to think that understanding feminism isn’t that hard

@Deadringer Totally agree! The worrying thing is that @Chiseltip believes these fallacies to be fact!!

What a load of old shit.

Feminism is a very simple concept, people just decide to willfully misunderstand because it suits their agenda.

A picture, a thousand words etc ..

If even a fraction of that were true (rather than a regurgitation of the embittered ramblings of MRA) then, didn't we do well? Not sure what there is to be embarrassed about by a movement that has already achieved so much for women and girls. If that grinds your gears because your own life isn't as good as you think you deserve, then why not take a leaf out of feminists books and strive for improvement for yourself? Or if you are a woman, then simply decline the 'advantages' offered to you. Sitting around all coy and embarrassed about something that's nothing to do with your life seems rather odd and unproductive.

Wealth distribution, prostitution/FGM/rape and murder VAWG,
Healthcare and safety features that fit male bodies,
Missed these much?

We don't have equity, we have privilege.

We have whole systems dedicated to giving us advantage simply because we are women.

We have whole days of the year dedicated to how great we are.

We are given preferential treatment in the justice system.

We are given custody of the children when relationships break down.

We control all aspects of sexual relationships "happy wife, happy life".

We out perform men/boys in terms of academic achievement.

The only reason women don't earn as much as men is because men work longer hours and are willing to sacrifice more of their personal life.

Feminism is a dead concept that doesn't represent me or anything I believe in.

It's embarrassing and outdated.

Sorry but again I don't understand the question?

@suresuresuresure

I totally agree with you about the burden of unpaid work which falls on women and how this skews the playing field massively against the woman. This is endemic and its a huge problem for women.

While I agree that a partner should pay for the work he's not doing in the home as part of household, the default assumption is that the partner should always pay is also a bit problematic.

The situation you describe in your final paragraph, where the family decides "it’s not worth the mother going back to work" is much more likely to happen if its mandated that the partner pays. It hugely raises the incentive on women not to go back to work. That may work beautifully for families in certain instances (and why not do it if the economics works) but it doesn't help the broader problem that women face in the workplace. It deepens the already strong tendency of employers to believe that a woman with children is less reliable, less hardworking and more likely to drop out of work. That would not benefit the large numbers of mothers who want to work.

But by the way your suggestion about the state deducting at source the "woman's work" is probably the most sensible idea I've ever heard for dealing with this. I don't think it will ever happen, but most of the ideas about "rewarding" mothers for raising children are pie in the sky. This one is actually quite pragmatic.

Life isn't automatically fair but, due to anatomical differences (being smaller & bearing children) and historical male privilege, it's more unfair for women than men.
Personally I think feminists recognise this and would wish for a move towards equality (to address the balance by improving women's lives), although there is no one right way to create equality.

Different women have differernt views about what feminism means, OP.

Some think we should grow babies in a bag, some think we should make sure women with babies don't need to work. Some think we should abolish sex separated activities of all kinds, some thing women should collectivise and live without men.

So , no, not really so obvious.

@Thepeopleversuswork

a woman choosing to stay at home to look after her children when she has protected herself appropriately (through marriage perhaps or by working part time or choosing a route back into employment at the appropriate time) could indeed be making a "feminist choice".

Where is the shared social cost ^ here?

@AnSolas

Why is it up to women to carry the cost of producing the next generation of workers?
Why is this work not seen as a shared social cost?

It's not up to women and no one has said it is?

The cost of raising children is usually shouldered by the parents jointly, the father or state. Women who singlehandedly support their children are in a minority.

You could say its already treated as a shared social cost. The government pays a sizeable chunk of the cost of raising children.

Why is it up to women to carry the cost of producing the next generation of workers?

Why is this work not seen as a shared social cost?

I'm with the poster who said it irks her when women say "feminism for me is doing exactly as I want." A bit like the "feminism but only when it suits me" brigade.

@AnSolas

Child care is only work when its someone else being paid to do the work. You will pay a stranger to provide child care but are offended at the idea that you could pay the mother for the same work.

I'm not "offended" by the idea of paying a mother for the same work. I'm just trying to understand the economics of it.

You seem to be suggesting all women (or most women) should be paid to remain at home to raise their own children? Who is going to pay for this? The state sure as hell isn't going to. No government on earth is going to underwrite all women remaining at home to raise their kids.

If your theory of feminism is correct only a small number of women will choose to mothers and society as a whole carrys the full economic cost of producing replacement humans even when that cost includes a woman choosing to raise her child herself.

It's not "my" theory of feminism: it's fact. Study after study has showed that the number of children a woman has is inversely correlated to the average income level of her country. Most women don't want huge families.

You seem to be positioning the idea that its desirable for most women to have as many children as possible. If this is such a seductive idea why do most educated women in affluent societies choose limit their families? Because they understand that having large numbers of children costs a lot of money and severely limits their freedom.

You have provided supporting evidence for @Maryslion

You did seem to have a real contempt for Morherhood there though.
Motherhood should be a key concern of feminism.

Child care is only work when its someone else being paid to do the work. You will pay a stranger to provide child care but are offended at the idea that you could pay the mother for the same work.

Wealthy educated women choose not to have babies and women who have too many are cows.

Why is the idea of recognising the economics of having babies such a difficult concept?

If your theory of feminism is correct only a small number of women will choose to mothers and society as a whole carrys the full economic cost of producing replacement humans even when that cost includes a woman choosing to raise her child herself.

@AnSolas

So you are a Laissez-faire capitalist.
No child care funding or schools, no public health cover, no labour law protection, no social funding for maternity or child welfare.
Your social system choice is benchmarking against your ideal people being men.

Wrong. On all counts. You know nothing about me and this is a million miles from what I believe. And I've said nothing that even hints that I believe any of these things. But you tell yourself this if it makes you happy.

So you are a Laissez-faire capitalist.

No child care funding or schools, no public health cover, no labour law protection, no social funding for maternity or child welfare.

Your social system choice is benchmarking against your ideal people being men.

I haven't provided a number! You're the one who's obsessed with the idea that I have some optimal threshold. I've said clearly I think women should have as many kids as they like as long as they can support them. I couldn't give a shit.

But that doesn't make it a "feminist choice".

@takealettermsjones

Imo that's fine as long as we don't consider everything that doesn't qualify as a "feminist choice" therefore anti-feminist. That would be too simplistic to me (and possibly an anti-feminist stance!)

Of course. As plenty of people have pointed out, almost no one lives an entirely "feminist life". We all have to make compromises of various kinds in our lives and patriarchy is patriarchy.

But it's too easy to assert that the fact that a woman has chosen to do something means its automatically "feminist". It removes any meaning from the concept of feminism if you can just pick and choose anything (including something incredibly regressive and anti-feminist) and say "it's OK its a feminist choice".

Some women believe that feminism is about fighting for equal opportunity for ‘all’ people. And that feminists must fight for all oppressed people.

This seems to be a flow on from the mantra of ‘be kind’ maybe? It certainly seems that some people believe that feminists should ‘mother’ the world, if I can describe it that way.