I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

I like SAF's definition of what feminism should be but like POG do not get that vibe from the feminism board. I appreciate it is not terribly helpful to drag up old posts but I feel the only way to illustrate my point is the romeo juliet thread - reading it made my blood run cold and my DS is primary school age.

I want both my DC's to be confident independent young adults in control of their actions and in this context their sexuality. The idea that sex will always be something that is "done" to my DD and that she cannot consent to sex(and I am talking practically not legally) without automatically being the victim, whilst my DS would in the same situation be seen as a perpetrator of sexual violence made me extremely uncomfortable.

The sexual dynamic is interesting. Does the biology of sex mean that the female partner is always vulnerable? Probably. Much as I hate to admit it.

Teach him that girls can be predators too, and that he must be very clear about his behaviour if he is the target of their intentions.
Teach him to recognise what flirting is, and to tell them no and to leave him alone, and not touch him. Tell them to keep their petting and patting and nudging to themselves.
Even if he says it in a loud and angry voice, so they then get all flouncy and call him names like weirdo and gay and creep.
That's what mine endured for sections of his time in Y10 and 11. Because he is attractive and not interested in girlfriends at the moment.

Agree with Goblin. I will be drumming it in to my boys that they have to keep themselves safe, as well as looking after the safety of any potential partners.

Wow!
That hit a sore spot, sorry for the grump!
But why can't those 15 year old girls take no for an answer?

"Does the biology of sex mean that the female partner is always vulnerable? "

Not necessarily vulnerable - but certainly I don't think it's an equivalent experience for the male and female partner, there seems to be a tendency now to talk as though it is.

Chickens - I'd say some women do it because the reality of having to confront the lazy fucker who throws his toys out of the pram if they mention it is one they'd rather avoid. So its better to think all men are like that. Which is why talking about this stuff is important, so people can see how issues are not just individual but shaped by things beyond the individual.

And that is probably what I will do (whilst feeling like an enormous hypocrite since his Dad and I had sex together when we were both 15)

However it makes me hugely uncomfortable that the advice I will give my DD is - sex is an important part of a loving realtionship, don't have sex until you are ready, be cautious who you decide to have sex with, but if you feel ready and are happy with your decision then just be careful etc etc. but the advice I will have to give my son is don not under any circumstances have sex before you are 16 as you will be considered to be a rapist.

I'm hoping that my DS's won't have sex before they're 16 purely because I don't think they'll be mature enough. But that's probably a different issue. In fact, if I could, I'd fit them with chastity belts until they are 18 and have passed some kind of exam.

And damn you all! You've sucked me in to a feminism thread by stealth! This is AIBU!

And that lack of equivalence was exactly what was being discussed on the Romeo and Juliet thread.

Also, gender role enforcement/exaggeration and the hypermasculine violence associated with it is surely of interest to all parents?

It's not the boys that many people worry about, it's the girls.
However old your boys get, they should always go for an older woman.
Considering the amount of perving that goes on here over teenage boys, there is no shortage of supply of willing female admirers over the age of 16.
I'm hoping the girls DS will be mixing with at college will be less assertive about their needs and understand what no thank you means.

I became a feminist when I had my DS.

It made me incredibly sad that in some respects society has such low expectations of men and his opportunities would be limited simply due to his gender.

I had a male colleague at the time whose son was about 9 months older than mine and he was laughed at for making a flexible working application and it was refused - because he wanted to share childcare with him and his wife both working part-time. In the end he had to leave work and is now trying to get freelance work in between times.

From an innocent bystanders point of view, I think society has got worse for women in many ways ( re: gender stereotyping ) - Miss world and all the Benny Hill stuff is long gone from TV ( banned wasn't it? ) - only to be replaced by lap-dancing clubs springing up all over the place - the 'in your face' innocent stuff ( I loved Miss world ) may have disappeared - but something a lot worse replaced it. Women are more objectified than ever - just not on mainstream TV.

I also find it a little strange that feminism means flexible working hours for women why not for families?

Some jobs do offer flexible working though, right? I mean, DH's does. It seems to me that the more you earn, the more magically flexible work becomes. Is that not the case across the board?

Posie, it doesn't. Feminists are the ones who would like flexible working so all parents/carers can look after their children.

I am very fortunate to work for an employer where flexitime and flexible working - compressed hours for example - is the norm. It benefits everyone - carers, dogowners, parents, people who want to get away early on a Friday to go surfing.

BBQ that's such a shame.

Yanbu. Easily the most hostile place on mumsnet.

I thought that maternity leave was planned to be being split soon? So either parent can choose to take it after the first few weeks (or was it the first 6 months?)

A boy automatically considered to be a rapist because he has consensual sex with a girl of the same age before either of them are 16?
I'd hate to live in a world that deemed such a boy to be a rapist.
He's not a rapist in my view, and I am glad to say, nor is he considered one by those in power. In fact, I have never, ever met anybody who would consider him to be a rapist. Never.

What on earth can be good about labelling such a boy a rapist? What if the girl is 15 and the boy 13? What then?
Let's keep the 'rapist' tag for those that truly deserve it.

One of the things that has benefitted me most as a mother was when DH started teaching and could take on the burden (and yes, it is a burden!) of the school run and holidays. Leaving me free to do the work I am supposed to be doing, not planning and worrying about childcare and trying to be in several places at once.

I am also able to work from home one day a week and whenever else I need to.

Without this life would be unutterably hard. As it was in the first few years of my DC life! Flexible and organic working practices for either parents makes life easier for everyone.

SaF (and Wamster), consensual sex with someone under 16 but over 13 is not rape, it is sexual activity with a minor. Just to clarify.