Anti Feminist Bingo!!

Yes, denying to mothers in poverty for whatever reason, and who are extremely motivated to better themselves because they want to do better for their children, the opportunity to help themselves out of the rut they're in is ultimately counterproductive for the rest of society, and it smacks of punishment in some ways. Punishment for falling short of the 'can't go to bed til you're legally wed' standard and punishment for having the temerity to assume since society is now equal, you can go it alone, without a man to support you.

cross post!

Exceptions can "prove" or undermine any argument, but correlation is good enough for me.

Although there are rich and powerful women (The Queen, Imelda Marcos, etc., as pointed out upthread), why not admit there is a strong correlation between being poor and being female?

Some of this is because of the "hidden"/systemic discrimination, with which some people seem very uncomfortable. However, the other reason for the correlation is the very prosaic one that women are generally carers. The train of thought ought not to stop there, because it brings us to why female poverty is so important : it is much more likely to be child poverty, and then continuing adult poverty (and thatis just inhumane, no matter what you think of "special treatment"). Thus measures of positive discrimination (e.g something as basic as having child benefit in the name of the primary carer) are justified. Mohammed Yunus, who won a Nobel Prize, explicitly extended microloans to women, on the basis that they were proven quite effective this way.

Here's my take on the feminization of poverty:
The task of managing childcare while working usually falls on the mother of the children, especially when the woman is single or has no financial support from the father of the children. The less reliable the father(s) of your children is(are), the more you (but not them) take a financial hit. Same goes for cases where a woman is divorced. If she has been a Sahm for a longish time her chances of finding work that can either pay enough for full time childcare or work that fits in around school hours and especially the school holidays are slim to none on both counts. Society has put equality on the statute books but the workplace still functions with the assumption that every employee has a 'wife' at home taking care of family responsibilities (hence those long school holidays and lack of free childcare).

In addition, welfare policies that actively discourage retraining or further education while receiving benefits mean that women who might be able to get better jobs if they had a qualification can't get one. They need some way to bridge the gap between having benefits and having that important qualification. They may need childcare facilities in the college or school if they do manage to enroll but too often this is not available either. The earlier you begin to have children, if you're a woman, and the less education you have when your first child is born, the more likely you are to live in poverty, you and also your children.

what i meant was, if you start poor, you are more than liekly to end up poor.

women have for centuries been held from propety-owning. Thee are still habits in place in many families and businesses that prvent women inheriting property or other material wealth. also, the wage gap keeps you poor. once poor the treatment you recceive from the restof society is worse -

if you look at the experiences of rich women vs poor women with respect to a range of situations you'll see how big a factor it is.

Hi NiceShoes
From what I have seen, that seems to happen when there is a lack of engagement - on the feminism board, at least. I have seen far worse on other topic threads which is why I stick to the feminism section!

I think that if you are prepared to state your opinion and back up what you say, others may disagree but won't be insulting, in the main. It is a little frustrating when someone states an opinion that challenges feminist received opinion and won't then qualify what they have said and why (I find it so anyway!).

Jess,calling other posters idiots and antifeminist.That is what I am on about,why I do not post here.

Great link, Beachcomber!

I think what I've struggled with is a lack of engagement from some posters. They disagree but won't explain further. Attempts to draw out opinions are called bullying. It's something I have found a little frustrating on a few threads.

If we understand why someone feels the way they do or holds that opinion then there can be a reasonable discussion. The thread about equalist/feminist is one such example of where opinions and ideas are shared respectfully.

After reading and trying to engage, I am still no clearer on where a couple of posters stand on the issue of women being oppressed. I have read carefully in case I've missed something but don't think I have.

I'm still not sure whether certain members on this thread believe women are oppressed. If they are not, then presumably they have nothing to fight for because equality has been achieved.

Perhaps we should start a new anti-feminist language thread? It would be a useful tool for dealing with idiots who throw all the old cliches at us.

Has anyone called anyone anything worse than 'Anti-feminist!'?

Aaah, forgot to also say that derailing is not always intentional or malicious in any way - although that doesn't make it less 'blocking'.

You're welcome NiceShoes.

Forgot to say, the link is very long but is is a good read. I take my hat off to the person who wrote it.

I'll just c & p what I wrote above:

"I disagree.
Poverty- keeping certain groups of people in poverty- is systematic. It's no accident.

It's no coincidence that the most powerful group of people in the world are also the richest. And that group don't want to share. In fact, they know well enough that any sharing of power or money means that their share is reduced. And they're grabby.
The recently installed government has systematically targeted women whilst simultaneously protected rich white men.

It's no accident."

Poverty doesn't generate poverty, despite what the tories would have you believe.
The class system generates poverty, with a privileged group of people at the top making the decisions for the rest of us.

A group of people who decided that women (already poorer) should shell out their taxes so that rich incompetent male bankers get bonuses

Thanks for explanation.I will lurk, but the name calling is all too much for me.This is too out there for me.

but poverty generates poverty sakura

I think what it is niceshoes, is that there is a difference between disagreeing and derailing.

What derailing really means is to 'obstruct progress'. A derailing post is not designed to enrich the debate, but to move it off course, or keep it stuck at the same place. Sincere disagreement adds to a debate (within reason).

There is a very sarcastic and kind of funny document on the web which does a great job of deconstructing derailing.

www.derailingfordummies.com/

Since reading this I have understood derailing much better.

Hope this explains a bit.

Don't be afraid to post in the feminist section - we are quite nice really, we are just a bit obsessed committed

Nice, I find these threads quite scary too and I have no clue what happened with the scottish mummy thing, except she is a poster who has a particular idea about internet debate that might be in play?

The feminization of poverty: this phrase refers to the fact that poverty is a condition in which far more women than men find themselves. If you are a woman, you are more likely to be or become poor, than a man with the same on-paper earning power. Or that's how I understand it anyway.

yes, they are intimidating these boards. A week or so ago, there was a thread about the sex industry and suddenly all these random new people came on saying they were punters from punternet, and had heard through the grapevine that mumsnet had a thread on the sex industry and they'd come to tell us that Prostitutes. Love. Their. Job.
It was weird. I was like this reading the stuff they were coming out with.

Feminization of poverty just means that women as a group are poorer than men. As I said above, it's not a random coincidence that society has been designed this way.

I find these boards quite intimidating,and tbh I don't want a hard time.I lurk but don't post.I read last night posts,and I didn't post. Your question,do you mean poverty is a women's issue?Yes it is but I don't know what you mean by feminization of poverty.

dunno, I missed the party

seeing as you've read the whole thread, what do you think about the feminization of poverty, NIceShoes?

Just on observation,Scottish Mummy posts and gets called a derailer.I don't see other posters being called derailer? Despite also not agreeing.

I disagree.
Poverty- keeping certain groups of people in poverty- is systematic. It's no accident.

It's no coincidence that the most powerful group of people in the world are also the richest. And that group don't want to share. In fact, they know well enough that any sharing of power or money means that their share is reduced. And they're grabby.
The recently installed government has systematically targeted women whilst simultaneously protected rich white men.

It's no accident.

what i meant was - poverty becomes an additional factor in any bias-issue - gender included - women lose opportunities first because they are women, and then further because they are financially worse off....

Martin Luther King recognised that the problems of Black US citiens increasingly settled as a matter of rich vs poor rather thn black vs white. I think you can see similar things happening wrt to gender issues.

never simple as one thing or the other!

no mileage at all. Do you think it's an accident that women are poorer Even with the most recent government targeting women for cuts

And a poor man can always make himself feel better by buying the body of a woman in a situation worse off than himself.
Or raping a rich woman.

I definitely think there's a lot in that PE but the feminist question would be why are they poorer?