Caitlin Moran's new book - feminism is for women and men.

This is driven by economics and, in fact, there's every incentive for capitalist governments to get women out of the home and generating income. We see women in full and part time work even in the most sexist and gendered countries.

And also in communist/socialist ones ... pretty sure the USSR and China were pushing women to be 'workers' earlier and more comprehensively than in the west.

The shift of work from the home is much more to do with industrialisation (particularly of farming and textile manufacture) than the particular political system.

I wonder if Moran’s cowardice on speaking out about the trans threat to women’s rights is precisely because of her deprived upbringing and current wealth?
She is probably terrified of cancel culture and losing her hard won goodies. When you come from poverty, you dread being thrown back there.
Personally, I wish her fellow Times columnist Janice Turner had written this book. She is unapologetically gender critical and would have had no truck with appeasement of TRAs or MRAs.
Caitlin, listen - if you are on MN - for all our sakes, go and have a pep talk from Janice and find the courage to be a proper radfem, not a bloody male apologist and approval seeker!

• Oh and the men in my current and last job worked flexibly and went to school plays etc. It was fine. I imagine the employers who are inflexible, are inflexible with the women too.

My perception is that good employers nowadays try to be equalists. Bad ones may be less tolerant of men vs women balancing their work and family commitments but they will have much more of a tendency to not promote (or hire) women.

Anecdotally I see a hint of wistfulness from men sometimes, at the way it used to be. A male relative of mine (40s) was joking about looking at his own life (dual income, both pitching in with childcare and housework, strong independent wife with her own hobbies) versus his dad's (company man, wife did absolutely everything round the house and with the kids, he played golf every weekend) and how cushy his dad's life was compared to his.

Our parents' generation could live a happy, comfortable life with one average-salaried job per household. That's just not possible any more so we have both parents juggling insecure jobs and a hectic home life. But if men think that this is caused by women getting more rights then they're mistaken. This is driven by economics and, in fact, there's every incentive for capitalist governments to get women out of the home and generating income. We see women in full and part time work even in the most sexist and gendered countries.

Too often the plight of men is blamed on women's "demands" when the enemy of men is far more likely to be an increasingly unequal and capitalist society.

I think the point about men and custody was that until a certain point (not sure when, will google) was that children were the PROPERTY of the father and so children of divorced parents and so any divorced women had no option for custody.
This carried on with the aristocracy until fairly recently, hence Princess Diana as a child had to remain with her father and her mother didn’t get any option in this.
And yes that many modern men would run a mile than have 100% custody... yes, partly due to modern working practices but still...

It seems like she is over-attached to the word feminism in a way

I agree!

I've come to the conclusion that i no longer identify as a feminist because it implies a very particular political framework & set of beliefs about men and about women, and about the relationship between them.

I wear a bra 24/7. To not do so quickly becomes uncomfortable and even painful. I have night bras, shower bras, the lot! A well fitted bra is a godsend for me.

As for the gripe about fathers 'never' getting custody, how many divorces happen because women struggle to manage work and childcare and a husband who behaved like an extra child, making work instead of sharing the load? Most divorced women I know decided that single motherhood was frankly easier than servicing the needs of their child's disinclined father and bearing the repeated disappointment that he never stepped up for them.

Those fathers would run a mile if offered full custody!

Note, not all fathers, of course... 🙄

What Caitlyn is describing is a more a form of humanism than feminism, and with that I have sympathy. When you have identified as a feminist for most of your adult life it can be difficult to let go of the title when you start to see or feel differently about things.

A side note, you don't have to identify as a feminist in order to feel strongly about the trans issue, and about the need to protect single sex spaces, services and sports.

I just read that too CivilCervix, it moved me to tears.

I imagine the employers who are inflexible, are inflexible with the women too.

True in my experience

(You described the men I used to know and work with very well.)

Sorry. Long.

It was a very interesting post nicegerbil made me think! Not long at all.

I just read this excerpt about her daughter's eating disorder, after Glosswitch shared it, and it's devastating & searingly honest...

'What I’ve learnt about motherhood'

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8714697a-e149-11ea-9a3a-c45f6db42dc9

Male suicide is not just something for men to sort out. Nor is it a new phenomenon (and I have no idea what point nepeta is making in her post).

The point I was making was really more an answer to the MRAs who argue that higher rates of male suicide are a consequence of the male roles in the society.

Female suicide attempt rates are higher, at least in some countries, and the cultural/ethnic/racial differences suggest that the reasons are more complicated than just the stress of male sex roles which would be roughly the same in most cultures. And access to guns makes a difference, too, as your examples highlight.

I have known two women who committed suicide and one man.

the only reason why we wear them is because people find the mere suggestion of unshackled boobs very offensive and distracting

That is not the only reason.

NiceGerbil

Good points. I agree with all of them except this one.

For sure there are problems eg suicide but this is for MEN to sort out. And as far as I can tell, they're just not that interested

Male suicide is not just something for men to sort out. Nor is it a new phenomenon (and I have no idea what point nepeta is making in her post).

I grew up in a farming community and my work involves that community - one of the high risk groups possibly because of legal access to guns.

I'm 61. I don't know any woman who has committed suicide. On the other hand before I was 18 I knew of 2 farmers in my community who shot themselves, a boy in class who hanged himself the summer before he was due to go to university, in a horrible coincidence, a friend of my son's did the same at the same age, a friend's step-son at university who hanged himself, the farmer father of a work colleague who shot himself and another farmer, not known to me personally, but who made the news for shooting himself after losing a court case.

Well no.

I've not read her books and don't know much about her TBH although have heard her name a lot.

Oh the other thing about this. It's about stories. The stories that people, especially men, tell. And how they don't align to real life at all.

A common story is that men who are single don't get any kind of physical contact with others. No closeness/ comfort/ support. And can't talk about xyz.

This is a story. A well recognised story to the extent it's accepted without question.

The men I know (and this may well not be universal)

• are way more physical with other men at work/ in the pub etc than women are with each other. Half hugs, back slapping, genuine fondness in smiles, football is on and there's a goal it's hugs all round.

• DH definitely talks to his mates about family and problems etc. How's the kids. How's your wife's depression. Are you managing ok.

-loads of men also offload onto women who, frankly, don't really care. But listen because it would be rude not to

The story of men as stoic providers who protect and suffer is mainly just that. A story.

For sure there are problems eg suicide but this is for MEN to sort out. And as far as I can tell, they're just not that interested.

I strongly object to women, feminists having to take on men's problems as well as women's problems in a society that puts men before women.

Most of the problems that men have are caused by other men/ society. And men hold the power in society. As ever though, women are expected to look after them, put them first. The constant bending of feminist aims to focus on men is shit. Women have enough problems.

I also dispute the stories told. No dad in the park is going to ignore a toddler crying. And people with no kids, male or female, can be rubbish at knowing what to do with a kid.

It's all stories. Not real life.

Oh and the men in my current and last job worked flexibly and went to school plays etc. It was fine. I imagine the employers who are inflexible, are inflexible with the women too.

Sorry. Long.

TLDR. The stories about men are like this and women are like that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Did anyone consider that maybe she simply wants to sell more books and this is a popular angle at the moment?

Sounds like a book written for pickmes by a pickme. Old school radical feminism is the only way forward and I'm even finding this board is going too easy on men recently. Maybe it's female socialisation or a coping mechanism. The relationship board is way worse though. All hope isn't lost for my generation though. I'm a 20 something RadFem and I think that's becoming more and more common considering the internet has showed us how men are.

These are directly from the MRA lists. Odd that she omitted the MRA talking point that women rape and abuse just as much as men do...

Agree Nepeta I found that uncomfortable, it reads like the numerous tweets she must have received in response to her writing over the years

'She embraces bras, which is fine, but I don't remember her acknowledging that unless you have large breasts, the only reason why we wear them is because people find the mere suggestion of unshackled boobs very offensive and distracting'

Agree. Bras exist for sexist and ageist reasons. It's the main part of our bodies which shows us as 'non men' and breasts are, frankly, fetishised in our culture.

Big breasts are seen as somehow lewd just by existing.
They are simultaneously the focus of both lust and comedy/ almost revulsion by plenty of men. They're obscene even when covered.
The idea of going without a bra as a larger chested woman is not a goer.
Older women's breasts- and by older I mean often not actually that old- are seen as undesirable/ awful. Bras need to hoik them to under our chins to make them passable.

It's all shit tbh.

Things not changed much for men in the last 120 years? Assuming we're talking UK,

Off the top of my head

Being a gay man is no longer criminal and marriage is now legal
The invention of the contraceptive pill had a big impact for men (as well as women)

They're pretty big deals aren't they? I'm sure there's more.

It's a really weird statement.