Deborah Orr article in Guardian

That is both an incoherent and deeply stupid article. I am sure I should justify my thoughts with some analysis....but I just can't be bothered.

There are some seriously deluded comments after that article. Someone wittering about how women have 'sexual power' ffs

What on earth is wrong with promoting the idea that you can work and have children quite easily? It's not particularly difficult. Men do it all the time - quite a few of them even 'have it all'. It's not a 'self-evident truth' in my world that having children automatically makes mothers uninterested in working, any more than is the case for fathers (I always get very annoyed at all those surveys that ask mothers who work if they'd prefer not to, when not asking fathers the same question, or indeed asking all working people. Lots of people don't much enjoy working and would rather just have the money - perhaps most people).

Oh and I have plenty of autonomy without any particular dependance on the state - or at least no more than any other family (ie for education, healthcare, street lighting etc etc) nor do I think that feminism should primarily be about women's 'vulnerability' because except when forced to be I am not vulnerable - surely a lot of the point is to be confident in saying that I am as good as any random man (because it is 'self-evident' that I am).

Not sure why wanting equality should give anyone 'profound intellectual discomfort' unless they were a bit hard of thinking really.

Stupid woman.

"I don't know if you're furious because you think I didn't read you piece, or because you think I ripped it off. I read the piece, in fact, but not the comments. In general, though, I'd suggest that if you don't want your writing to influence others, then keep it to yourself."

Good grief, surely if you have read something that has influenced you you should acknowledge it graciously?

MrsKarbonara, it's Wolf as in Naomi Wolf - being a feminist in youth and then realising later that the world will reward you personally much more highly for supporting the patriarchy and being rude about feminists than it will for sticking to your principles.

Hello, might someone explain what 'doing a wolf' means?

Dittany and Mooncup - you forgot hysterical. Thank God she's here though, to explain it all. It has clearly eluded her that women get custody after relationships end because they did all the f**in' childcare already.

JUst wanted to add my voice to the "she's a tool" consensus. I too read the article about rape last week - in an odd sort of way I'm almost relieved that at least she's saying publically she's not a feminist, after her rape defending pile of shite.

Glad someone has started this thread - I read the article this morning and was furious. Between that and the "rape isn't always rape" one a couple of weeks ago I'm feeling really unimpressed with her. I dimly remember liking her a few years ago. Heigh ho.

Came on here to fume, but I think you've probably said it all between you . . .

I notice not one mention of how fathers might give up a bit of their economic freedom.

Nor of the point that since women are systematically paid a third less than men, their economic freedom is pretty constrained from the start.

So the economic system we live in - oh, sod it, let's call it capitalism - developed to need more professional white collar workers but still needed all those pesky next generation of workers adorable little kiddywinks brought up, preferably for free, out of sight, at home with mummy. Since mummy couldn't be in two sodding places at once, and not all the mummies could afford an eastern European au-pair, the govt decided to smooth things over by providing some childcare, not enough, obviously because that would create a sense of entitlement. And this has cased female dependency and feebleness. Doing virtually all the housework, virtually all the childcare and exercising her 'equal' opportunities to do the same job as a man. Ha! Deborah bloody Orr.

it did a tad, tbh.

i do see a lot of anti lib bitching on rad sites though. i know it's v naive to want everyone to get along, but it's really obvious of late and has to be quite damaging. sometimes i'm nodding along, thinking 'yes, oh, yes, agree with that' and then bam a really barbed and deliberately targeted comment. i'm sure it happens the other way around too.

sometimes 'we're all after equality' (and we haven't got it) really doesn't seem to be enough to call yourself a feminist. you can self identify as one, obv.

tehre's no particular answer to the internal wrangling i don't think. he who shouts loudest, or something.

I think feminism is inclusive. There are divisions between types of feminism (e.g. liberal or radical) but Orr is referring to feminism generically. So she's wrong and deliberately misleading people. The only universal really is that we're all after equality and stopping the mistreatment of women because of their gender. Everything else is up for discussion and is discussed, though there tends to be broad agreement in certain areas certainly.

I think for me, when I first came to feminism, I was very sceptical about the attitude some feminists had about makeup etc. I couldn't see why I had 'bought into the patriarchy' simply because I shaved my legs or because I wasn't about to censure a man who looked at porn. I am now one of 'those' feminists though as I have completely changed my mind after reading more about these particular areas. I strongly suspect that a lot of women would change their minds too if they read up on it, but I wouldn't dream of telling another woman what to think just because my own views differ. I will make my case however, just to see if getting her thinking about it may lead her to change her mind of her own volition. But isn't that how every cause is furthered, be it joining a political party or telling people about a great new band you've discovered?

It's hard to realise that you've been manipulated by a male-dominated culture that disadvantages you at every turn. Even if your own DH/DP is a lovely man who treats you perfectly and respects you wholly, none of it takes away from the fact that you are still living in a male-dominated society that actively benefits men and actively penalises women. Mant people try to resist the realisation because it hurts and I think that's why we often get extreme reactions when we point out ways in which women may be upholding the patriarchy without even realising it.

Hope that doesn't sound incredibly patronising. I am writing very much from a personal viewpoint.

I think disagreements are accepted in feminism. This board in particular is a great example of rigorous debate with input from all conceivable perspectives. Sometimes it gets heated, but this is often people's lives we're debating and so grey areas don't exist quite as peacefully as they may do in other areas. It can be thorny and messy, yes - but also informative and illuminating.

Calling someone 'dogmatic' - as Orr does rather than you - puts a very negative slant on the tenacity required to campaign on issues that the patriarchy simply does not want raised. I've recently been discussing SlutWalk on a male-dominated forum and oh my god, they HATE me for raising issues that on this board are as familiar and everyday as breathing. Oh well.

From one comment: Although it may be the case that, personally, a feminist may wish to debate certain feminist issues, the fear of ridicule from a more popular dogmatic feminist keeps them silent on the issue

Much as we frequently hear from regular posters on here the sigh that others are "telling you how to be a good feminist" or "how feminists should think" I think that there is an element of the core of regulars alienating women who are interested in feminism and would like to consider themselves feminists but don't necessarily agree with the consensus of the group.

Not purposely of course, but I know I've personally felt (on here) that there's a right way to be a feminist and if I wasn't conforming to it then I should basically bugger off to somwhere else.

Can't say I agree with Orr's whole article but I think she does have a point about being open to debate within the ranks of feminism. Inclusive feminism where disagreements are accepted? Grey areas don't seem to be particularly acceptable.

I did, it seems like a quite a lot agreed with me. I can't see if they have any convictions, so I have no idea how illustrious they are. Anyway, I just took the article on its own merits and like it.

You might want to check below the line of Orr's article to see what illustrious company you're keeping before you call it 'well-balanced'.