“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??

Abortion will always be an issue that only physically affects women. There is no comparable procedure for men.

That is one of the many reasons why you can never achieve equal access to human rights by simply saying 'everyone is equal' and why it's so ridiculous to pretend that sex doesn't exist.

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.

I agree with this. Equality of access to a system that suits men better will always fail.

Nordic countries were mentioned, and the fact that women there take on more traditionally female roles. There does seem to be some truth in that. But Nordic countries generally have stronger unions and wages are more equal across the board, so taking on more traditional women’s roles is not so financially disadvantageous.

Women still do more childcare and housework, when surveys have been taken. But in the Scandi country where I live, it' seems common (personal observation) for divorced parents to split childcare 50/50. More so than I witnessed in the UK. But men also generally take paternity leave when women return to work, so there’s a period during which they have sole charge of the children in a way that many UK men never choose to embrace.

And it’s all very well saying women should sort out their households if the men aren’t doing their share. Without the man being willing, it’s not possible. I didn’t realise mine was unwilling to do his share until there was a baby crying, and that was something he chose to ignore, while I wouldn’t as it meant my child was suffering.

Actual equality in each thing is a totally different story and IMO is impossible

The concept of Equal rights doesn't mean that we are all the same, but that we all have the same right to education, to work, to participate in government, to a fair legal process etc. etc.

Because we are all different some groups will always need different services and protections so that they can access equal rights, e.g. a female MP should not be prevented from participating in parliament by her need to breastfeed her child.

But in the Scandi country where I live, it' seems common (personal observation) for divorced parents to split childcare 50/50. More so than I witnessed in the UK. But men also generally take paternity leave when women return to work

It would be interesting to know how this works, practically. Do divorced parents commit to living in the same neighbourhood as each other, so that the children's schooling is not disrupted? Do children spend 50% of the week with one parent, then move to the home of the other parent for the other 50%?

How do the courts and the law tend to view the ex marital home? Is it always sold, then the two parents have to make their own new, separate living arrangements...or is there a tendency for the man to move out and the woman to stay on in the family home? Do the courts enforce 50/50 arrangements?

Often divorce presumes certain intractable differences and issues between parties, that can spill over into how the child care arrangements are dealt with and managed; and then parties often remarry and/or start new families.......

Have to say I'd be amazed if it really was a 50/50 split, In the way you have presented it. It's good that there is such generous paternity leave, but it would be interesting to se the figures for how many take it up, and for how long? And are many/most women really in a rush to get back to work after having baby?

Just found a couple of articles which provide food for thought, regarding equality and the Nordic model: capx.co/what-jordan-peterson-gets-wrong-about-the-nordic-gender-paradox/ : www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries

Those are interesting articles. On the face of it, I think what Peterson says in the first must be true - if you maximise choice in society, than differences in choices between different groups will tend to be emphasised rather than de-emphasised.

Possibly you could try and reduce differences that might lead to those choices. If they are cultural, say a sector of society that chooses to live in multi-generational homes rather than single family homes, or a tendency for one group to encourage their kids to go into trades and another to go into small business and another to go to university. You could attempt to try and adjust those cultural and up-bringing differences, but the question immediately is, why? The answer can only be to reduce the sense of a society comprised of distinct groups, be they different ethnicities or classes. But is that what we want to accomplish?

With men and women i always seems to come down to claims that differences are all about socialisation rather than based in reproductive roles - not "real" choices but somehow imposed by social forces we aren't entirely aware of. TBH I think a lot of regular people don't really believe this, very much in the same way they don't believe one can change sex - most think that even if socialisation is a factor it's not the whole story.

It's always interesting to me to read these sorts of articles because when they ask the question "How can we change x" there is always a real confidence that somehow with the right set of policies we can push people into the roles that will make up the equal numbers desired, and that this is a good project to embark upon. I rarely see an aknowledgement that programs designed to "free" women to go back to work, like free childcare, are double edged. They make it economically less viable for families to have a parent at home, even part time, with the children, because it represents an absolute economic loss, as well as a relative one compared to other families with two incomes and in relation to taxation.

What I find interesting to think about from those two articles is that State sponsored or State enforced 'equality' doesn't necessarily achieve all it sets out to, and also that sometimes more 'free market' type societies do achieve those things.

Obviously it a requirement that the State passes &implements equalities legislation in the first instance, though - but after that it is questionable how desirable, effective or meaningful state enforcement is beyond that.

If we look at the recent Labour party leadership election.......they were desperate, and have been for quite some time, for a female leader of the Labour party....but in the end the electorate chose Kier Starmer - not because he was male, I don't believe, but because he came across as more of the right person for the job in hand, to the majority of the voters.

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.

But for most people a job is a way to pay the bills, not some quest of self enlightenment, and most couples I know pool their finances anyway.

Of course, there are a minority whose self worth/identity is tied to their job, but most of my friends who married a successful bloke and took a step back are much less stressed in life nowadays. It works both ways. You don't see many 'lads that lunch'.

From a recent mumsnet thread. Wonder if their husbands enjoy their long hours in the office as much!

My sil is 44, rich and has NEVER had a job, lucky her! She has no trouble filling her day and has a great life.

Dp earns the money then gives it to me. Why would I feel oppressed?

I haven't worked in 8 years and bloody love it! I got to go shopping without ds today and have a long lunch with a friend. Going to the gym now.

My friend is married to the son of a billionaire and sometimes I have to block her on social media because her life is one long holiday.

I dont work, I was able to be a sahm with my sons, both in 30s now. I lunch, dressmake, walk my dogs for miles, spend time with friends and family etc....
I also volunteer for a small homeless charity, something I am so passionate about, being literally close to home.
I feel totally fulfilled!

My DSis married a very high earner and has never worked a day in her life.

My DH works 80 hours a week for a signficant amount of money, which allows me to be a SAHM and indulge myself, allow me to do all of my volunteering and my hobbies.

I work just a few hours a week in a job I love doing, I don’t have to work for financial reasons. I’ve accidentally ended up with a really high earning DH. I enjoy having lots of time to myself, I have hobbies, an amazing spa membership and an extremely fortunate to have some really good friends whom I’m able to see nearly every week.

My SIL is lucky enough to not have to work due to DB’s income. She has nice things, goes out for lots of lunches.

I'm a SAHM who has teenage children and is fortunate to be married to a high earner so I haven't needed to work since having kids. We do have a lifestyle that most people would find impressive.

I choose not to work. DH works really long shifts and odd hours so can be out of the house either days or nights, with each week being different. When the kids are grown I'll go and get some post-sahm work. Maybe in a shop, factory, cafe or something similar.

The funniest post was Monday morning when she started by posting “it’s going to be a long week, hoping the nanny isn’t late” followed by “anyone know a place I can get nails done, not happy with the place I’ve been going as I think they overcharge and wanting a day to pamper myself a bit.”

I feel lucky that I don't need to work. I am not getting any benefits because dh earns enough.

I'm lucky in that I didn't have to carry on working.

I am lucky enough not to work and stay at home with my son, as DH is a high earner. I feel extremely grateful for this every day, and try very hard not to take it for granted.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3764425-To-think-you-are-very-lucky-if-you-dont-have-to-work

To answer OP's original question, I think the point that equality in law doesn't mean it exists in real life. Just like murder being illegal doesn't stop it from happening.

Look at women such as Angela Raynor, Michelle Mone, Karen Brady...whose sheer drive and determination has got then were they are... I've personally known lots of similar, driven women who have taken on huge amounts of responsibility in their life......both at home and at work, even if they are not quite so wealthy or well known.

I'm absolutely sure all of them encountered sexism and prejudice on their way to their current positions. Karen Brady, for example, was a woman in the man's world of football...she had to be tough. And she is.

This is all true. But highlights the KEY Issue, equality (whether by law or our perception) is based on structures that are designed for and by men. So, in order to achieve the same workplace outcome as a man a) a woman needs to be tougher, better, stronger etc and b) there is no compensation made for the biological reality that she may have children (it goes further than this, but for discussion purposes focus on that).

So ultimately, our structures need to change. So, being a partner at a law firm currently requiring the equivalent of 70 hours a week billable time, needs to change to accommodate a) that a woman may need to take time off to have children and b) a need to split childcaring responsibilities because otherwise, a man is not incentivised to take on his share at home as it affects his career.

Also, overall, the reality is that it's all very well saying that equality exists and there's no law against women being, for example, CEO, but when you look at the reality and how few actually are, you have to question whether we are even anywhere close to equality. Even if you accept a premise that fewer women may want to achieve it and that 50% is unlikely, there's a huge difference between 50% and the current numbers - in 2019 there were 7 women as CEOs in FTSE100 and 5 in the FTSE250.

RabidChinchilla, to be fair you should now go find the threads in Relationships where SAHMs express their fears of destitution, loneliness, and the abandonment of their children by financially-secure husbands who decided to trade their wives in for another, younger woman.

f we look at the recent Labour party leadership election.......they were desperate, and have been for quite some time, for a female leader of the Labour party....but in the end the electorate chose Kier Starmer - not because he was male, I don't believe, but because he came across as more of the right person for the job in hand, to the majority of the voters.

But this is interesting, WHY did he come across as the right person for the job? Or MORE interestingly, why is it SOOO often, that if a man and a woman politician are up against each other, the man wins so many more times? Is it really just that the men are better politicians? Or is it that we are not giving the women sufficient credit?

I think THIS is exactly the thing that those studies of orchestras and other blind auditioning etc show. That our perception of women as a whole have a direct impact on how capable we think they are and that generally, women are NOT seen as capable as men outside of the home.

Similarly, even in female dominated professions, it is fascinating to see the difference in ratios between women employees vs male employees overall and then in male leaders vs women leaders. You might point to the fact that teaching tends to have more women. Government figures show that 3/4 of teachers are women and yet only 2/3 of head teachers are women. I find this difficult to reconcile.

But this is interesting, WHY did he come across as the right person for the job?

It is patently obvious why he was better than the frankly useless selection of female candidates.

But this is interesting, WHY did he come across as the right person for the job? Or MORE interestingly, why is it SOOO often, that if a man and a woman politician are up against each other, the man wins so many more times? Is it really just that the men are better politicians? Or is it that we are not giving the women sufficient credit?

Remembers Mrs Thatcher ...

But you can't deny the statistical evidence that men tend to perform better against women... except when gender is taken out of the equation.

I liked him better too. But I find myself wondering is that because he really was better or because I have been socialised to find a man more credible?

And Thatcher is a terrible example. She's ONE woman. I'm so tired of people saying, "well, we had a female prime minister" or "that company has a woman on its board" and suddenly we're supposed to think the underlying problem has simply gone away.

Posted this elsewhere originally:

My employer has released its pay gap info.
Wouldn’t the pay gap reporting be more meaningful if I knew which quartile I am in, and what the average pay gap is per quartile, rather than across the entire company?
And also, what action is actually taken against a company for having huge disparities in pay? I can’t see anything on the gov website that makes it mandatory to improve on a company’s pay gap....

And Thatcher is a terrible example.

Oh, undoubtedly.

However, the inconvenient fact still remains that she managed to become Prime Minister in 1979 at a time when institutionalised sexism was supposed to be at it's peak. And that in the subsequent - more woke years - we haven't had another women get within spitting distance. Of course there are a lot of very complex reasons - not least of which was Thatchers general dislike of women. But it happened. No one can say it didn't happen. And, having happened, it really does highlight how we are slipped backwards, not forwards in so many ways.

Or so I believe.

RabidChinchilla, to be fair you should now go find the threads in Relationships where SAHMs express their fears of destitution, loneliness, and the abandonment of their children by financially-secure husbands who decided to trade their wives in for another, younger woman.

Yes, of course it works both ways. There were plenty of posts in the thread I linked where women were saying they wish they could work/would hate to be at home. But my point is that women have a better choice regarding the ability to be able to stay at home and life a cushty life.

There are a hell of a lot more women with successful careers than there are men who are happily chilling at home with a high earning wife.

But my point is that women have a better choice regarding the ability to be able to stay at home and life a cushty life.

I didn't phrase this well.

I'm not saying staying at home is a better choice. I'm saying that we have a better choice in that we can do either (work or SAH) whilst for the large majority of men working full time until retirement age is a given.

My partner has joked in passing that he'll have worked full time for 45 years without a month off by the time he retires, and he's probably right as he won't get maternity leave and will just continue with his few weeks holiday a year.

Ethelfleda

A lot of generalised pay gap info isn't that useful. It's difficult to look at it and see if it's that the jobs being compared aren't really equivalent, or it's about maternity leaves or career breaks, or individualised negotiation of the highest salaries. Those are all quite different situations.

"But my point is that women have a better choice regarding the ability to be able to stay at home and life a cushty life."

It's not women's choices though, it's men's choices, it's the work structures men have set up and men adamantly keep in place by apportioning themselves a far greater share of resources than they permit women access to.

Men wrote the laws preventing women from working that still exist in many places, men still actively prevent women from earning equal wages and men block laws for wage transparency and make all manners of weak excuses for the wage discrepancy when their aggressive attempts to dismiss data collection fails.

It is men who benefit from women's systematically heavily pressured complete reliance on a male wage, and that is why feminists push to disrupt the multiple facets of the sexist system leaving women and their children's lives at the mercy of men.

If you want to keep it light tell him to join the FB page 'The man who has it all'. Turns stock sexist phrases around and makes you smile at the injustice of it all 😄

It is men who benefit from women's systematically heavily pressured complete reliance on a male wage, and that is why feminists push to disrupt the multiple facets of the sexist system leaving women and their children's lives at the mercy of men.

It all sounds great in theory, but sort of fades away for me when I read quotes like the below:

My sil is 44, rich and has NEVER had a job, lucky her! She has no trouble filling her day and has a great life.

Dp earns the money then gives it to me. Why would I feel oppressed?

I haven't worked in 8 years and bloody love it! I got to go shopping without ds today and have a long lunch with a friend. Going to the gym now.

No matter that some blokes somewhere wrote the rules, in the above common examples we have women living a life of luxury and a bloke slogging 80 hours in the office. I know which life I'd rather have.

in the above common examples we have women living a life of luxury and a bloke slogging 80 hours in the office

How common do you think it is?

I don’t think one could argue in any way shape or form men are systematically oppressed!

But do most women even have a problem with how things are?