Feminist Pub 17: The Bluestocking frolics in the fells and fens of feminism

Funny how a woman's name, be it married or unmarried, is just a loan from a man, but a man's name is always his own.

So both a women's title and her name (ie, her identity) are things bestowed upon her by men, and as such are fluid things, which can be withdrawn as easily as they are bestowed. Better behave, women, or we'll remove the status we have allowed you through association with a man.

I was reading that thread on Friday, so I went to catch up on what's been posted since. I see the old "But a woman's name is just her father's name so what's the difference?" line has been trotted out. And now I'm cross, because some randomer on the internet is denying my ownership of my own name. It's been mine for nearly thirty years, it's not on loan!

On your reassurance, Knickerful, I braved the thread. It was okay to start with but has dissolved into the usual stupid arguments, including "I hate Ms cos it sounds funny".

Sigh.

for the love of all things vaginal

I'm quite proudly a Ms btw.

Just came on to link to this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/2326774-Webchat-with-Mara-Clarke-of-the-Abortion-Support-Network-TUESDAY-MARCH-10-12-30pm

I didn't dare to click on that ...

This Morning's Rant

Mumsnet's choice of thread to promote on Facebook this morning is one about women's titles. Yes, that old chestnut. I don't dare click the link through to the actual thread because it will make me very angry, as those threads always do. But of course the comments under the Facebook post are, I'm sure, a mini representation of the full thread, with the usual...

"I'm a Mrs because I'm so proud to be married"
"I'm a Miss and can't wait to be a Mrs when I get married"
"Why on earth are feminists so worried about titles anyway? Haven't they got something more important to worry about?"

So in Camp A, we have women who see no problem with the idea that the day on which a man agrees to join with them is the single event which defines them as a person in the public sphere. Not any actual personal achievement of their own, but their association with a man. In fact, they seem to absolutely relish the idea that being married means that they have "arrived" as an adult human being and now get to have a grownup title. How proud they are that a man has validated them and given them status.

In Camp B we have women who have never given any brainspace to what the whole Miss/Mrs/Ms thing actually means in terms of equality for women, because they would never be so dismissive of the importance of the issue if they had. But it's okay to slag off women who have thought about it as "having too much free time" and "neglecting important women's issues".

Sometimes I just want to shake a large chunk of womanhood by the shoulders, look them in the eyes and plead with them to please, please, for the love of all things vaginal, open their eyes and engage their brains!

Oh God I have to read something that I have read a million times but each time with subtle changes... Can I just pretend I've read it?

Flashing neon sign on the door saying "Go Away"?

It would need to be very big and flashy because Men Don't See Things, obviously.

But more practically, yes, just wedge the door shut.

Oh thank you everyone, in other more sunny news I am making an effort to talk to DS (3) about "girly" things that I am pretty sure many adults think boys aren't interested in. It sounds petty but with no flowers on "boys'" clothes I don't imagine most boys get conversation about colours and types of flowers so we are naming the ones in the nice bunch we got yesterday.

"Also - most people have children and most people need a job. It is entirely and thoroughly reasonable for people to want to have both at the same time. The sooner everyone wakes up to this (ie why would you NOT have family friendly work practices, it's literally bonkers to pretend no one has kids) the better. (Yes, Wifework, I know)"

There is still this unspoken, virtually unknown, presumption that kids can just be slotted in around the needs of everyday work, because in the past someone else was there to take care of it. We haven't begun to get our heads around (as a society) the fact that there is no one else.

The result is the kids get sacrificed, family life gets sacrificed, and ultimately that means society gets sacrificed. We know why we have so many feral kids and why kids go off the rails ffs.

Economics has been the tail wagging the dog society for too long. It is time to wake up.

Very , me.

drspouse I work part-time too but luckily my employer is quite happy to be accommodating in terms of hours. What is "interesting" though is the ticking of boxes. She can't do this or that because she's part-time, and what you can do is never quite credited, and it's not quite thought that you want to advance in your career, probably because you've got "more important things to worry about" like being a mother . I've been much more vigilant on this recently - making sure the right boxes are ticked and making sure I control everything I can about what's written and said about me.

Perhaps I have control freak tendencies and am just indulging in them.

Rant away. I'd be annoyed too, in your position. I'm not an employment law expert but I believe that some of that stuff goes beyond subtle discrimination into actual legal discrimination (my boss was very meticulous about such things when I was returning from mat leave)? Might be worthwhile arming yourself with a bit of ammunition in the form of your rights? And in terms of the greater contribution busy people make generally (I like the article linked above on this point) because they have to get things done efficiently.

That kind of anti-part time attitude irritates me. It's not as if all jobs magically perfectly suit a 40 hour week - that's just what we're used to. Part time can actually be very helpful for the employer if they think laterally about it. I have several part time people on my team, because I don't have the budget for full time in those roles and I've made the job fit the days, it works really well.

Also - most people have children and most people need a job. It is entirely and thoroughly reasonable for people to want to have both at the same time. The sooner everyone wakes up to this (ie why would you NOT have family friendly work practices, it's literally bonkers to pretend no one has kids) the better. (Yes, Wifework, I know)

Can I tentatively join in?
Shortly to go back to work after being off with DD. Have had horrendous battle to get my part time hours adjusted to actually, you know, fit with picking up DCs from nursery (in my day... can't you get a babysitter...) and various other things that are very subtly discriminating (went to union on one of them relating to my previous leave with DS and senior union person said "well it could be seen as your choice to take leave..."). Lots of implication that my performance is inferior.

I'm going to be working part time in one of those jobs that never end i.e. if you go off sick/on leave nothing is actually done by anyone else, it just piles up for you when you return. And I know that, for example, I will be expected to attend 100% of team meetings, do 100% of reporting paperwork, meaning that actual productivity will be way less than my actual percentage of work.

It's also one of those jobs where one is expected to be helpful and welcoming to a specific section of the general public and where I have been pulled up on this before in feedback.. but which I think is related to the fact that I am not three times as helpful and welcoming as most of the men in my role, do not act as mother to this client group, and do not put myself out more than everyone else.. just, you know, about as much as everyone else, enough that it doesn't interfere with other aspects of my job.

OK sorry for the rant on my first post in this section!

I thought this was whinging about recruitment consultants talk.

SoMuch, yes that too. They are surprised that after years of being tech/team leader I don't want to go back to "individual contributor".

They're not asking me that, and I might.

At least, I don't think they are. The job spec I was sent last week is so vague and generic, I'm not sure what skills they're actually asking for. (I have asked for clarification. I've been put forward for jobs where I don't have the techy skills they want at all - some things I can blag, but where it's the main product which is a necessary skill, I think I actually do need to have at least used that product at least once.)