Feminism, whats the goal?

I agree with pp about creche care. The nuclear family does not benefit women as a class, it traps them.

Solutions like the scandi shared parental leave work within existing structures, but long term it would be better for women if many of those structures were dismantled.

Link here
www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-time-of-your-life/

@Justhadathought

Why are you so determined to minimise the issue of male violence (with no evidence except your own opinion it seems) and pretend there are no structural inequalities to overcome?

Why are you ignoring the points about exploitation of female labour in this thread?

I have a different POV....I believe humans are a creche species, that in the past women of different ages gathered in groups to support each other when they were raising children, and the kids played together.
Agree...and this is supported by the recent study into time spent by different sexes on different activities.
Women spend more time on parenting now that in the 70s...all I can think is that reflects more child-centric parenting and less "creche-care"
Personally I don't think that's healthy for kids either.

There is evidence - not just in humans - that destructive, pointless male violence is a real thing. Collective action by females in humans and bonobos has controlled it to an extent

I'm not denying that. Though I think we have pretty much managed to control it too..... certainly in contemporary western civilisation. It is certainly not societally condoned, even as it may be channeled through sport & warfare.

It will most likely never be totally eradicated because it is forms part of human nature, and male nature in particular ( although females can be violent too - often killing their own young, or being aggressive & violent towards them). And women can be hostile, and even aggressive towards other women ( & men).

There will always be some who act in primitive and instinctual ways; we all do in certain circumstances; but most men do not launch physical attacks on other males, or on females, and they manage to temper their responses in most situations.

And re: child rearing and women. I said above that I think whether or not a desire to nurture children is innate in women is irrelevant. That isn’t the problem. The problem is how women being the ones who are biologically tied to childbirth has led to their labour being exploited to do all kinds of other drudgery, and being trapped financially.

There’s nothing about child rearing that necessitates women doing all the housework, caring of older people etc etc.

Women’s labour being exploited and undervalued is consistent throughout all human history, including hunter gatherer groups. That has nothing to do with whether or not they might be best suited to raising children.

@Justhadathought

You’re completely ignoring what I’m arguing about violence.

I’m not talking about aggression, or anger. I’m not arguing that male violence is a product of the patriarchy.

I’m talking about anthropological studies in great ape populations that have observed gratuitous violence, serving no imperative or purpose. Violence that is dangerous to the females of the group.

There is evidence - not just in humans - that destructive, pointless male violence is a real thing. Collective action by females in humans and bonobos has controlled it to an extent.

So for me the question 'how can we free women from being dependent on men' is a red herring; instead we can design a more natural style of economy where we pay in when we can, and are supported when we can'

Agreed! But so much of contemporary life removes us from 'the village/the tribe, and the close connections of family. They tend to be seen as inhibiting and restrictive to personal freedom. We've gone from being creatures of the community to an individualistic, free choice society.

But the home environment as we know it is also a construct. Nuclear families living in a home together is not how humans evolved. It’s a domestic set up that massively benefits men and traps many women in domestic drudgery and financial powerlessness

i agree. the home environment has changed over time, through history.....according to the dominant means and methods of subsistence and survival. In some cultures still, all work is carried out within the environment of a tribal community...and women share childcare and over-see each other's children in the context of the 'village' or the community. this still has resonances in working class communities in Britain.

Once families became mobile - in search of work or opportunity, community and family bonds break down or become more distant, at least...and we are left with the nuclear family. And in contemporary society we have many single parent families, which inevitably places a great strain on women - as they are the ones that are left with primary responsibility ( & many want that primary responsibility, even if it does represent a life of hardship and struggle. I was a single parent myself at 19 years old. There is no way I'd have willingly given over custody of my daughter to her father. Not that he sought it, anyhow)

It’s not just to a greater extent in males, it’s significant and quite probably innate, since similar (destructive, antisocial) violence is seen in other great apes. There is real science on this, not just wishy washy opinions.

The point is that controlling male violence and diminishing its power over time takes collective political action and massive social change. It’s not something that can be achieved by individual women working in isolation. Women must be in positions of power to achieve this, men as a class will never work against their own interests, consciously or unconsciously

I agree there are some innate programmes that arise as a result of biological imperatives. There is nothing wishy washy about that. They need not be totally deterministic, though - after all, we as human beings have the potential for the transmutation & channeling of our drives. Aggression, for example, when channeled, can be a motivating force for change.

It seems, though, that some feminists want to assert that there are no innate or natural differences at all -apart from superficial secondary sexual characteristics. That all is socially constructed.

And yet still, there still seems to be a contradictory desire to position men as innately more aggressive/violent/predatory etc. This is supposedly a product of 'patriarchy'. Patriarchy is rule by and for men in the interests of men. And yet at the same time there supposedly are no innate differences between men and women, or between male and female interests. If there are not any innate differences,, how and why did these social constructs arrive? Why did they come into being in the first place; and why did they divide along lines of sex.

I no longer find it particularly helpful to have this archetypal item called 'Male Violence', rather than recognising that violence, particularly of certain types, is most often carried out by males.

Women are violent too; and aggressive; and controlling. It can be deeply unpleasant to witness a woman being violent, abusive or excessively controlling towards her children, for example, and yet it is something I not infrequently see on the streets and in public places where I live

@YetAnotherSpartacus, in fairness, women can never get it right. If you decide to have children and be home with them, you're stupid and worthless and probably a rotten feminist to boot.

Not on this board though. Fwiw, I have found it v supportive of SAHMs though I know others will disagree.

I have a different POV.
I believe humans are a creche species, that in the past women of different ages gathered in groups to support each other when they were raising children, and the kids played together.

So for me the question 'how can we free women from being dependent on men' is a red herring; instead we can design a more natural style of economy where we pay in when we can, and are supported when we can't.

The point is that controlling male violence and diminishing its power over time takes collective political action and massive social change. It’s not something that can be achieved by individual women working in isolation.

Women must be in positions of power to achieve this, men as a class will never work against their own interests, consciously or unconsciously.

It is clear that some feminists cannot tolerate dissent, or any degree of 'wrong think'..no matter how the individual has arrived there; or why they may be interested in looking at life through a range of different lenses.This then leads to aggression, hostility and contempt towards others - every bit as bad as any other fixed ideological position or 'ism' .

That is my observation from having spent the last two years on this particular board. There are, however, a good few more open minded, enquiring and tolerant posters, though...which makes it worthwhile.

It is true that all gender roles are social constructs, but that it doesn’t follow that we’d be banging our heads against immovable objects because many millions of women are and live entire lives not conforming to gender roles. That freedom already exists in western society

I don't think the intense rush and urge most women feel upon having children..that leads many of them to want to be with their baby and small child, rather than return to work, results from a social construct.

The social construct is having to go out of the home environment to earn a living in the first place. And even that arose because of the natural needs for food, shelter, clothing and so on.

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

OP what are we reliant on men for? I cannot think of anything.

And also, I don’t believe it’s possible now to disentangle how much of human culture is nature or nurture, so it’s kind of pointless to argue about it. The important thing is that all of it can be changed and adapted to be more equitable

That's kind of my view as well. For me the goal is a society which is generally more equitable and permissive of individual expression, so long as it does not actively impinge on the rights and integrity of others. It's not about ideology so much as a generally more humanistic way of living with others.

the idea that all gender roles are purely the result of social construction according to the tenets of patriarchy, you can guarantee you'll be banging your head against a variety of immovable objects for the rest of your natural life.

It is true that all gender roles are social constructs, but that it doesn’t follow that we’d be banging our heads against immovable objects because many millions of women are and live entire lives not conforming to gender roles. That freedom already exists in western society.

You what?? And that means we should take you more seriously as a feminist?I still remember the yoni massage thread

I don't care if you 'take me seriously as a feminist'. I really don't!

Just because male violence may be innate, it doesn’t mean we have to accept it (bonobo females have structures that control it, as do humans), or that it can’t change

Violence is an innate possibility in all of us, and to a greater extent in males, but that does not mean we cannot temper or control that. Most of us manage to, and many men manage to as well, but it does remove the inherent possibility or capacity for it.

Some people can channel their aggression in less destructive ways than others. Aggression itself is natural, instinctive response.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/1729276-Yoni-Vaginal-Massage

i even changed my surname by deed poll once to Yoni
You what?? And that means we should take you more seriously as a feminist?
I still remember the yoni massage thread

This is not the be all and end-all of the women's oppression. There are other issues at stake and for those of us who are gender critical thi sincludes critiquing so called 'natural' gender-roles

Yes, yes, yes! How patronising.

I'm suggesting you can critique all you like, but in clinging to the idea that all gender roles are purely the result of social construction according to the tenets of patriarchy, you can guarantee you'll be banging your head against a variety of immovable objects for the rest of your natural life.