The Politics Thread

[littleDinosaurLuke]

Some of the changes (some being changes in law) which permitted women to become professionals and hold public office are remarkably recent - not in any of our lifetimes, but not too long ago. First woman doctor in UK in 1865, first dentist 1895, first architect 1898, first mayor 1905, first magistrate 1913 , first policewoman 1914, first MP 1919 - which was also the year the Sex Discrimination Act allowed women to become lawyers, vets and civil servants.

So most of us would have had grandmothers (many probably fairly recently deceased), who were born into a society which had very few women professionals. It takes more than a couple of generations for it become the norm for women to enter these professions in the same way and on the same terms as men. Many women now aged 60 or above would have grown up in families where there had never been any expectation that a daughter would become a professional. Those who did invariably had some social advantages.

In 2016, you should expect sexual equality in the workplace - particularly equality of opportunity - but one significant factor holding many women back is the experiences of their older relatives, whose attitudes and outlook may have been different to modern day feminists and still have influence. It's still common for daughters to follow mothers into certain types of work - often low paid manual work with a large employer, but there is (or was)at least job security. It takes time for people's attitudes to change. It's not a question of being oppressed or disadvantaged, but of people sticking with what's familiar and has been secure in the past.

It may take longer for the culture to change even with equal opportunities.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

They won't be convicted of rape but they will be convicted under one of its sister laws. It's a bit misleading to suggest women can't be convicted or raping a man as, in general, the definition of rape to the general public is different to what it is in law. I'd consider any sexual activity without consent as rape yet much of it will fall under sexual assault laws. I do agree that rape should either be applied as a term in law to refer to a wider spectrum of sexual assaults, or else removed to avoid its unbalanced appearance. The laws themselves are very well put together though and cover the spectrum of a complex cases that can arise, allowing escalation of sentences to cover the most extreme rapes, no matter whether they fall under rape law, or sexual assault laws.

I largely agree with you, but it sends out the wrong message.
Lots of people already believe that a man can't be raped by a woman. We don't need that enshrined in law.

 

[RobSpur]

It may take longer for the culture to change even with equal opportunities.

(Spoken in Inspector Clouseau voice)

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Spurf]

We're literally talking about inherited titles. That doesn't have any bearing on the vast majority of the public.
Is there anything in British law or even in British culture that replicates or resembles this that affects the rest of the population?
It's not an extreme conclusion to come to at all and the suggestion that it is is laughable, frankly.

How is he recognised in law? He inherited a title and so did his sisters.
The division of property is entirely up to the deceased and he chose to do it via trusts to avoid tax, so we don't even know who got what.

We're talking about roughly 1,000 people here, I believe, so this effects a tiny percentage of the country's population.
Should it be changed? Yes. Does it deserve comparison to the way that roughly half of the Saudi people are treated? I don't think so.

I don't like the Saudi dictatorship and I don't think that they should be a major partner to the UK and US.
Their society is appalling, they fund terrorism and extremism around the world and oppress the crap out of their own people.
Does this have anything to do with some billionaires getting slightly less privileged titles over here? I can't see it, myself.

What next? Is Prince Philip being oppressed, as he's not allowed to become king?

PNP I think you are targetting the wrong part here although much of our law is based on being a monarchy and therefore to that extent it affects us all. However let's not labour the point I used it as ONE example of how we still don't have an equal society for men and women. Only a couple of months ago a friend of mine was told her husband had to sign a document as her signature would not count. She is in her sixties.

What is your point PNP you agree with me on the nature of Saudi and the support we and the USA give them, that's the important point surely.
Do you think we should not be arguing the case for women's equality? Do you think they have it? I am not clear what you are driving at.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

No it hasnt dont "enough". In some ways it has already done too much, because it is out of control and doing harm not good. That's the problem.

And for your information, Britain in the 1920s was not a colder version of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a culture based on Wahabiism. Britain is not, and never has been.

It's never going to be an accurate reflection of Saudi Arabia because of the cultural differences and the fact we're only talking about women's rights issues. It also doesn't help for comparisions that we did away with a lot of our capital punishments along time ago. But to act like there wasn't a lot of very repressive laws for women in Britain, or they don't bare comparison to women's rights in Saudi Arabia is totally wrong imo.

 

[RobSpur]

It's never going to be an accurate reflection of Saudi Arabia because of the cultural differences and the fact we're only talking about women's rights issues. It also doesn't help for comparisions that we did away with a lot of our capital punishments along time ago. But to act like there wasn't a lot of very repressive laws for women in Britain, or they don't bare comparison to women's rights in Saudi Arabia is totally wrong imo.

I don't think it is wrong.

Please though, could we just walk away with our opinions on this issue ???

For me, he last thing his thread needs is a 10 page analysis of the similiarities and differences between modern Saudi and pre war Britain

I dont see how it has any bearing on the average pay etc discussion anyway tbh.

 

[Spurf]

No doubt you are going to go on to explain how 21st century british society is dictated by those with hereditary titles...

That's very easy, have you not heard of the House of Lords? Have you not heard about the land owning situation in 21st century Britain? 70% of the land is owned by 3% of the people. Mostly since the Norman conquest and that effects our society very much indeed. From the various property laws to the subsidies in place for large landowners, from the price of our houses to the council tax, from the income tax laws, to the lack of basic democracy.

 

[RobSpur]

That's very easy, have you not heard of the House of Lords? Have you not heard about the land owning situation in 21st century Britain? 70% of the land is owned by 3% of the people. Mostly since the Norman conquest and that effects our society very much indeed. From the various property laws to the subsidies in place for large landowners, from the price of our houses to the council tax, from the income tax laws, to the lack of basic democracy.

I don't see how any of that can be taken as determining sexual equality in he workplace issues tbh. I don't see how it has any bearing on it at all.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

I largely agree with you, but it sends out the wrong message.
Lots of people already believe that a man can't be raped by a woman. We don't need that enshrined in law.

The trouble is that we're talking about common law and a statutory law so it's not particularly simple to solve.

The easiest way for us to treat misconceptions, such as women can't rape, or the incorrect reactions to the more nuanced and practical consent definitions we have is through education. Rape and consent educations have sadly proven quite controversial though so I may regret bringing it up as an option.

Anyway, it's a lovely, sunny Friday afternoon, I'm going to go get some beers and avoid anymore rape discussion.

 

[Spurf]

I don't see how any of that can be taken as determining sexual equality in he workplace issues tbh. I don't see how it has any bearing on it at all.

Rob trying to narrow the argument to suit a position won't work We are talking about equality for the sexes not just workplace law.
Equality issues cover every aspect of life, that's a given is it not?

 

[Spurf]

The trouble is that we're talking about common law and a statutory law so it's not particularly simple to solve.

The easiest way for us to treat misconceptions, such as women can't rape, or the incorrect reactions to the more nuanced and practical consent definitions we have is through education. Rape and consent educations have sadly proven quite controversial though so I may regret bringing it up as an option.

Anyway, it's a lovely, sunny Friday afternoon, I'm going to go get some beers and avoid anymore rape discussion.

Well I'm glad you have some sun, it's pissing down where I am. LOL

 

[No Kane No Gain]

I don't think it is wrong.

Please though, could we just walk away with our opinions on this issue ???

For me, he last thing his thread needs is a 10 page analysis of the similiarities and differences between modern Saudi and pre war Britain

I dont see how it has any bearing on the average pay etc discussion anyway tbh.

Average pay? ****, is this what sparked it all off?!

I hardly visit this thread but when I do I always find discussions that are clearly a few pages in already and just leave it. I usually just pop in to see whether the discussions have turned into arguments over whether it's fair to liken the Tories to Nazis yet

 

[RobSpur]

Rob trying to narrow the argument to suit a position won't work We are talking about equality for the sexes not just workplace law.
Equality issues cover every aspect of life, that's a given is it not?

Spurf, the discussion - pages and pages ago - was about pressure applied to society, businesses and inidividuals, to obtain equal average pay between genders.

We have never fully discussed the point, because time and time again when we begin to do so, the discussion is....I'm really tempted to say sabotaged, or derailed....is.....distracted, by wider references to equality related issues and to the historical matters which often have no bearing on the initial discussion.

It reminds me of a disclosure procedure in a trial, where in order to hide the vital document, the party submits 100s of lever arch files, in the hope that the vital piece of paper can never be found.

Clearly, people can talk about whatever they want to talk about. Indeed, this thread as you know is for all political issues, nit those just relating to equality. However....a discussion was started, and it has not been finished. And I for one, would feel a much greater sense of fair play, if the discussion that was embarked upon some 25 pages ago, could be progressed, without constant distraction.

 

[RobSpur]

Average pay? ****, is this what sparked it all off?!

I hardly visit this thread but when I do I always find discussions that are clearly a few pages in already and just leave it. I usually just pop in to see whether the discussions have turned into arguments over whether it's fair to liken the Tories to Nazis yet

 

[RobSpur]

Have a great weekend everyone.

Fingers crossed for tomorrow

 

[Spurf]

Spurf, the discussion - pages and pages ago - was about pressure applied to society, businesses and inidividuals, to obtain equal average pay between genders.

We have never fully discussed the point, because time and time again when we begin to do so, the discussion is....I'm really tempted to say sabotaged, or derailed....is.....distracted, by wider references to equality related issues and to the historical matters which often have no bearing on the initial discussion.

It reminds me of a disclosure procedure in a trial, where in order to hide the vital document, the party submits 100s of lever arch files, in the hope that the vital piece of paper can never be found.

Clearly, people can talk about whatever they want to talk about. Indeed, this thread as you know is for all political issues, nit those just relating to equality. However....a discussion was started, and it has not been finished. And I for one, would feel a much greater sense of fair play, if the discussion that was embarked upon some 25 pages ago, could be progressed, without constant distraction.

Rob I am a moderator and I cannot dictate the direction of discussion, you have no chance.

 

[lennypops]

We're literally talking about inherited titles. That doesn't have any bearing on the vast majority of the public.
Is there anything in British law or even in British culture that replicates or resembles this that affects the rest of the population?
It's not an extreme conclusion to come to at all and the suggestion that it is is laughable, frankly.

How is he recognised in law? He inherited a title and so did his sisters.
The division of property is entirely up to the deceased and he chose to do it via trusts to avoid tax, so we don't even know who got what.

We're talking about roughly 1,000 people here, I believe, so this effects a tiny percentage of the country's population.
Should it be changed? Yes. Does it deserve comparison to the way that roughly half of the Saudi people are treated? I don't think so.

I don't like the Saudi dictatorship and I don't think that they should be a major partner to the UK and US.
Their society is appalling, they fund terrorism and extremism around the world and oppress the crap out of their own people.
Does this have anything to do with some billionaires getting slightly less privileged titles over here? I can't see it, myself.

What next? Is Prince Philip being oppressed, as he's not allowed to become king?

Okay so we're back to this idea of bits of society or moments in society being totally insulated and having no effect on any other part? I'm not even sure where to start to be honest.

To make sure I understand: the law of male preference in inheritance of the throne or aristocratic titles is not connected in any way with any other social ideas, customs or traditions? They reflect and perpetuate no *ideas* or *attitudes* that may find expression and manifestation in other aspects of the society which they are part?

I mean is my saying "the society of which they are part" making it a loaded question in your eyes?

I'm really struggling with this one. Can ideas and practices just pop up out of nowhere from no context at all and also, at the same time, have no effect on contributing to a new context?

I just cannot believe that you think that. And if you *don't* think that then why would one of the single oldest and most influential and powerful groups and concepts in British society over the last 1000 years (say) not either be a reflection of a larger society or have any influence on the ideas, tastes, rules, manners and laws of that larger society?

Hang on - you *do* believe that there's such a thing as society, right?(genuine question)

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Well I'm glad you have some sun, it's pissing down where I am. LOL

It's a beauty today, nice breeze good bit of sun. Time to get the Speedos out and sit in my front garden drinking Stella.

I'll leave you all with that mental image...

 

[Spurf]

It's a beauty today, nice breeze good bit of sun. Time to get the Speedos out and sit in my front garden drinking Stella.

I'll leave you all with that mental image...

 

[remembercolinlee]

You're either unaware of how long feminism has been around for or are unaware of all the change that has happened since. Marital rape was made legally rape in the early 60s, equal pay and the first sexual harassment laws was in the early 70s, full voting rights in the 30s.

As you say, take away the laws that protect equality and it will not send the whole of the UK backwards during a day. Put those laws in place and things don't change overnight either. Sexual harassment still exists as does marital rape, decades after the laws were passed.

There's this weird idea these days that feminism has done enough. As if things have improved so there's no reason to do any more. Imagine if the civil rights movement in America said "yeah there's still open and systemic racism but black kids are now allowed to go to the same schools as white kids. Lets pack it up, lads, we've done enough". Or imagine if police here went "murders have been going down so that's good enough, no need to carry on with this". The pursuit of equality and justice doesn't just end with the change of a law, or some societal improvement.

I agree with your post so I ain't being a smart arse when I say that marital rape in Britain was made a crime in 1991...just 25 years ago! Between 1965 and 1991 only "exceptional situations" could lead to rape charges (like if the couple were separated but not yet divorced).