ before

The key word there is ‘basically’. The chasm between being ‘basically’ equal and actually being equal is very wide.

Party like it's 2009! No MRA comment will ever beat that bloke whose book cover attempted to suggest that women oppress men by having nice arses, though.

I must have missed that

Justathought
“if by sexism you mean women being treated like shit - with no rights, no power etc...then obviously that's not acceptable.”

No, I meant what I defined sexism as in the post you responded to. I said that sexism is sex discrimination which results in social inequalities.

Justathought
“As I see it, differences now need to be acknowledged too......without having to worry that being seen as different, or making different choices is seen as being lesser or of less value.”

Yes I agree with your view on this as well. I think early feminists made a mistake by keeping the patriarchal world view that held all “women’s work” to be of a lesser value. So a career was valued as superior to being a stay at home mother. STEM careers (anything Male dominated) were valued over humanities careers (more female dominated). And so on. There is still work to be done where the life choices we value need to be completely detached from the historical value hierarchy of men’s work superior and women’s work inferior.

FWR
“If you’re a professional man, you can reasonably expect to find a female partner who’s happy to give up her career to be your helpmeet. Hence, men can focus on their careers. Women cannot find men who want to be their helpmeets.”

In the U.K., I think the latest statistic in 2018 was that between 225,000 and 250,000 men were stay at home dads. These are men who reported to ONS they were unemployed and not looking for work due to caring for children. So there would be another number of men who are stay at home dads but working part time. So, yes there are not many men who will be a helpmeet to a woman, but they do exist and can be found.

It's a reasonable assumption in theory....however as with everything theory and practice are very different things.

“It would surely be great for all if we could get the message across to male children that nurturing is a respectable occupation.”

FWR- yes exactly and justathought was saying this too. The past fifty years feminism has been unwittingly going along with the patriarchal valuation of “man’s work” over “women’s work”. We need to have that message that all work is valuable and good, including nurturing and raising children.

Better rights in some cases, such as maternity leave.

In what way do pregnant or postpartum women have better rights than pregnant or postpartum men? 🤔 😉

“However, once born, my instinctive responses, I'd suggest, were different to the father's responses - more primal.....and this led to my feelings of needing and wanting control, and to 'oversee' the whole process in a way that men don't seem to feel in quite the same way.”

This need/desire for control, I would argue is not instinct, but cultural socialisation. When I lived in the UK this actually shocked me in my friendships with U.K. mothers. The fact that they and the fathers simply assumed the mother had the control and authority over all children stuff and the fathers function was to “help” under her direction. Maybe a father could express an opinion about discipline for example, but the mother always had final say or veto.
The way I was raised, neither parent had the control or oversight. Everything was something they both agreed on together democratically and through compromise.
That socialisation telling you that you need to oversee all child related things is also what makes you feel responsible for it. Then you find yourself saying, the only way I can do that is if I am the one sacrificing work to be at home more. And if you don’t sacrifice, it’s that same socialisation that makes you feel guilty and a “bad mother”.
It’s sexist socialisation that then creates the social inequality of more women than men sacrificing careers for being at home. It nudges you into making choices that are not entirely free.