“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 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

I'm not sure that it it is too much of a generalisation to say that many are attracted to the Tory party if they have an inherent belief, that one is responsible for one's own luck and success. That is why the Conservative party doesn't seem to use quotas in the same way as the left does. they tend to believe that if you are good enough, and hard working enough you can succeed.

Esther McVey I have some experience of working with her, as she used to run a company that sought to support women in business, by offering them office space and start up services. ( I was running my own shop at that time, and we both lived in Liverpool where she was based).

Esther Mcvey does not come from a privileged background at all. She was brought up in a succession of foster homes, as her parents couldn't afford to look after her. But she then went back to live with her parents after her father had finally made a success of a company he'd set up ( a demolition business). She went on to be head girl of her school...and now is a Tory minister.

Obviously the Tory party has plenty of those born into privilege, for whom the Conservatives are a natural & inevitable fit...but increasingly it seems to be a party of people who have a belief in the power of hard work, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility to effect success in life.

Conservatism also seems attractive to particular Asian demographics, and it is striking how many top roles are now filled by Asian MPs.

*Do equal rights by law protect women from millennia of cultural misogyny8

If it really is a millennia old, one does tend to think that it is not necessarily simply down to men hating women, but down to some basic differences between the sexes....which have been culturally codified and then enforced. And also of course,, most crudely,.....males tend to be bigger and stronger than females, and so have the power of brute force when necessary.

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

It seem quite clear to many, that it is women's role in pregnancy and childbirth, and subsequent child care roles that is at the root of the differences.....and yes, because of that, there does tend to be more an an innate focus on caring and nurturing.......And that is why the Nordic model makes a big effort to counter-act that with paternity leave, enhanced child care facilities etc......But in spite of that many families,:many women still end up choosing to stay home and look after the home and the children, and are still far more likely to work P/T.

Just found this article ( from the Guardian) on the rise of Asian tories. Seems to suggest that it is East African Indians - are the natural fit in the Asian community - for what the writer sees as an ex colonialist mind set: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/how-did-british-indians-become-so-prominent-in-the-conservative-party

inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/calling-asian-and-black-tories-sell-outs-is-racist-and-degrading-2073519 A slightly different take on the issue of Asian tories.

A bit off topic, but linked to it, I think.

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...

I have to say, this really doesn't ring true to me. Do you really think significant numbers of these women are choosing to study medicine rather than engineering because they don't want to be bothers going against social expectations? It's not like there aren't female engineers or they are discouraging them.

At a certain point trying to push people in a certain direction in order to satisfy abstract goals about all jobs being evenly split between the sexes seems to be about something other than people being happy and productive.

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 innately nurturing and want these roles

It wouldn't be all that surprising if the sex that have to care for infants are somewhat more inclined in that direction. From a biological POV human mothers have to pay good attention to breastfeeding for their infants to do well, even if it's as a group.

But there seem to be some good studies suggesting that what women prefer isn't necessarily nurturing, but more people focused roles compared to men, and as a group they choose them somewhat consistently even when they go into previously male-dominated areas.

That also tends to correspond with the views of some of the "the world would be better run by women" types, so it's interesting to me to see when it comes up in these sorts of discussions many feel its anti-feminist.

If it [misogyny] really is a millennia old, one does tend to think that it is not necessarily simply down to men hating women, but down to some basic differences between the sexes....which have been culturally codified and then enforced.

The male desire to control and commandeer women's reproductive biology in order to be sure which children are theirs for the purpose of property inheritance. It's in Engels.

And also of course,, most crudely,.....males tend to be bigger and stronger than females, and so have the power of brute force when necessary.

This is what gives men the power to act on their desire to control and commandeer women's uteri.

In the world, we still have

• bride kidnappings and forced marriages,
• female genital mutilation to prevent her from enjoying sex so that she doesn't cheat
• sex-selective abortion and infanticide of girl children
• widow immolation
• rape
• denying access to contraceptives and abortion
• "honour killing" of women and girls

In the UK, women and girls are still raped daily. In the UK, women and girls are still abducted or tricked into travelling to their ancestral homelands to be forcibly married to someone they have never met. In the UK, girls are still genitally mutilated, either here or after being taken "on holiday" overseas. In the UK, there are still men who abuse women by attempting to deny them contraceptives. In the UK, women and girls are still "honour killed" by men. That's more than half of that global list, still happening here where we are supposed to have legal equality.

The law means nothing when it's not obeyed and inadequately enforced.

If we have equally then why are so many women fired during or straight after their maternity leave? Why are so few rapes prosecuted? Why is there still a pay gap (which is 90% in London's financial district)? Why is catcalling still allowed? Why are women not allowed to talk about women's rights without being harassed?

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

Well, many women don't return to their previous jobs as per the comments from the other thread, they choose something they enjoy and let the husband continue in the stressful role. But I wasn't really meaning that. More that most men have to endure 40+ years in the same daily environment without more than the occasional week off.

But it’s men that by and large control capitalism. It’s men who dominate the boards of companies, the House of Parliament & the judiciary. It is entirely within men’s hands to change that if they wanted to to enable them to be at home more, work more flexibly, provide better paternity leave

And yet funnily enough they seem to prefer it as it is....

But it’s men that by and large control capitalism. It’s men who dominate the boards of companies, the House of Parliament & the judiciary. It is entirely within men’s hands to change that if they wanted to to enable them to be at home more, work more flexibly, provide better paternity leave.

And yet funnily enough they seem to prefer it as it is....

This is where class analysis falls down for me, because it lumps all men together. Who says the elite 1% at the top care about the other 99% of men slogging it daily?

The multi-billionaires at the top aren't likely to be bound by the same restrictions/responsibilities as most men - i.e. having to work 80 hour weeks to pay the bills.

Yeah, "men control capitalism" is really not useful IMO. There are not men in the middle or at the bottom sending the benefits of their productive labour upward thinking "oh, this is all right, just so long as my own sex is at the top."

Capitalism doesn't care if the people at the top, or indeed the people at the bottom, are men or women, sex differences are an inconvenience for it. Feminism has (unwittingly) at times been used as a tool to lure women into becoming as beholden to capital as men. Capital would be happy for women and men to be rendered identical and infants grown in sacks in warehouses on lab grown algae.

This is where class analysis falls down for me, because it lumps all men together. Who says the elite 1% at the top care about the other 99% of men slogging it daily?

The multi-billionaires at the top aren't likely to be bound by the same restrictions/responsibilities as most men

The men at the bottom care very much about becoming one of the men at the top, or so they say.

Thank you, TehBeliderness!

There were straw persons abounding there.

"Capitalism doesn't care if the people at the top, or indeed the people at the bottom, are men or women, "

So which class of people

Damn, pressed the wrong key before I'd finished writing!

Which class of people are still the boss class? Have always been the boss class? At all levels of society?

Which class of people still tend to be the ones looking after children and old people, most often unpaid?

Listen women all over the world have a long way to go (every race, class, nationality, sexual orientation)

With that said white women (especially heterosexual, especially middle class, especially western) have privileges that our fellow sisters do not benefit from.

That doesn't mean that white or western women or middle class women or straight women are without having to deal with misogyny it just means that there are other women (black, Jewish, gay, poor) who deal with layers of sexism and racism and classism and homophobia etc that many white women are blind to.

We need to admit that and do the necessary work - not pull the wool over each others eyes.

There are not men in the middle or at the bottom sending the benefits of their productive labour upward thinking "oh, this is all right, just so long as my own sex is at the top."

Even the lowliest of men knows that there are women below him on the socio-economic ladder. We usually call these women "prostitutes". The lowliest of men, given the chance, can rape the most exalted of women and in doing so degrade her to below him. Mary Queen of Scots was a queen regnant and that didn't protect her from abduction, rape, pregnancy, and having to marry her rapist to ensure that her child was born in wedlock.

The men at the bottom care very much about becoming one of the men at the top, or so they say.

Yup, I've heard about all those super ambitious binmen who want to be CEOs.

Which class of people are still the boss class? Have always been the boss class? At all levels of society?Which class of people still tend to be the ones looking after children and old people, most often unpaid

Sex differences have always existed.....and societies have structured themselves in various ways on account of them. Short of trans-humanism being the next inevitable stage ( certainly not something i hold to be a desirable goal) on the journey towards 'equality' I think we've almost reached peak 'equality' - certainly in the west, where equal civil and legal rights already exist.

In a complex and multi-cultural socierty people will inevitable make different vchoices, pursue differnt lifestyles and hold different values.

I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to enforce 'sameness' or equality of outcome on everyone - outside of some kind of central state control. I think it is fairly inevitable, as long as women become mothers, and men don't, that generally speaking men and women will make different choices and place value on different things at different times and stages of life.

We need to admit that and do the necessary work - not pull the wool over each others eyes

It does sound as if you are searching for Nirvana.

And what if 'progress' turns out not to be linear, but circular? What if many women decide that having to have a full time job or career is not all that it was cracked up to be, and that maybe, given the opportunity they'd actually like to stay at home for a few years, or for many?

And all of those 'privileged white women' who live hundreds of miles from their families because of careers, who don't have the benefit of a multi-generational household or close family network near by ( that can ease the burden of solo child-care)......having instead to employ other women to do some of the work that they'd really rather like to do themselves?

What is this desirable end game we are supposedly seeking? I often get the impression that people want to wish away actual differences between the sexes, as well as denying cultural differences in value and lifestyle.

I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to enforce 'sameness' or equality of outcome on everyone

That would be undesirable. A building site team can't all be plumbers, who would lay bricks and wire up sockets? An orchestra can't all be cellists, who would play the timpani? Difference is valuable and all skills should be valued.

What is this desirable end game we are supposedly seeking?

End of male violence and male sexual entitlement, which keeps women in fear. Increased value placed on motherhood and caring work, I refer you to my earlier point about valuing all skills.

I often get the impression that people want to wish away actual differences between the sexes, as well as denying cultural differences in value and lifestyle.

That would the trans lobby, aided and abetted by liberal "feminists". This board is largely radical feminist. We acknowledge sex difference and recognise that male entitlement to women's sexed bodies for sexual gratification and reproductive purposes is at the root of all oppression of women.

Radical feminists often say they don't want to eliminate sex differences, and then they make a bunch of arguments that are largely about eliminating sex differences - the assumption is always that the thing being talked about is just cultural and not a real sex difference at all. That's why it always comes up in these discussions about women in the workforce and the nature of childcare. There s a reason modern feminism is largely predicated on the ability to prevent pregnancy.

Class and sex exist in concert - every class is divided into men and women, and as such they don't and can't operate simply as part of the same gradient. TBH I think the way historical societies are pointed to as undifferentiated examples of men being on top is not really helpful, there have been quite a variety of different ways male and female differences have been accommodated in societies over time and to say all oppressed women or did so equally is just untrue. I suspect part of the reason modern people assume they are all the same is that almost invariably women's roles were much more connected to their roles as mothers, and the assumption is that's sexist and reflects a lack of freedom, when it's really just a material fact. That, and the fact that people's ways of thinking about freedom and personhood were expressed in very different terms makes it difficult for people to relate.

That would the trans lobby, aided and abetted by liberal "feminists". This board is largely radical feminist. We acknowledge sex difference and recognise that male entitlement to women's sexed bodies for sexual gratification and reproductive purposes is at the root of all oppression of women

I've never really attached the label feminist to myself, although I have often used the adjective 'radical'. Of course, though, I believe, and know, that women are full human beings, and that they should have every possible opportunity in life to express themselves fully in ......according to their innate talent, skill etc Of course I do.....

I also appreciate that I live in a western liberal democracy and that many/most women in the world do not.But just because someone doesn't necessarily agree with a certain precise and rigid ideology does not make them any less less 'radical' than yourself. I don't see anything radical in clinging to an idea and framework that no longer really applies.....In fact, on the contrary...going against an accepted 'truth' can be, itself, a radical act; certainly if you have spent a long time in association with that particular truth or stance.

I, personally, came to this board because of my awareness of the implications of trans ideology: because I not only find the notion that being a woman is just "a inner feeling", and that a man could just self identify, offensive...but am aware of the deep implications for children, young people and for the future of women's spaces, services and sports, of this pernicious ideology.

It doesn't make one a 'liberal feminist' to reject the idea that there are no differences between the sexes ( quite the contrary); and that women might actually choose to stay at home when they have young children; and it also doesn't make one any less 'feminist' to value men, in general, as well as specific men.....nor to recognise that many relationships operate quite successfully with some basic divisions of role between the sexes when there are children involved ( & and even when not).

Personally, I think some feminist rhetoric is as bad as most trans rhetoric, or that of any other fixed inter-sectionalist type perspective - where being 'male, or 'white', or 'middle class' or 'western' etc necessarily means you should always " check your privilege" in a nod to the identified victim group.

I haven't always viewed things this way...but life and experience have brought me to it. I'm not a 'liberal' and never will be......I have far too many strong views and ideas for that.

I broadly acknowledge the general balances of power in the world, but no longer necessarily agree on the explanations, and maybe not all of the solutions.

adjective: radical

(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.

Radical Feminism is defined as as going to the root of women's oppression.

Radical is not a synonym for extreme though it is used as one by some people.

Gender, aka sex role stereotypes, vary from one culture to another in the ways the males oppress and control women.
The female reproductive capacity is the basis for the cultural control of women. Even in areas where women have gained reproductive control the traditions of the dominance/submission paradigm have ossified.

This is Feminism 101 and yet it appears to be completely unheard of by people arguing on the Feminist board of a women's forum.