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

@TrashedSofa I believe that discussing these choices as available and normal rather than "better / worse" actually normalises these different options

and i think women should really pick their battles - having to correct someone "its Ms, not Miss" is really not that big of a deal - if enough people will do it enough times everyone will just get used to it

No worries, just wanted to make sure you were clear on what I thought.

I'm not sure how your second point would work in relation to misogyny experienced by women who keep and pass on our own names in cultures where that's not the norm, and not use titles denoting marital status. Can you elaborate?

@TrashedSofa sorry, I was referring to the theme from the main post of women doing things that harm themselves and others

and I am fully aware of being slightly idealistic, but if we were supporting a wide range of choices then we would not be negatively impacted as a group by those choices

Think there's been some confusion here. I haven't suggested that women engaging in patriarchal naming traditions are harming themselves. Indeed, I can see that some may derive benefits from it, and those women are likely to be better placed to articulate the benefits than I am. Instead, I'm talking about the impact those choices have on other women who make different choices.

@TrashedSofa absolutely, but it is possible to acknowledge that something originated from patriarchal tradition but nowadays is simply an option women can chose

Saying that a decision an adult makes is harmful to them (and everyone else) is a bit too simplistic.

it ignores choices, self-awareness, multitude of personal reasons and other societal pressures not strictly related to gender, as well as simple personal preferences. In few places here it was demonstrated that man doing something is more likely to be seen simply as choice, while for women it has to be a result of societal pressure that she may be blindly following.

Trivial example: cooking. Women traditionally had a role of homemakers so a woman who cooks for the entire family is seen as following traditional values, could she possibly just like cooking just like her male neighbour who cooks for his entire family and takes great pride in it?

@TrashedSofa isnt just talking what creates social pressure? are those not the snide remarks and comments that were discussed earlier?

anything can be talked about, as we're doing right now, but this is very much the social policing that causes people to do or not do certain things - or to get defensive and reject the entire movement leading to alternative ideologies ("tradwives" movement is a good example of what happens when you push too hard)

Social pressure is created by lots of things. Other people's actions, for example the decision of other women to engage in patriarchal naming traditions. Talking can create social pressure too, of course, but in this particular situation obviously it's been the less effective of the two. Additionally, telling women to STFU when we raise this issue is social pressure, no? And indeed policing.

Defensiveness is an issue, yes. The problem you have there is that the risk of pissing someone off can be applied to absolutely anything that anyone might want to say about women's rights. Some of those pissed off people will be female.

Additionally, if you start to label women talking about our experiences of sexism due to surname choices as policing others, you also risk that group feeling alienated and rejecting the movement too. The points you are making here work both ways.

@TempestTost I think this is less to do with gender issues and more to do with general capitalistic "bleed you dry" approach

However, I have seen feminists saying that taking long leave from work is anti-feminist because you're forsaking your career for childcare...and then that supporting longer paternity leave is wrong because men allegedly don't use it for the right purpose

in fact anything to do with parenthood is a can of worm and you can never do it right - not as a parent and not as a woman

@TrashedSofa isnt just talking what creates social pressure? are those not the snide remarks and comments that were discussed earlier?

anything can be talked about, as we're doing right now, but this is very much the social policing that causes people to do or not do certain things - or to get defensive and reject the entire movement leading to alternative ideologies ("tradwives" movement is a good example of what happens when you push too hard)

What did your STFU refer to, then @MercanDede ? I don't see how you can square the claim that you aren't saying we shouldn't talk about this issue with what you wrote about how you'll tell women who point out that some choices are anti-feminist to shut up. Nor is it clear how you can claim that's not policing.

Also, you don't have to hold the same view as me about 'materially', albeit only one of us is speaking from a position of any experience of that aspect of misogyny here. But it's not a matter of opinion that naming traditions and titles and the way we use them also impact other people. It's how they work. Nor is is a matter of opinion that the tradition of the woman taking the man's name on marriage is patriarchal. These things are facts, the only thing we get to decide is how we respond to them.

Sure, there are all kinds of possibilities. And often hard to parse, because the outcomes can be indirect.

I've talked to Swedish women, for example, thrilled with their maternity and parental leave, and excellent childcare arrangements. I've also talked with Swedish women who want to care for their own kids, but it's almost impossible unless they are wealthy, because the financial supports to keep women in the workforce are so socially expensive that making the decision NOT to take advantage of them becomes impossible for most people. The whole society is predicated in almost all adults being in paid employment.

So there isn't a right or wrong, in terms of "is it feminist". That's not really even a sensible question in a way, what could the answer possibly be? What there is, is a set of pros and cons to the various decisions a society can make.

I have no trouble with you talking about it, after all, I am talking about it too. There is no misogyny or inherent patriarchy in surnames is my opinion.

Im not conflating talking with judging and pressuring women to act the way you’d want them to. Look at the OP^ it is very clear that the OP is of the opinion that women are acting against their own interest (I disagree) and ask should anything be done? I’m answering the OP by saying, no, nothing should be done because controlling women through socialisation and stigma and pressure is just patriarchy with an M instead of a P.

You don't get to tell us that we shouldn't be talking about the impact that other women's choices have had on us

Thank goodness I haven’t said you can’t talk about something. You can flap your lips all day long. I don’t have to accept t your premise that other women’s choices do materially affect your life and I don’t.

This is a good example of what I referred to a couple of pages back when I mentioned when I said that some women simply won't tolerate discussion of aspects of misogyny relating to surnames. That's what your STFU is.

Your problem, quite clearly, is with women talking about this: after all, it's not like any of us have the power to prevent other women doing what they want to do, despite your attempts to conflate talking and controlling. Frankly, your distinction between policing and talking seems to be that it's only policing if you don't want to hear it. The racism analogy is risible.

Additionally, while I agree that you continue to say it's not other women's business, it remains a fact that all of our choices and behaviours in this way impact each other. Because that's just how naming systems and titles work.

You don't get to tell us that we shouldn't be talking about the impact that other women's choices have had on us, about that contribution to the sexism we experience. It isn't for you to say. And nothing you write when complaining about this does anything whatsoever to impact on the patriarchy either.

What I mean I alluded to earlier, that I am not in support of any attempts to replace patriarchy with matriarchy which is exactly what all this discussion centred on policing other women’s life choices is creating. It’s so called feminists taking on a matriarchal role and telling women things like it’s not a feminist choice to take your husband’s surname, or be a SAHM or to like party princess dresses, wear makeup and heels with a sniff sniff and a judgemental stare.

Women are not liberated if they end up having to appease and obey Big Mother what decides what is feminist.

🤣 Asking women to stop policing other women’s life choices isn’t the same thing as actively policing other women’s life choices. An analogy to what you are saying would be arguing that an anti-racist is doing the same thing as a racist by telling racists to shut up and mind their own business.

None of my posts are criticising women speaking about their own experiences or their own choices- in fact I fully support every woman’s freedom to make their own life choices.

You can have any surname you choose, no criticism from me.

It’s when you try and impose your choices on other women, tell other women what surname they should choose or tell them their choice is anti feminist or feminist that I will always say, STFU, not your beeswax and honestly women doing this or that on such minor things have zero impact on the “patriarchy”.

Let women be women.

@TempestTost all good points

I absolutely agree that some policies that I find helpful would have been deemed not very feminist by the logic of this thread

However, I do find a year long maternity to serve women, just like paternity serves women as much as it does men

Interesting @TempestTost.
I keep seeing religious parallels and I am definitely repelled by any religion that sets an impossible standard and then says ‘we are all sinners and God forgives us’
It seems things have only advanced in ways that fit in with capitalism.

But plenty of women would argue that this acceptance that in order to have power, or mitigate risk, they need to control their fertility in the right way, and have jobs in the right way, and put their kids in paid care (usually from lower class women,) is itself quite anti-woman.

Rather than recognizing that reproductive role means women and men may have different life paths, and need different kinds of social supports, this kind of "women in the workforce" idea as a center for feminism is the very opposite of radical. It takes for granted that the kind of economic arrangements that serve men serve women too. (And doesn't really ask if they even really serve men.)

Nor is it radical in that it tends to work best for middle class women, while working class women are still doing the childcare work, just for other people. Nor is it radical in the sense that it is very good for GDP and corporate capitalism, which wants as much of people's lives brought into the paid economy as possible, for their own benefit.

This is the big problem I have with this "why do women work against their interests" stuff, Or even, we all make unfemininst choices because we have to and that is ok of course. There is a very lazy assumption that it is simple to think about what it means to be feminist, and it means things like women prioritizing career, or men and women being equally likely to want to stay home with the baby.

The claim that these kinds of disagreements is stupid "choice" feminism is just incredibly dismissive.

My father hates heels with trousers if that helps.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo while I was only half serious, I genuinely think men are not that interested in women's footwear

so if anyone was to have a genuine opinion and/or reaction it would be mostly women

@MercanDede
I’m a rebel feminist at heart

Oh, I (may) like the sound of that.
Can I ask what you mean by that?
I’m picturing the great women of Korean and Chinese from the 4B movement.
Anything like them?

It was your question so I guess you can say what counts and what it counts towards.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo I'm starting to see a trend here :P

to be honest the only man who has ever said anything about my shoes (not legs, shoes) was my husband but that does not count, does it?

Random women stop me in the street to admire my legs. Does that count? It doesn’t happen when wearing trousers and trainers.
I think I have lost the thread here.

You are doing the exact same thing in this post that you criticise other feminists for. This is you telling women who want to talk about the aspects of our inequality and experiences of patriarchy that relate to naming and titles that we're doing it wrong. You're policing, hence the comments about wasting time and distractions.

Your attitude to women who want to speak about the misogyny we experience due to our decision to engage in less patriarchal naming and title traditions doesn't liberate or free women. It doesn't fight the reality of our oppression and it doesn't tackle any of the things you say you want to prioritise.

By all means don't take any particular interest in this aspect of patriarchy and how it affects us if you don't want to. Nothing wrong in that, we all choose where we place our energies. But you can do that without doing what you've done here.

@Mambo1986 you won't get hate but this hierarchy is simply inaccurate - just look at politicians, most of them have faces only mother could love and yet they are at the absolute top of the hierarchy

not to mention that most people are in monogamous relationships so it matters very little what "access to men" you have when you don't want access to them

For as long as women want the best men there will be competition and because women know these things work on men to get their attention it’s kind of inevitable for women to behave this way because if they don’t another woman will take their place. I’ll get hate for this but the social hierarchy is something like:

1. attractive men
2. attractive women
3. unattractive women
4. unattractive men

as you cant really control what other people want these sort of behaviours are inevitable. As for thousands of years men were providers they tend to focus more on outward beauty/youth as markers for social value and to compete against other men. It’s just kind of how it is. There’s a reason they say women control access to sex and men control access to relationships. I hate to say it but all these behaviours your complaining about only will get worse because dating apps exist the competition is extreme so this is why you see women will to put themselves in more and more dangerous positions because if they don’t an attractive guy can just go elsewhere. sweet shop mentality.