“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??

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

Oh, I don't know. I would say that being a wage earning person is a form of systemic economic oppression and convincing women that joining men in that role would be freeing was one of the biggest hoodwinks ever.

It's not a theory, it's a fact proven empirically by data that too many women's lives still hinge on the mercurial tempers and shifting desires of men who presume to own the women and children they feel they have bought with their money.

As I said, that's why data collection itself is something men prevent, as in last month's action by Trump to roll back women's hard work achieving workplace transparency in wages and dispute arbitration that affects women much more than men.
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041

Right now there's a thread in AIBU "What's the best thing you've ever done for yourself?" www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3893579-Whats-the-best-thing-youve-ever-done-for-yourself?pg=1

Reading that thread will give you a very good idea of what women want. Lots of "got educated, got a meaningful job, got healthy" represented there, so far no boasts of a lovely life lived off hubby's wages and never working. Pay particular attention to how many times "left my husband" gets stated as the best thing a woman has done for herself in her entire life.

Also, I think it's telling that even the people who say the best thing was quitting their corporate jobs often found fulfilling work part time or as independents.

I don't really think those threads are indicative of much as far as whether women (or men) are into careers for fulfilment. In our society almost every adult has to work for pay and a lot of emphasis is put on career as a vector for fulfilment, while many other roles are denigrated. People's answers reflect that.

Of course people's answers will reflect something about them living in the current social climate, that's the point. There is no ur-woman specimen we can look to, we are the results of our environments.

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

It is true that for many people their job is one of their main creative outlets in life; as well as a way to set and achieve personal goals etc...as well, as obviously, offering a measure of self respect that comes from earning a living.

Not being financially independent, or necessarily having your efforts rewarded in obvious, or tangible, ways is definitely one of the down-sides to not being in paid employment; and generations of women have had to accept, tolerate and/or put up with this state of affairs.

Depending on the man involved - that can sometimes be tough...because some men are very controlling, and certainly make it known that any money is their money ( even when the couple have children). Other men are far more supportive, and any money they earn is for the family, and there are joint accounts. Indeed, some men have traditionally surrendered their pay packet ( in working class communities) to their wife - who then manages the household finances.

I'd say increasingly that the self esteem of many women is tied to their job, and certainly if they have put off and/or decide not to have children at all for the sake of it.

And that in the subsequent - more woke years - we haven't had another women get within spitting distance

Theresa May has faded from the memory pretty quickly, hasn't she?

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

And yet if you look at the most 'progressive' & 'equal' societies - such as the Scandinavian countries - even the best 'structural will' in the world does not, inherently, alter the basic differences between the sexes, nor the different roles and choices they tend to take and make. In fact, it seems that gendered differences are heightened.

I fin the idea of requiring parents to split problematic. I understand the goal, but essentially you are telling the couple that they need to take on the economic arrangements the sate thinks they should have, so the state can put the numbers it wants in the boxes to prove they are egalitarian. So it's a real matter of the state taking away choice in order to create, or impose, it's own vision of the fair society on its members.

Whatever that is, it's difficult to see it as being about choice for individuals.

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

People's perception of who makes for a good leader are influenced by many aspects and traits of personal character and presentation, I'd say. Some of them operate beneath the level of consciousness and are not entirely politically correct in ways that many would like them to be.

For me, the most convincing of the female candidates was Lisa Nandy - until she signed up for the TRA agenda........Emilly Thornberry had the necessary 'weight' and 'status' that most of the others lacked...but came across as too smarmy, and had said some quite controversial things about certain sections of the community, on at least a couple of occasions.

Age ( not too young), personal charisma & power; good speaking voice...able to hold an audience, and sense of authority, are all important. I think it does hold true that lower pitched female voices carry more authority... Even I find higher pitched, or softer, female voices to lack in credibility or ability to inspire confidence when it comes to holding power or authority. Both Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry have lower, deeper toned voices. Both men and women respond to this.

Kier Starmer is not very charismatic, but he does present in a very steady, controlled and professional manner, and is a people pleaser....which is basically what the Labour party are looking for now...and apart from Emilly Thornberry was the oldest of the candidates. That's my take, anyway.

It seemed to me in that case there were some pretty clear differences between the candidates, it's always easier to overcome the sub-concious things when that's the case.

I also have observed that speaking voice has a big effect on people, one that most find it difficult to ignore if a voice really bothers them.

I do think re Thatcher that it is really interesting that conservatives women often seem to do better politically compared to those candidates among "liberals" or the left or whatever you want to call them. I've wondered if it is something about women of that political group in particular, if they attract a certain sort of personality?

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.

Why frame it falsely as a choice between not working and working 80h/week? I don't work 80h/week but, after being in an abusive relationship that I could not afford to move out from, I'd rather work for 37h/week to earn my own money and not depend on someone who could turn on me at any time. All of those women, if her husband turned abusive one day, would not have the means to leave. Women earning their own money, a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, isn't about self-actualisation, it's about not being dependent on someone who could turn abusive.

bd67 that does seem awfully like moving the goalposts.

Is my question, taken at face value, unreasonable?

Why is the existence of a specific law more oppressive than the practical implementation

Because policies can be changed more easily than laws can. Because one provider may have a different policy to another and that gives you the ability to "shop around", especially if you are willing to go private, whereas all providers are bound by the law.

And because the practical implementation is different because of the law. You mentioned a GP referral followed by one specialist for a back problem. A woman has to get the agreement of two specialists. If one of them is off sick that day, the woman has to rebook, and I remind you that this is time-limited procedure and a delay may force her to have to travel to get the procedure (my hospital can only carry out abortions up to 12 weeks) or even have to carry to term. This is a different implementation because of the law. I actually said this already: "The GP referral does not count as consent of one doctor for abortion."

I also find the requirement for a procedure to be exclusive to men bizarre;

If a procedure affected both men and women and was heavily restricted, it would not be sexist because it affects both sexes. Getting a methadone prescription is rightly very hard, but that affects both sexes. Abortion is very safe, yet women have to go through legislative hoops to get it for no practical reason. It also only affects women. This is sexist because it treats women as though they have less capacity to decide about safe routine procedures than men.

To get endometriosis removed, which required cutting holes in me with a recovery time of over a month, one specialist had to agree. To get an early surgical abortion, with no incisions and a recovery time of two weeks, two specialists must agree. This has nothing to do with keeping women safe and everything to do with pandering to those who think that women should not be allowed to control their own reproductive capacity.

equality isn't measured in the number of perceived blows struck against respective groups.

Actually, when one group is being treated worse than another when it comes to health care (and abortion is not the only way that women are mistreated by the health care industry (read Invisible Women and pay attention to the bits about medical trials), it is however the one case where the law mandates infantilising treatment), that is a clear indicator of inequality.

Yes women have equal rights by law - but do do black people. Is there still racism?

So do gay people - is there still homophobia?

Do equal rights by law protect women from millennia of cultural misogyny?

I have seen very starkly how men and women are treated differently in this covid crisis - women I know homeschooling children by day and then working from home by night and absolutely shattered by it, and their partners do not do an equal share...... Women are just expected to do certain things. That is not equal

www.waterstones.com/book/invisible-women/caroline-criado-perez9781784706289?awaid=3787&utm_source=redbrain&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=css&gclid=CjwKCAjwqJ_1BRBZEiwAv73uwI-k5vf-X4DAihC4o5WJXpcXE3-GJzbN_QE8_80v9OAxmf6a9fgC_hoCn3YQAvD_BwE

I've wondered if it is something about women of that political group in particular, if they attract a certain sort of personality?

I think that the lack of 'positive' discrimination in those groups means any woman who gets that far in those circles has done so without systematic assistance or expectations of assistance (practically the opposite, I would say). Even her staunchest detractors would likely agree that Mrs Thatcher was exceptionally confident and hard working, by any standard.

A woman has to get the agreement of two specialists

The law merely says two doctors (specifically, two "medical practitioners"), the implementation may be two specialists but, as you said

Because policies can be changed more easily than laws can.

There is also no specific provision in the law for it to be back to back. There was a judgement that pre signed forms are unacceptable but this makes sense to me within the bounds of the current law as that wouldn't constitute a formed opinion on the particular case.

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.

Struggling to understand how working 9-5 is less work than looking after a baby 24-7.

If maternity leave is such a great privilege, why are men so quiet on the subject? After all they are supposed to be better at standing up for themselves, whereas we women have only ourselves to blame for our feminine inability to ask for pay rises.

I’ve ordered myself a copy of invisible women. Thank you for the recommendation.

Struggling to understand how working 9-5 is less work than looking after a baby 24-7.

Well, having done both, it is.
Also, you don't look after a baby 24/7 for 45 years.

Sorry deydododat, I misposted and meant to say

"Struggling to understand how working 9-5 is MORE work than looking after a baby 24-7."

That's ok merry, I misread your post and read it as intended!
But women's opinions differ, as you can see on other MN boards. I found 9-5 work very stressful and rasing children definitely had its moments, but less woman hours overall.
Other women disagree and say they'd rather be at 9-5 work...

But deydod there is nothing stopping men from campaigning to have better pay during parental leave or campaigning against discrimination in the workplace if they take parental leave.

Whether or not you think a 9-5 job or maternity leave is easier or more enjoyable (and it really depends on your job and your children), anybody confusing maternity leave with a holiday probably needs a visit from social services.

Yes, not enough men in this country want it, I guess, although the British men I know who have moved to countries where they have joint parental leave think it's brilliant.
In Sweden they introduced joint parental leave. If I remember, it was still mostly taken by the women, until they changed it so that it had to be shared.
I suppose some of this comes down to finances, which will come down to gender pay gap.

**And yet if you look at the most 'progressive' & 'equal' societies - such as the Scandinavian countries - even the best 'structural will' in the world does not, inherently, alter the basic differences between the sexes, nor the different roles and choices they tend to take and make. In fact, it seems that gendered differences are heightened.

This is full of assumptions. The scandi model hardly proves the inherent gendered nature of work, just use your imagination!

All cultures are more or less sexist, so a woman in a highly sexist culture where she could expect most 'woman's work to be low in pay, respect, authority etc etc. Could benefit greatly by challenging that sexism and going for a 'male' role.

In scandi countries women do not need to challenge sexism in the same way to get decent pay, benefits, respect etc so maybe less inclined to want to go against gender expectations. Challenging sexism isn't easy or pleasant...

Challenging sexism isn't easy or pleasant...

And yet women have done if over and over again, while men seem to be strangely reticent about challenging their own oppression. It's almost as if...

@merrymouse
I wasn't suggesting they haven't or shouldn't. It is understandable on a societal level however that people may be less motivated to do something difficult if there is less of a personal benefit.

A working class girl in rural india has much more to gain overall by striving to become an engineer, given her gender confirming alternatives then someone in Norway for instance.

I'm just trying to offer an idea to what the cause of the so-called Scandinavian paradox is that doesn't assume 'it's cos women are inately nurturing and want these roles'