Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

@PaintedEgg
It is an endless circle, you are right. What is judged feminist/nonfeminist by a vocal subset of women changes each generation. It quite often flip flops- I have seen it happen like a pendulum swinging back and forth on a few issues in my half century of life. It’s a waste of time. It only benefits the patriarchy to have women policing women in endless circles of policing the behaviour of other women while blaming them for the oppression of men!

Like courts still ask what was she wearing? We are doing that to other women!

Oh my, you wear makeup and heels? Shame you’ll never be taken seriously as a professional, and you’re making women look frivolous, so it’s your fault that we still have a gender pay gap.

You got married? How could you? You’ve allowed a man to own you, put his surname and a finger slave shackle on you and you know Mrs means Mr’s, why?!. It’s women like you that are keeping other women down.

It gets me really ARGH! To read this sort of stuff from women who profess to be feminists. Policing women is doing the patriarchy’s job for men, no matter how feminist you think your views are, they will reverse in time because it’s a circular road to hell, like the M25. That’s how I view it.

@MercanDede I agree, there are greater issues than someone's name...but it also shows how privileged some of us are to even begin to worry and discuss these matters for days on a message board.

Besides, picking on those things will just result in going round in circles like we did in the past. Women were told to be gentle, not even mention sex, absolutely never do "manly" things like wear hats, ride bicycles and smoke...so women did. because that was going against the system.

Post-sexual revolution we are now told that by wearing make-up, having sex and wearing heels we are supporting patriarchy.

Now we are being told that keeping majority of custody post split / divorce plays into hands of men, but women had to fight for their right to keep their children if they were to leave their husband - it was not that long ago when men had automatic full custody.

And then we remove all human aspects and forget that women may like some shoes models more than others, not be very invested in their careers, simply love their children and like makeup.

In the meantime courts still ask what was the victim wearing

I agree with this so much. I’m a rebel feminist at heart and any man or woman telling me that their world view of this choice is feminist and that choice is not feminist puts my hackles up. We should be fighting sexist oppression, not engaging in endless discussions policing the behaviour of other women as sufficiently feminist.

I dont give a shit if a woman prefers Mrs, Ms, Miss. I will never pressure a woman to choose one because “it’s more feminist” or not choose one because “you’re just furthering the patriarchy”

Patriarchy is all about policing women, that’s all you do by taking the place of patriarchy to police women. You are not liberating or freeing women, you are policing women to your own view. And it’s a waste of time, it is a distraction from what feminists should really be doing- fighting the reality of our oppression.

I’d rather be tackling domestic violence or appalling rape conviction rates than discussing Mrs,Ms,Miss, makeup, shaving, sexual preference, who does the childcare in a way that tears women down for exercising their liberation to make their own choices.

I see what you mean about it feeding into the system and agree with you, it the bit about that being independent of men that I'm not sure about. I can see how their position was equally a double edged sword and in their own ways they did try to identify female talent in a way others didn't.

We will all make decisions and act in certain ways that aren't 100% feminist from the perspective of actions that advance women as a class.

I know when I got to their position I was very conscious about my actions, but there may be more junior women who looked at me and thought "when I get to Lola's role I'd do that differently".

@LolaSmiles I agree that it comes from systemic issues, but trying to police the right way to be a woman instead of openly opposing the sexist environment we live in is feeding into that system

Women telling other women what shoes they should wear to be good feminists / to be taken seriously is like when people were discussing importance of appearance of imported bananas around brexit time

yes, the appearance of bananas was regulated but it seriously did not matter in a grand scheme of things, but it was a convenient element of smoke screen

@LolaSmiles it is a bit sad...almost as if women were more likely to step on other women and find things to complain and comment about than men could ever be

not because men are nicer by any means - i doubt they care, but it seems like some women think they do
My take looking back is that they presented a certain way to be taken seriously when women were, and are, still less likely to progress to senior positions. This shaped their approach to ambitious younger staff.

I've seen men being promoted for being the right sort of lad, for having the right (male pattern) banter, for talking a good talk, only to get in post and have more junior women doing the grunt work that keeps the wheels turning. Women in the workplace, much like society, are judged on their appearance and mannerisms much more harshly than men.

On the whole women are less likely to seek promotion when they're entirely competent, but men will seek promotion because they feel that they'll work it out if they get it. Women who don't present a certain way are too easily dismissed and overlooked so to be taken seriously there's often a pressure to present a certain way. It's grounded in a system where women carving a career out are starting 10 feet behind men with less experience and weaker skills.

I'm deeply skeptical of any attempts to look at individual female behaviour and view it as a "see women are awful to women independent of men" behaviour, because at root a lot of it comes down to systemic issues.

@LolaSmiles it is a bit sad...almost as if women were more likely to step on other women and find things to complain and comment about than men could ever be

not because men are nicer by any means - i doubt they care, but it seems like some women think they do

can we be honest here - do any of you get any reaction to your footwear? like any at all?
In one workplace I had comments about my workwear/footwear Funnily enough it came from other, more senior, women who had a very narrow idea of what younger, ambitious women should be wearing. I did an experiment and found that I could wear the same outfit with different pairs of shoes and get a different response.

I'm sad to say I ended up bringing heels to work for years to make sure I was seen looking 'professional'.

can we be honest here - do any of you get any reaction to your footwear? like any at all?

Men have the power in our patriarchal society. Women as a subordinate class have to appease men in order to survive. (This is less the case now but the power imbalance is still there.) It's a common trauma response to actually learn to enjoy the outward signals of the subordinate status to trick ourselves into believing we have some power. It feels better than accepting that we do not. Hence ' I wear high heels for myself, it makes me feel good.' The reality is ' I like the reaction I get from men when I outwardly signal to them that I am accepting of my subordinate status and will suffer pain, discomfort, damage to my body and an inability to run if I need to in order to be liked more than the woman who isn't doing that. This happens subconsciously in most cases, but this is my belief ( I didn't come up with it myself but read it somewhere else and seems to make sense.)

In my family, income was the driver in the decision that I would stay at home with the children. Dh earned significantly more than me - and his future earning prospects were much better than mine too. Also, he loved his job and, at the point where I got pregnant with ds1, I hated the place I was working, and was miserable there. We were lucky that we could afford to run the household on just dh’s salary.

I did go back to work part time after having ds2, but when I got pregnant with ds3, my take home pay for 2.5 days a week (as a Theatre nurse) was £150, and the nursery costs for each child was £50 per week - so when we had two dc, I was contributing to the household finances, but when we decided to have ds3, I’d have basically been working for nothing - and whilst I wasn’t as unhappy as I’d been in the previous workplace, I didn’t love my job enough to want to do it for free, so I gave up work.

I do wonder whether, if my pay level had been better, I might have carried on working but I think I was trapped by the gender pay gap - nursing, being traditionally a female profession, clearly suffers from this - and then other factors added to that - childcare costs in particular, but also the fact that, as a part timer, I wasn’t given the chance for professional development or the possibility of promotion - I was a senior staff nurse, but could see no prospect of becoming a Sister.

Unless you want to?

I like being the default parent. I like being the one they come to first in a crisis. I like it all, choose it all, and willingly reduced my hours at work to accommodate. I feel like it's their dad who has missed out.

I accept it means that DH earns more for the family pot, and that if we split he would be better off financially, but I don't resent our role split one bit.

@Fernsfernsferns while yes, there are risks / benefits at play here, women are also seriously socialised to prioritise "stability" over attraction. Even this thread heavily suggests women generally don't experience kinks or even strong sexual desire as such - and if we do its because of "media told us to!"

there is also another aspect that keeps getting sort of glossed over - that if something works for the majority of women then claiming its harmful neither makes it harmful nor will it change what these women do

for example: there was a thread about fathers not pulling their weight after a split, only seeing their kids every other weekend, not doing christmas etc...but it was women themselves who point-blank admitted they prefer that arrangement to actually sharing custody 50-50 and having their kids only 50% of time

Same with career - yes, it is woman's financial situation and career that generally takes a hit following childbirth and it would be great if men were widely socially expected to put equal amount of time and effort into having children...a lot of women would not care for it and they would not care if its not feminist enough

@PaintedEgg yes agree some women actively want and seek to take on the SAH wife / mother the patriarchy can offer. I think both status and lifestyle are at play here

men are often pilloried if they seek similar.

and I think men and women are equally looks and attractiveness oriented deep down.

but a lot of women ignore / suppress their own drivers and feelings about attraction - ‘it’s the personality I find a attractive’ ‘he is just so kind / funny’ etc

both as having a successful relationship is a marker of success for women and his looks matter less in that societal judgement.

AND because choosing a kind and stable life partner is a way of managing the risks of motherhood. And women knowingly or unknowingly prioritise that over sexual attraction/ fulfilment

and that’s before we get to the negative risks for women of prioritising their own sexual satisfaction

@thedankness there is also a factor of what matters most to people. I absolutely agree that being a SAHM is a massive risk - and way too heavy burden to place on your spouse when it comes to finances. However, some women want to lifestyle and actively seek out men with similar values who will provide them with the lifestyle they want.

Some people are fully aware of patriarchal values they take on and the risk these carry - and still are willingly taking on this risk.

Likewise a woman may want her husband's name for a whole host of reasons (some of which were listed here) and there are absolutely people who were born blessed with attractiveness and are happy ro both flaunt and use it.

@thedankness

ive not read the full thread but a few thoughts from me:

i think you are overlooking a couple of things:

• first that there are rewards in terms of social status and validation by adopting at least some of these things. Women’s relationship and married status still matters A LOT even if it’s less than it used to be. I married late and really felt this

• second that even if feminist and aware we may not want to fight every battle. I am married now (married late) didn’t change my name as I didn’t want to. Kids have DH surname, mine as a middle. Sometimes I regret not double barrelling but it wouldn’t have worked (prononciation). When people ask me why they have his surname not mine and shrug and say we live in a patriarchal society, which we do.

• third that some of these things do have genuine positive benefits. It’s helpful to be able to use make up to enhance. I have sensitive damaged skin and I’m happy I can both protect it from further damage and enhance my looks so I’m me on a good day much more often. You’re wrong if you think men never do this. Especially those on TV who mostly do have make up on. It’s on the rise among younger men too, more to enhance that change their looks although that is also on the increase among gay and gender bending men. Kinky sex also some women enjoy. Not me, but I do love good sex with a hot man. I feel strongly that female sexuality is hugely oppressed by the patriarchy some active feminists feed into this because they’ve had such bad sexual experiences themselves that they reject it all. Or they are just not very sexual themselves, which is fine, but doesn’t apply to all women. Reading MN makes clear many women have never had hot lust driven sex with a man they really really find physically attractive and that’s very sad. Personally I am very physically orientated when it comes to sexual relationships. I love dressing up and looking good in make up and heels occasionally. I’m also only interested in good looking and physically fit men that fit my type. Someone like Bradley Cooper is my type. It also means men are shocked by women that enjoy PIV (as I do) and I’ve been judged by some for that - but that’s other women conforming and ignoring / avoiding / being unaware of their own sexuality and sexual pleasure.

so of it is changing though. Heels are no longer a requirement for formal
work wear for women - I think we have the pandemic to thank for that

Some of that I think is larger than feminism. We like to imagine we are free thinkers, post Enlightenment, rational and individualist.

I think we've collectively somehow convinced ourselves we are much more uniquely individual than we actually are - due partly to capitalist and post modern ideas. We often have a resistance to or horror of being led or shaped or influenced.

Libfemmery told us if we were <really> daring individuals we'd liberate ourselves from societal shackles by ... shagging about and performing extreme acts self abuse 'like the lads'.

(I fell for that bollocks myself, lest anyone think I'm judging!)

@PaperDoIIs Sorry, I wasn't clear. No, I don't think there was any mention of racism or xenophobia but there was mention of decisions being better at an individual level even if not the "correct feminist" decision. I hope it didn't come across as me trying to minimise your experience of racism. I certainly didn't mean to do that. Obviously experiences like that will hugely complicate things.

While not in any way comparable to racism experienced by BAME people, I did experience a lot of anti-Irish xenophobia when I worked in London in the 80's so I do know something of where you are coming from. I had moved back to Ireland before having dc so that didn't factor in my decision on naming. I simply sleep walked into giving the dc dh's surname without thinking. Having listened to feminist opinions on this since, I have realised the societal implications and do regret not using both names. Other decisions I made I knew were not optimal from a feminist perspective but they made sense given my circumstances at the time and I have no regrets.

Just to add - I agree with you re discussion and intersectional complications. However, I don't think we will progress of we're not willing to listen to the implications of our decisions. It is best to make a fully informed decision rather than just sleepwalking into it and then refusing to listen to anything suggesting our decisions are not perfect.

@OchonAgusOchonOh some posters though label those reasons as trivial and rather silly.

Maybe I missed it, but at no point in the conversation did I see how does it all mix with racism,xenophobia,xenophobia etc.

Yes we are women most and foremost, but that doesn't mean it's the only form of discrimination we face and that we have to navigate. I believe it's worth at least a mention if not a full discussion rather than laughing for example at the silly woman with the silly reasons thinking her husband's/partner's name sounds better.

I believe that in order to empower women to make more feminist /better choices we have to understand and listen where they're coming from and offer alternatives and reassurance. Rather than "you silly woman ,you're setting back the cause 50 years"(actual comments I've repeatedly seen on MN).

I think most people understand that we all sometimes make decisions that might not be the feminist one but it happens to be the best one for us in our current circumstances. That has been mentioned multiple times in the thread.

What some posters seem to forget is that other -isms can influence just as much as patriarchy, just in different ways.

Like the name situation for example. OH didn't particularly care one way or the other (it was my decision ) and no pressure from family or friends/outsiders .Yes DD's very English name would've sounded quite stupid with my very foreign name (and that's the reason I normally give when asked) , but that wasn't the main reason. The main reason is that I didn't want her to automatically be an other , have to explain herself, her existence or presence here. There are many negative connotations with the country I'm from and I didn't want her to carry that around with her like I do. Things might change by the time she's older but I didn't want her CV dismissed based on her last name, be met with distrust or suspicion here or abroad like I was and so on. Her dad's English name offered her an extra layer of protection because I know there's a lot of crap coming her way simply for being a girl. I didn't want to add any extra on that for being from X (even if she was born and raised here) . Her wellbeing came and always will come way ahead my principles. I realise that it's a bit robbing Peter to pay Paul ( perpetuating one harmful tradition to avoid other harm) but I had to "choose".

Some interesting points upthread. Especially those relating to: 'I took a decision at some point in my life, and someone else accused me of "bad" feminism'.

I'm quite sure we've all taken decisions - or been forced into positions - that have been in our own individual interests, or that of our families and children, but against the collective benefit of women, before today. Anyone who's been a woman in the face of parental illness, and who's had male siblings, will know the doctors and carers automatically come to you rather than your brothers and assume you'll take on the entirety of the responsibility of care. Many of us are hardly going to say 'no' in that predicament. All any of us wanted in that situation was what was best for our mother. Again - when others' needs come first, that is always assumed to be at women's expense.

Is this 'letting down the sisterhood?' No. There is no sisterhood. Feminisms are a pluralist set of movements, not a hive mentality, and they are often bitterly, vehemently opposed to one another. If you take the roots of the WOHM vs. SAHM debate that attracts such vitriol on these threads, we find its roots in first-wave feminism: the Woman Citizen position of the Old Feminists vs. the separate spheres (women owning the domestic) of the New feminists of the day. This morphed into the wages for housework campaign of the second wave, against angry opposition from those upholding the sex equality act and wanting equality of opportunity in the workplace, plus fair and equal pay for equal work.

None of this has ever sat together equally. As for the suffragettes and anti-suffragists, need I say more (and that, for one, is a position I cannot compute. How CAN you be a sentinent female and oppose not only your own right to the vote, but also that of half the population? Nowhere is there a law that you have to exercise that right).

Some of the hair-splitting as regards a slick of lipstick is pretty trivial stuff by comparison. I couldn't give a monkeys if someone dyes her roots or wears lipgloss. The name issue is important to me personally, and I'd get rid of all 'titles' tomorrow if I could: they're obsolete and serve no function I can see.

But I do think it's important to examine the conditions under which these 'choices' are made. In response to @LolaSmiles post above, the older I get, the more I tend to prefer the Rad Fems (the real rad fems, that is, not the bastardisation people talk about nowadays) to the liberal position. The issue we have to contend with is structural and systemic. Individual 'choice' and supposed freedom (which isn't freedom) seems pretty much aside from the point.

It can be very painful to examine our own decisions and even who we are as people and realise both are inevitably influenced by our oppression. None of us can be sure we'd be like or how our lives would look if it weren't for patriarchy and sexism.
I agree with you.

A central part of me embracing "real" feminism, as opposed to the wishy washy you do you girl liberal feminism of my student years, was being in a place where I genuinely felt I could examine my decision making and experiences without taking discussions of class based issues as a personal criticism of me.

On reflection whilst my time in liberal feminism circles appeared superficially empowering (with claims that any decision a woman makes is empowerment, you do you, if anyone mentions your decision making is affected by patriarchy they're just tearing women down etc) I realised a lot of it was grounded in two problematic ideas:

1. The idea that women as individuals are more important than discussion of class based oppression.
2. The idea that individuals also being are inherently very fragile, so any hint of critical reflection is viewed as a threat to an individual's sense of self

Once I realised that it's very convenient to have a version of feminism that rebrands patriarchy as empowerment, I couldn't stay in that place philosophically.

I guess it's different perspectives then. I know I have made "wrong" decisions but I don't feel it personally if there are threads discussing those decisions negatively. However, I can see how someone else might perceive these types of discussions differently.

I find the discussions helpful to see how my decisions have bigger implications than I thought. Sometimes it facilitates introspection on my part and helps me make better decisions in the future. Some decisions I would change if I could, others I would stick with even though they are the "wrong" decision but at least I now understand the full implications of my choices.

It can be very painful to examine our own decisions and even who we are as people and realise both are inevitably influenced by our oppression. None of us can be sure we'd be like or how our lives would look if it weren't for patriarchy and sexism. Works for other isms too- for example, Barack Obama talked in his autobiography about questioning whether traits he'd presumed to be his true and authentic self were in fact a reaction to racism.