Home » National Comment

If feminists want full equality for men and women, let them have it

26 February 2008

The rise of feminists in British Universities and indeed throughout society in the last fifty years reveals some interesting trends, such as the growth of radical ideas focused on the upheaval of many traditional ways of running our country. These ideas have been to an extent absorbed into the political mainstream by government, which now has ministers for equality, women and the family. True, equality is not something which government can legislate to achieve in any political system, but these are sentiments most people would welcome.

Firstly, one must acknowledge that women getting paid less for doing the same job as a male colleague is totally unacceptable, even abhorrent, and thus the average 18% pay gap between men and women should be closed or nullified. Something should also be done about the fact that only around 1% of boardroom members in our leading companies are female. Feminists who think that these astronomical alterations to our economic and societal relations should come without costs, though, are deeply misguided.

If we are to see equality of the sort that many women seek, then in areas where men are the people who are disadvantaged our approach is going to have to change. Men are going to have to be accepted as equal parents, with women not getting presumed to get custody of the children after a break-up. Fathers really should get justice. Dads should be presumed to have as much paternity leave as women get maternity leave when their children are born.

In various careers, such a move would be interesting too. To get equality in the police force, the requirement for the minimum speed in running a mile would need to be dropped even further than it already has been in an attempt to help more women to qualify. The net result would be more criminals evading police custody. In the Army, an equal number of men and women should be at the frontline risking their lives for Queen and Country

Many feminists would favour equality in these areas, but how many would go and fight the enemy abroad or wrestle a drug-fuelled criminal to the ground? Their notion of equality is not one in which women and men share the burden of responsibility in the family home, at work or in the community, as they do almost entirely nowadays, but one where men take the risks, with women getting the rewards.

The most startling change would probably come in pensions. Women live four years longer on average in the UK than men do. However, most women retire at sixty – five years earlier than men doing the same job do. If Britain is facing a crisis with an ageing population, then why not merely extend the time women work by nine years (which would seem fair given the statistics) and enable them to retire at sixty-nine?

I defy you to find a feminist who thinks that this solution to a pressing problem throughout the western world is one worth adopting, but why should the male retirement age be extended to sixty-seven or sixty-eight when we already work longer?

In sport, the Olympic races should be unisex, with only three medals in every event – not the six that are currently awarded. One suspects that if equality was observed in this manner across the board, the female cause would be set back a couple of hundred years; few female athletes are able to compete with their male contemporaries. The point is that differences between the sexes abound, and that equality in some, if not most, areas is frankly unfeasible and would prove controversial and unfair.

In other areas, men are just as disadvantaged as women are – not being able to raise their children, working longer, and succumbing to certain societal expectations about behaviours such as proposing, making the first move, opening doors, paying bills and organising family finances. This renders any complaint of inequality obsolete.

Perhaps some would prefer to do the ironing or cook dinner and have their partners repair the DVD Player or mend a shelf, but we don’t protest about that perceived unfairness. Do women really want to change society’s expectations of men just for the sake of having a few more female MPs or boardroom directors?

It is important for women to have the opportunity to excel in an environment which gives them a chance to compete on a level playing field or running track against each other before they do so with men. Girls, before you too join the ranks of the feminists in demanding more representation, opportunity, prestige and uniformity, remember to be careful what you wish for.

  • cim

    I couldn’t work out whether this article was trying to be a sensible statement on the need for work on equality to look at both sexes rather than either in isolation, or a rant against some perceived extremist feminist straw(wo)man. It certainly comes across as the latter… which is a pity since there are valuable points to be made on the former.

    “Dads should be presumed to have as much paternity leave as women get maternity leave when their children are born.”

    You say this as if expecting large numbers of women to object! In the countries (Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and similar) that either have equal leave or an amount of parenting leave that the two parents are able to divide up as they see fit, there is much greater equality in wages, representation at the highest levels (Iceland, I believe, has around 60% female company directors), and so on.

    I think this follows quite straightforwardly: if (statutory) maternity leave is significantly greater than paternity leave, then it’s clear that the government expects women to stay at home, look after the kids, and suffer a drop in earnings and loss of career development as a direct result (and then the government has the nerve to act surprised about it!). Feminists should well be in favour of equalised maternity and paternity leave.

    “To get equality in the police force, the requirement for the minimum speed in running a mile would need to be dropped even further than it already has been in an attempt to help more women to qualify.”

    You seem to assume that equality in the police would require a 50:50 split of frontline officers. No, of course it wouldn’t (I’d likewise expect any job where excessive height or weight was a disadvantage to be majority female), but that hardly implies that the current split is correct.

    “but how many would go and fight the enemy abroad or wrestle a drug-fuelled criminal to the ground?”

    Given the current recruitment problems of both the police and the armed forces, I have a strong suspicion that not many men are willing to do that either. This is hardly an argument against allowing women who are willing to do so and physically capable of it to join.

    “This renders any complaint of inequality obsolete.”

    No it doesn’t. There are undeniably inequalities in both directions, but are you seriously suggesting that they exactly cancel out, or that even if they did exactly cancel out they wouldn’t be worth addressing anyway?

    “[...] but we don’t protest about that perceived unfairness. Do women really want to change society’s expectations of men just for the sake of having a few more female MPs or boardroom directors?”

    Society’s expectations of men are just as horribly broken as society’s expectations of women, even if the stereotypical male traits are currently generally seen as the superior ones. Yes, both need seriously changing and I’d suspect few feminists disagreed.

    The suppression in men of various generally positive things seen as “unmanly” (expressing emotions, disliking conflict, etc) from an early age is widely implicated in numerous problems for men today (including having one of the highest male suicide rates in Europe) – so I think to claim that no-one is protesting about it being unfair is somewhat disingenuous.

    Actually, surely the House of Commons should have a substantial majority of women anyway, since women are statistically better at communication, empathy and various other skills that should be valuable for MPs?

  • Natalie

    The author has a terribly old fashioned and one-dimensional view of feminists.

    “..but how many would go and fight the enemy abroad or wrestle a drug-fuelled criminal to the ground?”

    This may well ring true in middle class communities but where I come from (a deprived small town in the North East) it is quite common for young women to aspire to join the forces/ emergency services. These women don’t regard themselves as feminists, they are just strong women who often can’t find any other meaningful way of making ends meet. There are plenty of women who fight on the frontline and work for the police, you just haven’t met them Joe.

    The person above makes a lot of valid points that I would have made had they not already been said.

    Joe, you pay lipservice to supporting parts of the feminist cause but all that comes across in this article is contempt for women (apart from those who stay at home, bake cakes, wear floral skirts and live in Middle England, probably). Sorry to be facetious but I can’t take this piece seriously as it makes no attempt to understand what feminists actually want.

  • http://palatinate.org.uk Editorial

    PLEASE NOTE – CORRECTION:
    This article was erroneously credited in the paper edition to Zaki Moosa. This version is the correct one.
    Thanks.
    Editorial team

  • Dave

    So… is this a joke or what?

    Tell us Joe!

    TELL US!

  • Anthony

    You write like a misguided twelve year-old.

  • Natalie (number 2!)

    Joe – would just like to point out that, believe it or not, not all feminists are girls.

  • Angry male feminist

    And not all women like to be referred to in the dimnutive as ‘girls’.

  • Pippa

    I think that there is confusion between gender (socially constructed) and sex (biological)….an old problem.

    Having olympic categories divided into the two sexes is not a socially-imposed distinction, but a biological one.

    What is underlyingly problematic about biases in gender relationships is way that men and women are subtly constructed by society’s values. For example, has anyone seen the ‘man-size’ kleenex tissue boxes? Why are they ‘man-size’? Because, in our culture, we relate ‘large’ with ‘men’ and tissues are ‘feminine’ because they are light and insubstantial, when in actual fact they are just a necessity.

    Engendered objects do not show up on our clearly on our ‘gender bias’ radar as the ratio of women:men in a board room. But these symbolic meanings are imbedded in society and they are not so easy to change. Any attempt at thinking exact equality would ever occur would have to think on all levels.

    PS- Are you presuming that the criminal running away from the police officer is a man or just that criminals are all physically fitter then female officers?

  • Joe

    Ok pieces of this are over the top, and pieces are a joke. Think I really feel a kind of positive male agenda is needed, whereas what comes across is probably simply anti-feminism. Also, I do not dispute things like brave women fight abroad or join the police, thats obvious. I tend to think statistics should be ironed out in terms of representation in these areas of all sections of the community if we want to do so in areas like managing directors etc. I apologise at describing anybody as a girl, which was an error. But I have been quite angry at being refered to as a boy on recent occasions, but nobody seems to think that is offensive do they? I find it very interesting Natalie that you drive forwards with this point about me being a middle-class, middle-englander (I presume you expect wealthy, southern, privately-educated and all the rest of it). You make a big point about being from the North-East, so am I, or perhaps technically just outside, near Guisborough. Not rolling about in money either, though why upbringing should lead anyone to think they can say one thing or another is beyond me.

  • andrew jackson

    Despite the carping criticisms, the author is completely correct. Women do not want equality; they want it both ways. Any claim of discrimination against women is nonsense. Why should a sex which gets everything in divorce court, which receives automatic custody of children, which receives massive child support and alimony, which enjoys exemption from military service, which gets first place on the lifeboats, be given all the jobs too?

    Women should be fired from their jobs, stripped of the right to vote and kicked back into kitchen and bedroom where all women belong. Feminism must be destroyed-along with socialism, racial equality, communism and zionism.

    By A Right Wing Extremist

  • Lance

    Thanks for the reply in the comments section, Joe. The original article does come across as somewhat ranting.
    You’ll be pleased to hear that there is a vast section of gender theorists and researchers who examine society’s construction of masculinity in the light of its effect on the individuals. Our university has offered three or more courses (all of which I took) on the subject of masculinity this semester alone. It sometimes seems that people find masculinity more interesting than femininity these days.
    Please do not be under the delusion that feminists only want personal advantages. True feminism stands for exactly the opposite: fairness, equality, anti-bias.

    Andrew Jackson, I think you are a troll. No one can be that dumb.

  • andrew jackson

    Lance:

    I am anything but dumb. I see the truth precisely as it is. Women are lying about “sex discrimination”.

    Let me make it as simple as it really is. Visualize 1950′s America in the following terms. Women work to support men who stay home and raise the children, women give men everything in divorce court (her house, her car, all her money), women fight and die by the thousands in Korea and Vietnam while men drink tea with the boys back home, women go down with the Titanic so that men and babies can climb on the life boats, women work themselves into heart attacks at work so that men can outlive women by seven years and inherit 80% of all the personal wealth in the United States. Men have it made. In 1963 a revolutionary book appears on the market. It is “The Male Mystique” by Betty Schmuckstein. Betty poses as a suburban house husband but is really a life-long Jewish communist. (Jews created communism, didn’t they? Consult “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People” by the Right Honourable Winston S. Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920) Betty was a member of the Congress of American Women, the chief communist legal front for females. She was also a member of the United Electrical, Radio and Machinists Union, the chief communist labor organization of the 1940′s and 1950′s. Betty claims that men are victims of “sex discrimination”. She claims that the average male suburban house husband is really living in a camoflauged Auschwitz concentration camp. Men must “liberate” themselves and pursue careers and high paying jobs in addition to “men and babies first”. Women put their foot down. They make clear to men that they do not deserve the same jobs as women because men do not have to support the opposite sex like women do, men do not have to give it all away in divorce court like women do and men do not have to pay child support and alimomy like women do. Therefore, men are justifiably paid less money. They do not have equal operating expenses. The idiot male feminists, their case completely refuted, go home and cry hysterically into their diapers like the biological dingbats they are. (A man’s brain is 10% smaller than a woman’s and has six times fewer gray thinking cells. )

    You may appreciate the satire or you may not, Lance, but the logic is irrefutable. And now another point. You may have noticed that a disproportionate number of feminists are Jewish. these feminists are covering up some very inconvenient facts about how women are treated in Israel. In Israel, a woman cannot get a divorce without her husband’s consent. (It is called “giving her the get”.) If a husband dies while his wife is still childless, the childless wife is required to offer herself in marriage to the brother of the deceased husband. It is called the “levirate marriage”. Abortion became legal in Israel much later than in other countries. To this day, a Jewess in Israel cannot make the decision to have an abortion on her own. She must apply to a state board which either grants or denies permission. These interesting practices can be verified in any number of rare academic works. I shall mention only one. “Behind The Banner And The Flag” by Yael Yisrael, State University Of New York Press. Do you suppose, Lance, that there is an ethnic con job at work here?

    If you will read the Communist press of the 1940′ through 1950′s, Lance, you will discover that they consistently demanded the abolition of the role of housewife and the entry of women into the labor market. They demanded the provision of “maternity leave” so that women could enter the labor market without losing their jobs. This was in complete contrast to the Christian women of the industrial revolution in America who demanded that the emerging industrial system pay men enough money to support a family so that women could staty home and raise the children. Thus, the “man earns the bread” system was set up by women themselves. (Read “There Is No Place Like Work” by Brian C. Robertson, for confirmation.) You have a lot to learn, Lance. You will not learn it at universty-but you might learn it from a man who learns all the “verboten” facts he is not supposed to know-and not just on the lie called feminism.

  • Ron

    Lance,

    The person posting as Andrew Jackson is a regular poster on a website called http://www.counterknowledge.com under the psuedonym john thames.

    You would be surprised to learn he is in fact “that dumb.”

  • andrew jackson

    You guys should join the “Counterknowledge.com” debate on the hoax of the Nazi “gas chambers”. Not merely will you learn that the story is, in fact, a hoax, you will bring down on your heads the “Bishop Williamson” treatment by those who practice “free speech” while covering up holy lies. It will give you a real education of the way the real world works.

  • andrew jackson

    THE NAME OF THE GAME IS LIE

    It is pure infantilism to imagine that political disagreements are about honest disagreements of opinion. They are not. Political disagreements are about using self-serving lies to get what one wants. Let us illustrate by using “sex discrimination” as an example. Women know perfectly that they were never victims of discrimination. They were not victims of discrimination when getting everything their husbands money paid for in divorce court, or in getting automatic custody of the kids or picking up their child support and alimony checks. They weren’t victims of discrimination climbing on the lifeboats first or in sitting on their privileged ass while the opposite sex did the fighting and dying. Discrimination only became a problem when they figured out they could grab all the jobs too. Now it is pointless to tell women that they are lying about discrimination. They know they are lying the same way the Jews know they are lying about the fake “gas chambers” and the “six million”. Therefore, why point out the obvious?” Snivel rights” for blacks is another example of the principle that truth has nothing to do with it.. Blacks know perfectly that defective black genes, not white racism, is the cause of their problems. But if they can make white racism a bogey, then then they can use it to extort whatever they want. So too with the Jews and their beloved state of Israel. The Jews know perfectly that they are the cause of the problems because they stole Palestine from the Arabs. But if they can convince the ignorant, brainwashed Americans that the Arabs are the cause of the problems by mislabeling them “terrorists”, then Israel can continue its odious policies with the blessings of the American treasury.

    The name of the game children, is lie. Lie, lie, lie. Never tolerate the truth. Shout it down, suppress it, turn facts upside down, and shout nonsense and epithets at the top of your lungs. Make the truth whatever supports your interests. That is the real world. Anyone who wants the objective truth had best search for it in archives and rare literature. It will not be found in the real world of self-serving liars.