Small and random acts of feminism

This thread is about small acts of feminsim, not about what major aspects of inequality are being challenged. Do you think that the people posting here aren't concerned about sexual exploitation and FGM?

You are also ignoring history and looking at it as if we are starting from the same point with no history of inequality and discrimination. Which is wrong. As PP have said, there would have to be many many books by women read to counter the historical imbalance.

I am struggling to see this inequality, especially in this country.

We have come so far. Women do the same jobs, mostly for the same pay,

We do better in education.
Most of us get some flexibility as regards having children and careers at the same time (or choice to be SAHMs)

There are still inequalities sure, but nit picking over this stuff just seems petty to me when there is sexual exploitation and FGM going on.

Feminism means equality for the sexes
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think it has more to do with the liberation from oppression of women. This might create more equality between the sexes but that would be, imo, a biproduct. Given that men continue to benefit from an unjustifiable privilege, I don't see the preservation of their rights as something I need to concern myself with when considering the advancement of women.
In short... reading books by women = a good thing

Surely feminism is about dismantling the patriarchy for the benefit of everyone? and that sometimes means making a point of foregrounding women’s voices, stories and experiences.

If you live in a structurally unequal society, you cannot fix it by making a point of never favouring women.

Also, seeking out women’s stories and ensuring they’re included on lists is not “trying to put men down”.

I would also vote on a party based on policies not female seats.

If you were really being feminist by that standard surely you would vote for the Conservatives as they are the one with the female leader?

I think I’ve read a 50:50 split tbh. But I’d go on the merit of the book not the gender of the writer.

It’s reading books only written by women.

Over the course of my life so far I've read so many books by men, watched so many films made by men, and with a male lead character, heard so many male opinions in the media, I'd probably need to spend the rest of my life just seeking out women's views and work in order to try to even things out. Not actively seeking out either male or female films/books/opinions won't lead to a nice even split - That's not how the world works.

I should have said that I am particularly fussy in local elections. The LibDems fielded an entirely male team.

What part of what anyone has described is putting men down? How is choosing to read books by women discriminatory?

I’m in a Lib/Lab marginal and I’m one of those mythical floating voters (with lefty leanings). I usually vote for the party fielding a female candidate as women are woefully under-represented in parliament.

This is not feminism. Feminism means equality for the sexes, this is favouritism towards women.

As a mother to 2 DCs, one female and one male, I split things down the middle. I call the elephant “he” then the giraffe “she” or vice Versa.

I believe in equality of the sexes
Trying to put men down and not reading books by men etc, is just as much discrimination as saying women should do all the housework.

This frustrates me so much.

*been

For the last couple of years I have consciously choosing to read books written by women.

Oo yes, I say 'people', or 'fellows', or 'compadres' or, sparingly because it might start a political debate, 'comrades'. Or denizens, but also sparingly, because it might get blank looks, it not being very commonly heard. Not that I'm not up for a political debate mind, but sometimes it's not the time, or the company for it.

I use person for everyone, regardless of sex or age. Well sometimes I use tiny person.