Today I failed as a feminist.

Sounds delish. I am trying to work out how I ended up coordinating the entry to the town parade to celebrate the holiday on Sunday, whilst also agreeing to work in the afternoon (and on the bank hol Monday), with the backdrop of dh flying to Romania for the duration, tomorrow. And mil arriving next weekend. And school finishing tomorrow. And three kids who I need to palm off, apparently for three days.

I'm not doing fem threads today. Periodically I resign from the fwr board because I don't have time to Contemplate. they are an interesting diversion when I need to reset my feminist compass though.

Enjoy your cake.

I am not posting now as I am too busy doing housework and making a cake (a very feminist Coffee and choc cake).

Well, to be honest, Back2two, I am beginning to suspect that it is rocket science because at a societal level, the division of domestic labour along equal lines has not been resolved. And I don't mean if you have made the decision to be a SAHM or to support your partner while they are unemployed or whatever, I mean, in couples where both partners work and contribute to the family finances, you would expect that both would contribute domestically in an equal manner. This is not what happens - a recent survey showed that women who earn more do more domestically, for men it is the other way around. So, men can walk on the moon but generally, they can't/don't/won't clean the frigging toilet?

(and ignoring the request to ignore Bigmouth's post) As for economic inequality, I think that was where I was going with my question about where economic and material factors fitted with Butler's analysis of language as constutive of gender. I don't think gender and class inequalities are mutually exclusive, but I think that gender inequality limits women's ability (at a societal level) to fight for economic equality: historically it has been men who have unionised, even in areas where women were the main breadwinners (such as Lancashire textile mills in the 19th century), because women did not have time, they were too busy looking after children and home as well. Family allowances were opposed in the early 20th century by the unions (mostly men) because they undercut the family wage which allowed men to keep a wife at home. Where did radical feminism come from if not the realisation that women in the 1960s protest movement were doing the stereotypical 'women's work' such as cooking and typing? And so on.

Anyway, I have probably said enough on this thread .

Thanks Back - tbh I was a grumpy old woman last night so everyone ignore the ranty trotsky Granny in the corner!

As you were.

The problem for me is that I am a socialist before a feminist so instead of patriarchy I often see economics as the driver of inequality. Particularly as class outweighs gender in my analysis of issues even relating to the division of household labour.

But hey, that's just me I do not feel at all self congratulory strangely though I assiduously avoided that very phrase in my earlier post, spooky.

I actually think that the OP gets to the heart of the matter. Why are women still not putting their beliefs into practice in day to day life. Sometimes it's just easier to get on with it and by the time you get the chance to stop and think about it, you realise that you've only gone and and bloody reinforced the whole gender stereotype.

Ah, don't worry, bigmouth. You and back can commiserate together and get all self congratulatory about how pointless we all are.

No need to fret about boring lives, though. I can assure you mine is pretty full on and I just pop onto here for a bit of navel gazing.

You don't need to bother if it depresses you.

This thread is the most depressing discussion around 'feminism' I have ever attempted to read.

It is probably not your fault op - I am sure you are a good person and well meant in your opening post.

I just cannot accept that such a post was being seriously discussed and reacted too. Is life that boring (I suppose mine is actually). I was left with the indelible image of Viz 'Modern parents' discussing who was cooking Tarquins cous cous that day. Maybe I am terribly bitter and jealous, I do not know - I am sure I will be slated and should not post. Slapping down is not my intention but just reading through this thread made me so tired and depressed.

I am a feminist.

Yes, that makes sense.

Personally I see subverting norms on an individual level as an opportunity to broaden the accepted scope of what is considered a norm, thus giving those that follow a greater choice of options to conform to, without the bother of having to subvert.

Although, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with norms on a very basic level. Catch 22 though.

(or what madeomanintheattic said much more succinctly )

Back2two - interesting post. I disagree with you, and not from a radical perspective (no chance of me being called that on here ).

I think there is a pattern that happens, even amongst loving equal partnerships which explains a large part of why the playgrounds are still full of women and the boardrooms are full of men.

It starts because most women marry men a bit older than them, and more men do money oriented jobs while more women follow their hearts into the arts, public sector and "make a difference" type jobs.

Then women get more parental leave so put in more time in the early years building up parenting skills (including meal planning etc..), while men put in more face time at work and progress faster.

At some point it comes to crunch where childcare costs mount up, or you agree the children need a parent at home and the question is who should that be. If at this point the mum has got much more skilled at day-to-day parenting while the differential between their earning power has risen then its a no-brainer for the mum to be the one to quit work, go part time, not go for the promotion or whatever.

I see this happening all the time in RL and on MN. It's not sexism or oppression, but at the same time it's not an outcome people choose. It's a default pathway (and one that no one warns you about).

So I think when someone notices it and makes an effort to step off the pathway it is important.

hmm, I'm not sure I was challenging Butler's feminist credentials, given that there are many strands of feminism and I don't have the intellectual calibre to do that. More thinking through my own views, which have been packaged away for over a decade.

The whole lib/rad/academic/non-academic/are we not all feminists anyway thing is new to me, it has to be said.

Nah, it's feck all to do with lib/ rad. I can count more liberals than radicals disagreeing with back.

Ah,
The old 'is Judith butler a feminist' gag.

Somewhere on fwr there are a few anti-the-academy rants which seek to explain why academics are not real feminists, anyway. (except the ones that are). I think that's what was decided in the end....

Crossposted with Back2Two, I was really responding to youngblowfish's post!

I'm confused what the liberal/radfem distinction has to do with this, but then I am new to this board, or why a conversation about the value of wifework is equated with the sentiment that being a wife has shitty connotations.

However, I can agree that analysing my relationship within a gendered framework against the background of everything I know about feminism would be exhausting (and futile). I'd have to revert to single parenthood just for peace of mind. The saving grace is that I happen to love and respect my DH too, even if I occasionally see him/our relationship as an example of patriarchy in action. As for putting all men together in a patriarchal lump, only if I am really tired and fed up

Thanks for this. I suspect that my DH sides secretly with Stan, though he would refute this allegation . He also recently cited Judith Butler to dispel my suggestion that women are systematically disadvanted socially on account of having children.

The latter point being what really troubles me about Judith Butler and post-strcuturalism/modernism in general, namely that it depoliticises feminism. I agree that language is constitutive of power, but I struggle with the idea that language determines how we see reality. Where do the very real economic and material factors which determine people's lives fit in? I am not sure how subverting norms on an individual level changes the overall structures. Surely that requires a critical mass, which is only going to be achieved through collective action (which Butler seems to work against).

If that makes sense.

It is brilliant to see the truth that language not only expresses, but also shapes our minds expressed so clearly with respect to feminism! Thank you, blowfish!

This was "my" feminism's point in wanting to replace the 'man' or 'woman' in word parts with 'person' and to eliminate 'wife' and 'husband'. I know it caused a lot of clangers in the early years, and we've evolved a mish-mash of terms that goes some way towards the objective. But, still, when I complain about my disability to others I say "I need a wife, haha" because they'll instantly understand the kind of help I want ( pax, Stan ) ... and the word for that 'universal support worker' is a gendered one :(

Am loving juxtaposition of Judith butler and American dad. . It can be seen in Mary Poppins, too - when Mr Banks does his wee singsong about an englishman's castle and being the Lord of it. (although don't get me started on his suffragette wfe, because that rendering makes me want to murder Walt freaking Disney.)

But someone mentioned Judith butler, so now I need to go and have a lie down.

You're right, summer, I fiddled about with the language for a bit then decided to go for what everyone here would understand!