Feminism, whats the goal?

Did you think I meant you were anti-men as in you don't like men? It's more i'm anti the structures that are biased towards men's physical biological reality over female bodied relaity. I don't see men's physical reality as the problem . Not sure if that distinction is clear (it makes perfect sense to me but I think I may have some kind of processing disorder)

@UglyGlassVase you said:

How can we ever be in a place were we aren't reliant on men?

I don't conceptualise feminism as anything to do with reliance on men. I don't accept that premise . It's fine if you do! Just I don't find that a helpful way to think about the usefulness or otherwise of keeping going with feminism.

Thank you, Goosefoot.

@TorkTorkBam Yes yes and heeeeeell yes.

I don't accept the premise of the OP. I see feminism as anti-patriarchy work not anti-men work. There are 3 structures that subjugate people - patriarchy, white supremacy and capitalism. Dismantling of all 3 is constant work. And dangerous. And dispiriting. And frustrating. But that's where you need the pack - solidarity in the fight. I was listening to Michelle Obama's podcast about the exhaustion and depression that comes with fighting white supremacy for her. The constant violence against your physical presence. The violence for women is done by a thousand cuts and behind closed doors but it's just as brutal as a knee to the neck filmed on a street surrounded by onlookers

We also fund sports, even though lots of people don't have an interest in them or may think they are stupid. Or the theatre/arts.

We even sometimes fund special things for women or men. I just don't see that this would be a very popular sort of initiative. It has the feel of something a few people would fund privately if they were really interested.

We do publicly fund some things that are just meant for a very specific group.

I think we see them as valuable in terms of society taking care of all people, and also that has knock on effects for society as a whole.

Could I ask for an example of the sort of projects you're thinking of?

So, you are going to tell a mother, who may well still be breastfeeding, that she's obligated to go back to work and have the father take over as primary caregiver?

There is good reason a lot of people are uncomfortable with that scenario. At the very least it's attempted social engineering by running roughshod over what actual mothers and families want.

We can insist that it is a legal requirement for men to have equal paternity leave to maternity leave. Then the mother does the first few months and the father, once the baby is weaned does the next few months. That way, time out for essential child rearing is embedded in the work culture for both sexes. And (I suspect) men would bond better with their children and be less likely to leave small children in pursuit of their dicks' own happiness.

We could/should have consciousness raising sessions like they did in the Seventies.

We could and should take stock of what men do well that we could do but don't and start doing it. Such as routinely asking for pay rises, or making lateral career moves for higher salaries.

We can inspire girls to enter STEM subjects, or to value their own humanities abilities equally with STEM pupils; to take up sports that make them strong; to wear what they want, do what they want (within the law, obv) without feeling any of it is unfeminine.

We must teach young women what a healthy, respectful relationship looks like so they don't get sucked into being doormats for abusive charmers.

So self education, education of others and campaigns for equality that tip the balance of parental responsibility as firmly into the male work arena as the female.

Could we petition JKR to buy us an island?

Seriously, I agree that separatism is not an end goal, but a female country/state would, simply by existing, have a major impact on the world. At a smaller scale, women's land does still exist but it's rare and like communes etc tends to break down at some point because of internal or external strife. I wish there was more of it, though. Yes, the majority of women wouldn't want to leave male relatives/loved ones permanently, but it could be an amazing refuge for those who need it, and a great life for those who choose it.

It makes me want to write a science fiction novel, tbh!

So, kind of like a nunnery.

No, more like a female refuge center, women could keep their children, including sons until a certain age and could migrate freely, visit their families, male relatives.

I agree most would not be intersted though, but many would if good jobs, housing, child care, medical care, education etc. would be offered to them.

I am just not that certain men would tolerate this kind of autonomy, certainly not MRAs and TRAs and would try to cancel it, especially if it turned out to be a success.

I think we see them as valuable in terms of society taking care of all people, and also that has knock on effects for society as a whole.

But I think the desire for female isolationist facilities would be so niche, and a lot of people would also question the social utility. It would seem like publicly funding the whims of a few.

... quit the gym, down the beers and scoff several packets of jaffa cakes wrapped in streaky bacon...

OMG - do you know me?

In my country, every employee must pay childcare tax, even if she/he doesn't have children, or they attend private kindergarten. No one really complains about it, it's about solidarity.

I think that's quite different because everyone is a child at some point and the facilities are available to all parents/carers. It seems to me to be an extension of the same concept as publicly funding schools. Publicly funded separatism would be similar to identifying that, on average, certain ethnic groups are less able to pay for childcare and limiting provision to members of that group.

So, kind of like a nunnery.

I don't think many women will be willing to leave their sons, even the adult ones, permanently. And many also would prefer to see their fathers, brothers, etc. So it's likely to be a rather limited experiment. Too limited to have an effect other than on those living there.

I see it as tyranny because you are involuntarily collecting from taxpayers as a whole but limiting the benefits to a group with an inherent trait, regardless of how voluntarily administered it is internally. Essentially, this aspect is a form of collective punishment.

In my country, every employee must pay childcare tax, even if she/he doesn't have children, or they attend private kindergarten. No one really complains about it, it's about solidarity. So maybe not in UK but this kind of project could be more wellcomed in some other country.

Besides, there would be jobs, in the area, or on-line... women would work and eventually become financially independent.

Female separatism that's dependent on external funding makes zero sense. How can it be independent if someone else holds the purse strings?

Better to fund it privately and find ways of generating income to be as self-sufficient as possible. Of course 100% self-sufficiency is unlikely because you would still have to rely on all sorts of external providers for certain things like medicines or surgery. But it's totally feasible to purchase a relatively large piece of land and turn it into a space for women to reside away from men, to feel safe from male violence, learn skills, forge close bonds with other women etc. It's been done before.

*For me feminism is one of those things like safeguarding, healthcare or even fitness training.

Left unchecked nature fucks us over in many areas of life. If we want to live long and live well, we have to get that lump checked out, we have to take some exercise every day, we have to be wary of CFs.

To me feminism is one of those. The physical reality of having a female body puts us at a disadvantage. Feminism tries to counter it. There is no end, no goal. Just like reaching goal weight doesn't mean you can quit the gym, down the beers and scoff several packets of jaffa cakes wrapped in streaky bacon. Annoying.*

TorkTorkBam this is such a realistic and sensible point.

Thank you for your reply. I see it as tyranny because you are involuntarily collecting from taxpayers as a whole but limiting the benefits to a group with an inherent trait, regardless of how voluntarily administered it is internally. Essentially, this aspect is a form of collective punishment. I think it would be a wonderful experiment to run, if privately funded, I just disagree that those who do not want to get involved (and, especially, those who would be unable to get involved) should be forced to foot the bill.

If a legitimate private fundraiser were set up, I'd probably throw some money in and would also poke my head in for a visit.

Female separatism is already legal, if it’s on private property. I don’t know about how popular it will ever be however. It’s the human condition to love Friends and Family regardless of their sex.

There’s also questions like what happens to boys born there? Do the women have to leave if a boy is born? Or when he’s weaned he must live with relatives outside the commune?

Anyway I’m sympathetic to women who want this I just imagine it’s not going to go very far. Most women are and will remain heterosexual and will tend to want to live with their mates, brothers, male offspring etc.