TO WONDER WHY WOMEN DONT MIND BEING 2ND CLASS CITIZENS

[MrsClown]

I am a feminist. I am 52 years old with 4 grown up children. I shave my legs, paint my nails and wear make up. I am heterosexual and married. I just wondered, why do people assume that I have hairy legs and am a lesbian! Yes, some feminists are lesbians but we are a mixed bunch. Also, can anyone tell me why most women do not mind the fact that they cant walk around where they want to at night, and if they do and something happens they get part of the blame. Why dont women mind that the list of BBC Sports Personality is all male. Why dont women mind that other women are being bought and sold for sex and some are trafficked. If women do mind, why do they not at least attempt to do something about it. Why do most women ridicule me when I say I am a feminist, after all I am in good company (Annie Lennox, Helena Kennedy, Josie Long, Diane Abbott etc). Why do most women think it is ok for men of all ages (including elderly men) have the right to leer at a woman's body (who is probably young enough to be their grand daughter) every day in a 'newspaper'. I could go on. Is there no end to what women will put up with.

I am not being callous with my questions. I have been a feminist for about 40 years and things dont seem to be that much better for women, infact the objectification is much worse. I wondered if anyone would answer me to satisfy my curiosity. I have been ridiculed by so many women during discussions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is usually the non fem who gets annoyed and starts getting upset. Infact, on many occasions men have agreed with me! I cant understand why a mother would not want her daughter to have the same rights as her son.

Sorry to go on but I hope someone will satisfy my curiosity.

Yes, Aye - because of course up until then children were considered the chattel of the patriarch in the family (and for women this lasted until their fathers gave them away to their husbands).

Chilling.

But being rude or dismissive to other women who don't see things quite the same way isn't feminist either, and yet there's a passionate minority among the MN feminists that do this.

I get the impression that for sozzled 'arrogant, belligerent, unwelcoming ... and off-putting' might be at least as significant in that post as 'a bit anti men'. Certainly it is for me. I don't venture down to FWR often, despite the fact that thread titles there often interest me, simply because some of the regulars seem very rude and unpleasant and I don't come on MN to be insulted or condescended to. And I din't see what being rude does to advance the cause of feminism.

You see I'd say this was rude and dismissive Manatee:

"I described as as pompous self-righteous zealots the very small minority of individuals, among those who self-identify as feminists, who are attracted to feminism more for its value as a buttress for their sense of personal importance than out of any real interest in anyone's ideas or experience other than their own, and who use the political affiliation to cloak their fragile egos in a fog of virtuous outrage."

Actually it's incredibly rude. But it's coming from you. So why is it all right for you to indulge in name-calling and personal attacks without naming names and then accuse others of being insulting? I don't get it.

Ah ok - if this is going to turn into the usual bashing of some of the posters on here then I'm out.

Boring and unpleasant.

Take it up on the thread at that time and stand up for your views - if you are robustly disagreed with for your views don't make it personal by wittering on about it on other threads. If someone personally attacks you, report the post and MNHQ will delete it.

But if that doesn't apply to you, why would you be offended. Are you saying there aren't people out there like that?

You say potayto and I say potahto...

I haven't come across any feminists like that sozzled.

Also since when was it wrong to be offended on behalf of other people, if they are being attacked? Manatee is making personal attacks there, even if she isn't naming names. Feminism is a political movement making political arguments, it's the oldest trick in the book to try and turn the argument to ad hominems.

There have been attacks on feminists right through this thread, but as usual we're having the same old song that it's feminists who are the nasty ones.

The OP asked a set of political questions, she didn't attack anybody, yet this immediately turned into claims that feminists were having ago at people, and, using that as an excuse, more attacks on feminists.

Sozzled, I'm guessing that you are addressing me. Sorry but I don't really feel like going over this right now - we have had quite a lot of discussions about it on here before and I don't think they do anything other than lead to hurt.

I have been called all sorts of things on MN under the blanket insults that are made at Radical Feminists. I have also been personally called all sorts of things and had all sorts of asperations cast on me, my emotional state, my mental health and how the men in my life treat me.

Here is my honest answer - I think a lot of the time people don't like what feminists are saying, a sort of inconvenient truth if you like. People don't like that feminists are angry about female oppression - indeed lots of people live in a state of cognitive dissonace about said oppression (feminists included, CD is a survival mechanism). Lots of people don't like that feminists state their case robustly and uncompromising and don't agree that an action or a choice is a feminist one simply because it was made/done by a women.

One person's 'robustly disagreed with' is another's 'insulted and condescended to', I suppose. I know a number of MNers who steer clear for that reason. I am saddened sometimes by the idea that MN feminism might be missing out on a range of contributors because they have experienced being being 'robustly disagreed with' and decided it wasn't pleasant. But whatever - there are plenty of other sections on MN.

Well let's cry a river huh Manatee - personally I much prefer robust disagreement of my views than personal insults and judgements made on a person's character, their ego, their fragility as a person, etc. I found the latter quite low down - especially when it is done in a vague blanket group attack rather than actually naming anybody - it may not be intentional but it is a sneaky way of flouting the MN guidelines.

Also I think most people can (or certainly should) be able to tell the difference between being disagreed with and being insulted. If they can't they should report the post to MNHQ and they will receive an email from HQ telling them whether a post contains an attack/insult or not.

Isn't all this about tone rather than content?

PARD is the way. PARD for all, then we don't have to be sidetracked from content which is much more interesting.

NetMums had a feminist section once - or so legend has it - HQ got rid of it PDQ because it caused too much in fighting and division. just wasn't worth the hassle.
So it happens everywhere - these arguments between women over feminism.

All human beings argue over everything.

Nothing wrong with arguing and debate, just need to use PARD.

Christ we're in AIBU, the most robust section of Mumsnet. The Feminism section is fluffy kittens and clouds compared to this part of the forum. I didn't notice people responding to the OP on this thread being super-polite and kind. Quite the opposite.

But as long as someone isn't a feminist that kind of behaviour is fine apparently and not to be remarked upon, or generalisations made.

I don't like anything other than PARD in any section, personally.

I like <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=leopard&num=10&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1AFAB_en-GBGB441GB442&authuser=0&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=vE6AoPeGNNr-sM:&imgrefurl=www.animalpictures.tk/animal-pictures/leopard-pictures.html&docid=R-XGe8Mu4J-jLM&imgurl=www.animalpictures.tk/wp-content/uploads/pictures/leopard-454.jpg&w=1024&h=768&ei=1wzaTvn_Hcaq8QO5y9XlDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1066&vpy=352&dur=200&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=203&ty=138&sig=113858632473988370349&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=170&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this pard - it looks relaxed.

What does it mean hully?

Polite And Reasonable Discourse, ry.

We had a little campaign to get it more widely used on MN.

"We" was whoever was on the thread at the time, sadly the details escape me now.

If you don't do PARD then <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=leopard&num=10&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1AFAB_en-GBGB441GB442&authuser=0&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=vE6AoPeGNNr-sM:&imgrefurl=www.animalpictures.tk/animal-pictures/leopard-pictures.html&docid=R-XGe8Mu4J-jLM&imgurl=www.animalpictures.tk/wp-content/uploads/pictures/leopard-454.jpg&w=1024&h=768&ei=1wzaTvn_Hcaq8QO5y9XlDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1066&vpy=352&dur=200&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=203&ty=138&sig=113858632473988370349&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=170&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">my pard will get down off its tree and eat you.

How's that?

ah hully - you never fail to make me smile. MN wouldn't be the same without you. It really wouldn't.

"Radical feminism hasn't achieved anything?"

Good God, woman! The Women's Suffrage movement for example was radical, and groundbreaking. You think they didn't achieve anything?

It's this kind of ignorance and stupidity that is most worrying of all.

And your point is?

That she was lucky?

My point was that she wouldn't stand for it.
In her first job in a shop she stood up for herself, on the first day the manager called her 'you girl'-he only did it once-after that he was careful to always address her as Miss X.
She had equal rights in her marriage, in fact I would say she was in charge. Certainly she made sure that her DDs had a good education and start in life.

She didn't have to be radical.
I admit that you can be very unlucky in the family you are born into but you have a choice about who you marry.
I would say that she was a feminist-but not radical. I am similar.

Historically (and factually) she didn't have equal rights in her marriage. She may have been treated equally by a decent husband, or a decent society, but in the eyes of the law, she didn't have equal rights to:
a divorce
Shared property in the event of a separation
shared (Or any) custody of her children in the event of a separation
ownership of her body (Marital rape was legal)

So that's the thing: she was 'allowed' equality by decent, reasonable people. She stood up for herself and it sounds like she was awesome. But HAD someone decided to put the smackdown on her, they could have done, because legally she didn't have equal rights.