Is my understanding of feminism wrong??

yonic the post which caught my attention was this one

"I've asked my friend, who's H has also recently blindsided her with pretty much similar language if we can use the way people, including her h have described the OW. She's ok with it. No "sisterhood" problems there.

Have at it"

I should clarify that I know not all feminists are man hating etc etc

Soot you said Well I agree, but I think where people don't identify as such is not where they feel there shouldn't be equality, but more that it has already been achieved to their satisfaction and don't feel strongly enough that women are discriminated against or that the issues debated by feminists affect them

I think that is spot on and I (and a lot of women I know) feel exactly like this.

I can't get worked up about a lot of the low level stuff because it honestly doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I have seen a lot of changes in my lifetime from earlier feminism but it almost feels like it's redundant now. And it seems like anyone who doesn't get worked up about it is accused of being a handmaiden or being brainwashed by the patriarchy (which is patronising!).

This post isn't intended to earn me a flaming, but it's my reason for not identifying with a feminist label.

Have all dds and they don't see any difference. They chose an all blue room. The eldest 2 are obsessed with minecraft and mario. Middle one is doing football training will her Dad. Dh is joining her in to a team as she is good and committed to it. They do other stuff as well but it isn't along girl or boy lines.

We have complete role reversal at home. Eldest dd bought a toy iron and said Yay an iron. The woman said just like mummy. Dd scoffed 'Don't be silly Mummies can't iron' That was in a toy shop when she was 4.

Eldest is 7. We probably live in a household different to most.

That's really great, puffin. How old are they? I think mine started being more "that's for girls" when they went to school.

My children haven't really noticed and I just let them have things as they want them. We have mixed parties, mixed toys and everything else.

Puffin, no matter your intent towards your own kids, they still live in a society that often segregates toys, parties, compliments etc by sex. Random small example - all the dinosaurs in Dinosaurs Love Underpants are "he" - it's otherwise an ungendered book.

I think some people bring up their girls and boys differently, but it isn't inevitable. I have never done it but it depends what their Mum is like usually.

Laurie, I'm sorry that Lass is misrepresenting that thread and that the phrase has been dragged up again when I think the other thread had agreed to move on.

Lass, please just stop misrepresenting. Even when you are caught at it, you try and defend it without rhyme or reason instead of apologising. I wouldn't be surprised if you now don't post further on this thread, but merrily pop up elsewhere. Just as you did on the thread where you doggedly misrepresented the post of a mother whose children have SN...to be prejudiced against those with MH issues, of all things.

It's really a very unkind way to behave. There are real people on the other side of the screen, not debating society constructs.

And before you interpret this comment as mean folks trying to exclude you from FWR or whatever, I would respond the same whichever board this is on.

I used to see on here a definition of feminism as 'freeing women from male violence', rather than it being a movement merely for equality. It doesn't appear to have cropped up on this thread so far though. I don't know if that is because it's one of those 'common sense' statements, or because those who espoused it no longer post on here.

Yes, we'll put chunkypickle I was trying to get at something like that! they are relative terms.

As in the examples I used earlier, the thing I notice is boys and girls doing the same thing and being given a different kind of descriptive praise for it.

There is emotional strength, but I do think the physical side of things is important for girls to gain confidence in; I've seen that if my dd does something strong or physically challenging it is spoken about in terms of her 'having a try' and 'mind you don't drop that/fall' whereas my ds just gets 'well done/isn't he strong/brave/he's a proper boy' etc

I wouldn't consider describing a woman or girl as "wank fodder" AOK from a feminist perspective, I mean how weird. It's reducing her to literally nothing more than an object to give a man a hard on/orgasm. So not "sisterly" at all

Ok, as a woman's thread from Relationships is now being discussed on two different Feminist Chat threads… It was not described as AOK from a feminist perspective. Someone sent pictures of themselves to a married person with the purpose of providing them with material to wank over (and then received photos in return of the evidence that the material had successfully served its purpose). The wanker then described this person as originally being "wank fodder" to their betrayed spouse but now as someone perfect, ideal, someone whom the betrayed spouse should aspire to be like, and this is why loyal spouse is now being dumped.

The person sending the photos to serve as wank fodder was a woman. The vast majority of anger was directed at the horrendous male spouse and not the OW. However, some posters referred to the OW as WF instead, and I personally did not feel inclined to say, "hang on, you can't call a woman that" for a few reasons, one of which being that the person had quite literally sent (faceless) photos of themselves to someone for the purpose of serving as wank fodder. I would feel the same if it were a man.

And yes, men do also serve as "wank fodder" and I do also hear men being referred to as such. Some women also use the term, even the "feminist" book/blog Vagenda: "If you're a randy women perusing the internet for wank fodder…" (goes on to lament poor quality wank fodder for randy women).

Personally it's not a term I have used in RL about anyone or anything. I didn't really expect to be using it again on MN but as it's now made its way onto two threads in Feminist Chat and is being portrayed as something that was being defended from a feminist, sisterly perspective, clarification seems to be required. If it makes me an anti-feminist misogynist in some people's eyes, then so be it.

I know it's moved on a bit, but I don't think that kindness is the only thing that a small child can be achieved by any child - we're not talking about objectively strong, clever or beautiful, we're talking about strong, clever or beautiful for them

So if DS gets himself dressed, and it's mainly all on the right bits and in the right directions then he's clever, if he puts on a necklace or a hat or sticks a flower in his hair then that's pretty, if he lifts up something from the shopping and hands it to me then he's strong and helpful - it's an encouraging and relative thing, not an absolute one, and any child can do something that would garner that kind of praise.

Yes the main discussion of the thread was about why people don't like to identify as feminist but within that discussion was another one which arose about the impact and relative social acceptability of sexist language and ways in which one might counterbalance this and be mindful of it, and examples of this.

There is no need to be a feminist to use positive language and instil confidence in your children, but from a feminist perspective you are thoughtful about language in order to address an inequality, and have an awareness that it has wider social ramifications and the fact it is influenced by wider social influences than just those within the family.

There is a distinction to be made I think between 'academic feminism' and feminism as the term for the advocacy of the equality of the sexes. One is theoretical and explores ideas and concepts, and one is the on the ground demand for equal treatment and opportunities, you can have feminist principles and not agree with everything that has been written in exploration of the theory.

If you think calling out sexism and misogyny is negative, do you think sexism and misogyny are not negative things, or that they don't exist?

There are 2 posters who thought the language was justified.

Each to the their own you " recognise and name sexism and misogyny when you see it," and see it as being positive. I don't.

It's not a question of being afraid of it. I don't disagree with the basic principles but there are considerable parts of the minutiae I disagree with deeply. And find irritating and irrelevant.

The discussion is about why women don't call themselves feminists. According to the OP "openly admitting you're not a feminist is like admitting you're homophobic or racist"

If being a feminist was simply believing in equal opportunities, then fine but it is more than that.I have already listed the things which alienate me so am not going to repeat them. The OP asked for differing views. I'm giving mine.

and why do I need to proclaim I'm a feminist to do that?

Erm that's rather a non-sequitur. You can proclaim yourself whatever you like, or not. The discussion was about being aware of the use of subtly sexist language and the potential impact of it. Sexism and inequality happens to be a concern of feminism.

Feminist is only the term which represents the pursuit of equal opportunities for women, and the advocacy of equal rights. It is nothing to be afraid of.

You just make sure your girls are encouraged and given confidence in 'doing' in the same way boys are, obviously within whatever limits apply to them.

And why do I need to proclaim I'm a feminist to do that?

I didn't have any girls, but I called my boys beautiful. Still do. They're bigger than me and some of them have beards, but under all the hair they're ever so beautiful.

Yes, I suppose I meant clever, kind, strong, you would use them in the context of them doing something - in reference to lass saying not every child would be capable of achieving 'strength' or 'cleverness'. You just make sure your girls are encouraged and given confidence in 'doing' in the same way boys are, obviously within whatever limits apply to them.

'Beautiful' I dispense as liberally as hugs, to both boy and girl and don't suppose I can change now