I'm not sure about the UK, but the situation might be a little different in Finland. While I agree with this part:
Quote:
|
These sort of laws are based on the cultural stereotype of women being easily-led innocent pixies who cant be held responsible for their own actions
|
Following the gender equality debate in Finland, you can't really say the women would be doing (granted, the equality debate in Finland is predominantly discussed by women - because men are seen "unfit" to take part into the discussion because of the touted patriarchal order of the society since the stoneage, which is also responsible for the myths) anything to change the issue. A bit ackward example would be that, women would prefer a totally equal society over gender differences: the Finnish Defence Forces have a habit of ranking people regarding their physical condition, and for women it's easier to achieve higher ranks (ie. 2700 at cooper's good, whilst it takes 3000 for men). What I am staggeringly after, is that, women aren't willing to give up on their advantages over men, but are keen on closing the gap from their point of view.
The debate is currently going into a direction where equality is the superficial goal. This is good.
What isn't good, is, that the debate doesn't involve men, and as by according to Minister Wallin, the debate really needs men - why - because currently the direction is in improving women's position, but neglecting the other side of the view.
There has
never been an initiative in the house of parliament regarding the obligatory military service in Finland - why - because nobody wants to discuss that part of equality. Nobody wants to discuss the myth of men being brutal, sexual predators to whom a woman is a pixie to be kept in between the kitchen and the bed. These aren't points of interest. They are discussing wage improvements for female dominated areas, they are discussing gender requirements for PLCs, we're concerned on how women fit into the working life.
On the other hand, we have a dramatic difference for women in for example the universities, but nobody is concerned about that. On the other hand, men are forced to serve six to thirteen months in military or civil service (and I personally would have prefered spending those nine months, plus the leftovers, either working and thus earning money or studying), or alternatively spending six months in jail. Nobody is concerned about that. Men get continually caned in situations like rape allegations, domestic violence, and custody battles. In cases where it's word against word, the woman's word beats in 85% of the cases - for no other reason but gender. Women are known to make money on publicity drivels - the case with the secretary of the Finnish Coalition party isn't the only one, and probably leaves second to the Prime Minister Vanhanen's former date Susan Kuronen, who actually wrote a book about her relationship to Matti Vanhanen. The book included SMS messages, emails, along with details regarding their sex life, and she was on the middle page of a Finnish tabloid with the bold print "Matti is a boring lover". Now, if a man went and said "Well, her **** was loose like an elephant's, and she was like a trout in bed, which is why I prefered ****ing her in the ass" - Jesus that would spark the feminists.
According to a youth survey, women want a man that is rich, has a succesfull career, lots of friends, wants children, wants to take care of household chores and the children, and the list goes on.
This is the generic direction of the debate in Scandinavia. Nothing is being done to cleanse the myth, instead we're trapping requirements for different instances to force women to the boards, and to "force" equality on the female side of the gender.
The question is, will a woman ever suggest a 40% male requirement to universities? No. What would happen if a man did? He'd be labeled a chauv. The question is, will a woman suggest a 40% female requirement to the PLC boards? It was already done by former Minister Tuula Haapainen. The debate is grossly one-sided and only interest in equality in terms of what comes to improving (admittedly on several aspects) lacking position of women in the society.
This is why I am talking about building a matriarchal order. Should a man talk about equality, he'll be driven off with the claim that men are so much better off. In truth, that's just a poor excuse to not also discuss the parts of the society that neglect males.