Is my understanding of feminism wrong??

There are a couple of posters on the thread here who whilst not using it themselves the thread here have justified its use.

I use pretty (well, beautiful) randomly and out of context all the time, unfortunately. It's terribly ingrained.

eg get in from work "there's my beautiful girls!!!!"

So I need to work on that. It is a go-to default for me, where from though I don't know, everywhere probably!

There is nothing wrong with saying pretty, and any of those words of praise you wouldn't use randomly out of context. It's not that you are promoting those qualities, but remembering to use them when appropriate.

For example, if my toddler son picked up something proportionately heavy, there would be a chorus of clever boy isn't he strong, look how well he's carrying that. My daughter could do the same thing and it would be look how sweet she looks carrying that, bless her trying to lift it etc etc.

They are not terms for the child to aspire to, just a range of terms that reflect what they are doing and achieving at the time. Putting the focus on what they do as much as what they look like doing it.

Could you link the thread, lass? The one I have found with that term in it doesn't have everyone saying it's sisterly at all. It has most people saying it's a vile objectifying phrase, and one person saying something that I can't quite follow but may be saying it's simply descriptive () and people taking issue with that.

I can't see another thread about misogynist words but maybe there is another - the one I looked at was about affairs?

Really? Not read that thread. how bizarre.

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.

Might go look at that thread!

Thread's moved on a bit, but just wanted to say that people who aren't feminists are - by definition - people who don't believe men and women deserve equal rights. They are in the same broad category as racists or homophobes.

People who are feminists but either don't understand or just don't like the word - well, it doesn't work like that. You can't start making up your own definitions! It's like me refusing to use the word atheist to describe myself even though I don't believe in god. That's the word. Deal with it.

I didn't say continuously praise for being kind nor make it the be all and end all. And boys can be praised for being kind and considerate too.

The expression was given the OK on the thread about misogynistic words.

Which feminists have described a woman as "wank fodder"? Was it on here?

On the beautiful thing, I agree with Silver, I find the words pretty and beautiful come all too easily and I also make an effort to substitute other words as well (whether they are attributes that are down to luck, or not).

I do not wish to give my female children the impression that what is most commentable / commendable / desirable for them to be is to do with their looks. They get enough of that from other sources, for a start.

Additionally I would baulk at continuously praising a female child for being kind, again this is a gender role enforced in girls very strongly and I would not want to make that the be-all and end-all because I know if not handled carefully it comes at the expense of other important personality traits.

You are on the right thread. I just derailed it. As you were.

I didn't say that. At the stage the OP is talking about being kind can be achieved by every child. The other 3 are accidents which may or may not be developed further but apparently being strong or clever deserves praise whilst being pretty doesn't.

Sorry I thought I was on a different thread and that lass's post was on that one so my response may not make any sense in context I will read back and find out!

You don't think we should celebrate people for being clever, lass? Nobel prizes and all that sort of stuff? I do see what you mean (lots of luck involved in both the cleverness and the opportunity to exploit it) but OTOH clever people / clever things are a fine thing to celebrate aren't they? Like, I don't know, people who invent cures for diseases and stuff?

And strong - emotionally and physically again it's luck to a large extent but we have the Olympics and stuff for the physical which is fine isn't it? And we certainly celebrate emotional strength - people overcoming things and getting on / helping others / being inspiring / whatever. Not a good idea?

I mean yes these things are partially or mainly down to luck but if we don't celebrate them then you're looking at a very different society. And maybe one with less invention and so forth, recognition is part of the reason many people seek to excel.

Interesting idea though.

Beauty, well, I think it's the toxic and sexist nature of the way it's celebrated. Beauty in and of itself, well most people like to see beauty don't they. People, nature, artwork, whatever. It's not intrinsically wrong, it's the way it's all set up now which is wrong.

Out of those praising words only being kind is the one which every child is capable of. If you object to beautiful I'm not sure strong or clever are any better.

I do call my daughter beautiful, but we have always called my son beautiful boy too! I think it's remembering to balance it with praise for other things too, and not treating them as 'pretty' - for eg my dd wears whatever clothes are comfortable and appropriate to what she is doing, I don't put her in dresses as they trip her up (toddler) She wears lots of colours, and a range of images, animals and vehicles as well as the houses and teacups that are always on girls' clothing. She is allowed to get dirty whatever she is wearing. I encourage her to be physical and praise her for being strong, brave etc as well as for looking sweet.

My parents only really praise her looks, her 'tidiness', her mannerisms that "make her a girl" and kind of ignore anything that doesn't fit

Why shouldn't you refer to your daughter as being beautiful?

I don't call myself a feminist. I believe men and women should be equal and have equal opportunities. I am pro-choice. I think the sex industry is evil and degrades and dehumanises men and women. The Green position on legalising prostitution is ridiculous. Stripping is not empowerment nor a valid career choice.

I think the use of words like slut etc and the horrible one being discussed on the other thread are unacceptable. I would never call any woman (or man for that matter) such names. (I've always been puzzled why words relating to consensual sexual behaviour and/or genitalia are used as insults ) However I feel no sense of "sisterhood " but apparently calling another woman "wank fodder" is for some , not unsisterly. How "feminists " square that intrigues me.

I don't call myself a feminist as I am not prepared to take on the baggage that comes with it. For example there is a comment on another thread about not all men being rapists but all women are victims of misogyny; I don't want to be constantly on the look out for something to be offended by (hey one of my male partners referred to me and one of my female partners as "ladies" today. I was not offended. It was in the context of chasing us to do a boring but essential administration task. It did not offend me. Had he called us "guys" however. ...); or agonising that my preference for things which are pretty and feminine is because I've been brainwashed by patriarchal conditioning. You know what,even if it is I don't care.

I suppose primarily because I see feminism as very negative, collectively viewing life as a woman as universally crap. Not encouraging individual thought and/or denying the capacity of women to make individual free choices because it's all dictated by the patriarchy.

I wasn't assigned a woman at birth! A woman is an adult human female.

Sorry but if your sex is female and you was assigned woman at birth. Dosent that make you cis gender?

I am not, by definition, cisgender.

Some people are not, by definition, feminists.

Is that what you mean?

Yes that's what I mean, just like you can be for equality but reject the feminism label. You can also reject the cis gender label

No, I'm not actually. A lot of other posters on here aren't either.

Ah sorry, got that wrong then but still stands, it's not a label people like but by defination you are that label