I'm giving up.

Or you could point out that men are lacking half a chromosome as the Y chromosome is roughly half the size of the X chromosome.

It's the reason men are far more susceptible to genetic diseases and it's also a LOT of fun to point out.

A penis is just a grossly swollen clitoris by the way.

Has anyone ever heard the explanation given as girls have a uterus, boys don't i.e. girls always lack something, when in fact boys also lack something. You just never hear it said that way round

Wow, Grimble in all my 57 years, and 44 years as an explicit feminist, I'd never thought of that. Brilliant!

Yes, that is true Grimble A man once even told me that female genitalia is just an unformed version of a man's!

Back to the transgender etc question:
One thing I was wondering though, is if a person can be born truly feeling they are not in the right body, is this not a genuine plight related to a different physiology that needs sympathy and support of some kind?

If so what?

The idea of man as the default is so widely accepted that even the most progressive women buy into it sometimes, For example, in explaining to their children the difference between boys and girls you will read/hear it explained as boys have a penis, girls don't.

Has anyone ever heard the explanation given as girls have a uterus, boys don't i.e. girls always lack something, when in fact boys also lack something. You just never hear it said that way round.

Penis envy is a well known term. How often do we hear of uterus envy?

All plays into the male as default belief.

Well, if we can't joke about the stupidity of oppression, it all gets very dark ...

Thanks Garlic

Rolling
*I think we should all just claim we are men. Go in to our employers and on that basis demand a 15% pay rise. Say to our families that we will only do 10% of the housework and childcare.

And then say to anyone who challenges us that "I present as a woman, but I identify as a man*

I find this very amusing![grin}

In the middle of the University of Cardiff no-platform controversy, Germaine Greer said a very simple thing: Women are not just men with their penises cut off.

It's the same challenge to masculine-centric language, thinking and our society's whole conception that the default for 'human' is male.

For example, the Green Party's 'Women and non-men' - they could not imagine in the conference just telling men to be quiet & not speak, or telling men that they could not put themselves forward as candidates. Instead, they twist themselves inside & out to be 'inclusive.' But it's only the category of 'woman' that has to shift.

I think we should all just claim we are men. Go in to our employers and on that basis demand a 15% pay rise. Say to our families that we will only do 10% of the housework and childcare.

And then say to anyone who challenges us that "I present as a woman, but I identify as a man."

As I saw on Twitter one of the Green Party members saying, as a reason for speaking at the party conference when they'd asked for "women and non-men" to speak.

Thank you very much Garlic for explaining.
I do understand what you mean that being a woman can only be the result of the full experience of being a woman from birth on,

My daughter is so thoughtful, so not wanting to pass judgement, so wanting to see everyone's point of view & be open minded - that she would believe it wrong to judge someone for feeling they were not the sex they had been born to. She would want to allow them the freedom to change themselves. So I thought that I, being too behind the times, should listen to her.

In truth she would be horrified by the scenario you described. I did say I thought it would be very unpleasant to have a man identifying as a woman in in a public lavatory and she agreed.

What about people who have had a full sex change physically? They will not have had the real experience of being a woman, but they would be less of a horrific threat in a small space.

That is what I was asking about Darrow. My daughter told me I was wrong to sound cynical about someone being a 'self-identufying' female.

I know Germaine Greer was sleighted for complaining about transgender (?) women. So was Ian McKewan.

Please would you explain all the arguments.

Do you know, recently I've felt like giving up too. It feels like there are only a small minority of feminists left who are interested in fighting for women's rights. The rest appear hell bent on fucking it all up for us in their desperation to be progressive and pander to a small group of men who claim to be women, demanding access to everything we have fought for. We're not just fighting the patriarchy but the useful idiots in the women who are mindlessly helping in regressing the cause.by decades, bleating 'transphobia!' at anyone who tries to speak up.It's so depressing.

My mother wasn't "allowed" to work by my father, back in the fifties as it would have reflected badly on him. Then when she did get work after he left, she was paid a third of what the single man beside her doing the same job was earning.

What I can't understand on mumsnet is the general acceptance of women doing most or all of the housework and childcare.

Excellent point about women often being the only/one of a few of their sex in the room at professional events. That's been my career but I hadn't made the link with men at a toddler group wanting sympathy (#NAM)

It was only a tiny proportion of middle class women who didn't have to work in paid employment.
Lurcio, I understand the point you made that many women actually always worked, but I disagree with the idea that only a tiny proportion of middle class women did not have to work - if you are talking about the UK in the last century up until the 1970s.

Many people who did not work in paid employment, and who were not middle class, may have been very poor, and they may have worked very hard indeed in all sorts of ways but most women were not in paid employment after they had children.

It was common practice for many women to work, but then to give it up when they had a family.
A Century of Labour Market Change 1900-2000 says this:
At the beginning of the twentieth century, around five million women worked, making up 29 per cent of the total workforce. By 2000, the figure had risen to 13 million, 46 per cent of the total workforce.
Then have also attached a graph about women with children working.

In defence of Queen's 20s work colleague, who said now women just have 2 jobs, I do think that with greater freedom there have also come greater and greater expectations for women. You must be beautiful, groomed, a high earner, good at sex and always ready for sex, have children, look after them. It is so difficult to meet these expectations that young girls are becoming depressed. Many young women do not dare to stop to have a family when that's what they might really want because then they will not be able to have a good enough career and be self sufficient enough.

Sometimes it seems as if men do not want a family any way as they would rather
go on just having a succession of girlfriends from the plentiful supply of women who are always available.

Of course I am not suggesting that it would be a good idea to go back to how things were, or to give up work and control of ones own life, but it is all very difficult.

Meanwhile, Garlic thank you. I was not a fighter like you but have had the benefits.

I am confused by the transgender issue if anyone would explain it to me. When I said something a bit disparaging about a man who 'self identified' as a woman, my daughter said it was wrong of me to take that view.

Why is The Patriarchy less influential in more enlightened countries (the usual suspects - Iceland, the Scandies etc etc)? Are their feminists better at pushing through change? Or are their Patriarchal lizard lords just weaker and less effective than those in the UK and US?

I wonder whether it might have something to do with ancient history?

Germany and the British Islands were conquered by the Romans and made into colonies, and I do think the Romans enouraged patriarchy wherever they met it. (Like, they offered land and powerful positions to men who supported them, but did they do the same with the Celtic warrior queens?)

Or it could be Christianity, and how much success the missionaries had in forcing it onto people - the original cultures did oppress women to varying extents, but I don't think this was ever justified with religion.

Just wild guessing here - it is a very interesting question.

I agree that feminism needs to look at itself. Every time I join an online feminist group (mainly on Facebook but also other sites) I end up being ejected for not toeing the feminist line (in some cases extreme manhating; in other cases my particular personal lifestyle choices, which, I hasten to add, I am not imposing on anyone else!)

Wait, if I understand that correctly, you were kicked out for not being manhating enough?

Where can I find those groups?

I will soon be kicked out of my local feminist group for not being a genderist, and I would probably have dropped out long ago if I had not known about this gendernonsense before, and decided to tolerate it for the sake of having someone to talk to.

Groups that require me to hate men, but allow me to state that people with penises are male and cannot change that, would be a step up from that.

Yes, feminism needs to look at itself, but the feminism that needs to look at itself is the liberal, anything-goes, choosey-choice genderist brand of feminism. (Does radical feminism even exist anymore, outside of the internet?)

My experience of baby/toddler groups as a man has not been negative. I was rarely the only man there, and often several of the mums were incredibly friendly and welcoming.

There was also in my area a specific father baby/toddler group which had a fairly high attendance.

I agree that feminism needs to look at itself. Every time I join an online feminist group (mainly on Facebook but also other sites) I end up being ejected for not toeing the feminist line (in some cases extreme manhating; in other cases my particular personal lifestyle choices, which, I hasten to add, I am not imposing on anyone else!) They have managed to alienate me - a hard-nosed, 57-year-old radical feminist with 40 solid years of feminism (including years of active campaigning) behind her. What chance for women new to feminism, just putting one toe in the water? They'd run a mile.

Agreed.

I think that is broadly the case, but within developed countries I suspect some issues are due to economic conditions.

Poland is a very religious Catholic country (current debate over abortion laws) but there gender wage gap is tiny compared to theirs. Ours is more than triple theirs- 19.7 and 6.4%.

I wonder if the housing crisis is contributing. Having to pay huge housing costs and childcare costs pushes women into jobs where the childcare costs will be lower.

I was listening to a talk given by a woman in her eighties. She was talking about what she'd achieved in her career. She started in her career when her three children went to university. That was really common. Now people are expected to have their career in their twenties and thirties and they're looking to make people redundant in their late 40s. That has to change with the growing elderly population, and I wonder if that will change women's success in the workplace - everyone working longer. We have to tackle ageism in the workplace for older women.