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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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)
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...
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).
