feminists

[babywipesaremagic]

This is the first time I have started a thread, I lurk often and post sometimes.

I know that a lot of MNers are proud feminists and this is often mentioned in posts then followed with claims that femininity is anti feminist. For example make up and time that a woman spends on her appearance is a blow to feminism.

I strongly believe in equal rights for EVERYONE, regardless of gender, sexuality, age, race. My question to any feminists who are reading is do you feel that women need to be more like men in order to be equal, and if so does this not mean that the patriarchal views of past generations have simply been passed onto us. So you can be a successful woman, but only if you downplay your looks and gentler side.

Because to me that isn't really a victory at all, more of a surrender.

"Pink products are marketed at little girls because a lot of little girls really like pink."

No, they aren't. A lot of little girls really like pink because pink products are marketed at little girls.

Here's a 1976 Argos catalogue page (on the left) with (on the right) equivalent toys from today's catalogue pasted in.

There hasn't been a great leap in human evolution over the last thirty-seven years such that now girls are innately drawn to pink while boys are innately driven to reject it. What has happened is that toy companies and other manufacturers and retailers realised that if they can create a culture of "pink is for girls and girls like pink" then parents with both male and female children would come under pressure to buy more than one of things instead of handing them down.

The page on the right isn't actually a current Argos page though is it? It has been "recreated" so that it is a page entirely full of pink products.

Anyway, I agree that you are right about pink marketing so that toys aren't passed down. Maybe that is why girls are drawn to pink at the moment. But still, I genuinely don't see why it really matters? Pink is just a colour.

'That doesn't make me silly or mean that I am not well-educated.'

Who said it did?

That's why I was looking for examples LRD.

So many blanket statements. No proof.

LRD - The "preening kit" thread has posters on who say that they want more for their daughters ( I am paraphrasing there, but that is the general tone) than being interested in hair & make up. The implication is that there is something wrong with any kind or female 'pampering' and their daughters should be protected from this type of activity. I think that insinuates that women who do choose to have an interest is this type of thing are somehow less 'worthy' than women who don't bother with it.

I think that is the sentiment that the OP on this thread is referring to, although I could be wrong.

Yes, agree tee.

And I agree with buffy, as usual.

I'm a feminist, and I spend my life in dresses and like sewing and baking and so on. It doesn't make me silly or uneducated (and actually I wouldn't want to have a go at someone for being uneducated anyway, because it's often not something someone can help).

What I have an issue with is when someone assumes that, because I'm a woman, I should like baking and wouldn't be any good at masculine stuff like welding or whatever.

I have a friend like you. She thought I would dislike her bottle feeding because I am a feminist. No evidence, no comment from me, no reason, no logic. I informed her that on the contrary, my brand of feminism meant that I would go to the barricades for her to have a FREE CHOICE.

I don't believe that giving pick hair straighteners to three yo girls and not boys encourages a free choice in later life but there you go.

I don't really follow that mis.

What's wrong with wanting more? I don't have children, I only have a baby niece, but I want the world on a string for her, TBH.

I (and I suspect most feminists) don't think less of you for liking pink sparkly things, shaving your legs or working in a traditionally feminine way. Ironically, it's society that thinks less of you for it. Pays you less (or nothing, if you're a SAHM) for instance.

Agree with Buffy. It's not women who identify as feminist (such as myself and pretty much every other woman I know of my age) who create this divide and conquer situation. Media outlets and powerful people in many areas find it in their best interests to make women hate each other.

I've no problem with pink. I don't wear make up because I think I should - I wear it when I want to, because I feel like it. I don't particularly like pamper parties for little girls, because it puts the focus on looks very early on, and that's extremely risky. Sadly, we've got the rest of our lives to spend bazillions on grooming and feel defined by our looks. Who wants that for young children?

Pink is just a colour. But "little girls and little boys are fundamentally different from each other" is an ideology. And the two tend to go together.

I did say "with (on the right) equivalent toys from today's catalogue pasted in." The Argos catalogue today is about five times bigger than the Argos catalogue from 1976, to begin with. If you search for any of those toy types on the Argos site you can find non-pink examples, but the overwhelming majority of them are pink or pale lilac (21 out of 24 dolls' houses, for example). So it's a fairly accurate reflection of how the Argos catalogue would look if they weren't stocking five times the number of items now as they did then.

Well. Not sure it hello the debate really, but I love this parody of a feminist make up guide.

"Funny that the careers that women most suit or are guided to are also the low paid ones."

Exactly- the real problem is that the low status of these jobs is because they are done by women, and that is a massive problem which needs tackling on a much deeper level than giving girls different toys and dressing up costumes. Otherwise it's like putting a plaster on a broken spine.

In the same way, to eschew everything pink and sparkly is to concentrate on the signifier instead of the signified- we should be asking ourselves why we associate 'girliness' (which pink is shorthand for in our society) with weakness and want to reject it. It is a dangerous message to be sending young girls that they should reject anything 'girly'.

The best way to tackle the problem is not to reject the pink sparkly crap, but to encourage boys to play with it too, without fear of being thought of as 'girly'.

I honestly don't give a shiny shit how much make-up a woman wears. I do care about women who don't wear make-up being taken aside at work and being told they need to 'look more professional' when what is really meant is 'look more pretty.' I highly value my own home-making skills and am doing my best to pass them onto my own DS. I am a feminist.

I don't hate pink, it's just a colour. But I do hate pinkification and the fact that little girls drown in a sea of pink. I do hate the fact that pamper parties for 5 yos exist - wtf does a 5 year old need pampered for? and I very, very much care about gender exclusion.

I don't want women to be more like men. I want gender divisions to dissolve.

And what Buffy said. It's not feminists who devalue women. It's society.

Misguided hamwidge yes that is what I meant.

MrsTerryPratchett I haven't said only give pink things to girls, I have said that I have boys and let them play around with 'girly' things, I just don't like the idea that girls should be guided away from 'girly' things because they will grow up to value looks above all else.

I have said already equality to me is being able to choose whatever makes you happy. Taking away a girls choice of whether she wants pink things seems like a big step back to me.

(girly is in inverted commas because I know people will say that the problem is that they are perceived as such. I agree that is A problem but not the only one)

LRD - My point is that wanting "more" implies that being interested in hair and make-up is somehow "less". It shouldn't actually be relevant though should it? You can encourage your daughters to have 'more' and do everything they want to do. They can do it with or without make-up, without or without hair straighteners! One thing doesn't cancel out the other.

I don't understand the notion of "femininity" being ascribed exclusively to certain actions/traits and I never have.
I do think that teaching female children that they are "meant" to have a much, much higher level of personal grooming than male children is fucked up though.

OP, I think you have a profound misunderstanding about what "feminism" is, and what feminists say

You can encourage your daughters to have 'more' and do everything they want to do. They can do it with or without make-up, without or without hair straighteners!

The issue is that currently, make up and hair straighteners (and eyebrow plucking, lip fillers, chemical dermabrasion, hair bleaching, false nails, false eyelashes, hair extensions, leg waxing, etc etc ad infinitum) are much more expected of female people than they are of male people. Females are judged on their appearance far, far more than males are.

I don't think I would read it that way, but I am only glancing at that thread because it's long. I think that wanting 'more' just implies not wanting only that. Obviously, being limited to hair and make-up is 'less' than being given access to everything.

I would have other issues with a three year old and makeup/straighteners, but I wouldn't think wearing makeup is 'less' than not wearing it.

"In the same way, to eschew everything pink and sparkly is to concentrate on the signifier instead of the signified- we should be asking ourselves why we associate 'girliness' (which pink is shorthand for in our society) with weakness and want to reject it. It is a dangerous message to be sending young girls that they should reject anything 'girly'."

That's done by the pro-pink-and-sparkly camp too, though, tethers. Any time we polarise things and say "This is girly and this is not" or "this is feminine and this is not" or "Girls like this and boys like that" we are giving young girls the idea that they have to choose -- that if they like things that are "not girly" or "unfeminine" then they have to, to some extent, reject their own femaleness. I hate the word "tomboy" with a passion. She's not a tomboy, she's a girl. She doesn't like "boys' stuff", she likes stuff (and dislikes other stuff) and given that she's a girl the stuff she likes is just as validly described as "girls' stuff" as anything any other girl may happen to like.

"I strongly believe in equal rights for EVERYONE, regardless of gender"

Sounds like you are a feminist too,OP!

There are different kinds of feminist. The kind of militant feminist you are describing exists, but it's a loud minority. I really hate how feminism has become a dirty word, women wouldn't even be able to express the opinion that they are anti-feminist expecting to be taken seriously if it hadn't been for feminism.

Amazing how, with this 'loud minority', no-one seems to be able to find a single quotation ...

You might hive pink things and hair straighteners to boys as well but are you really under the impression that 50% of the pink 'beauty' tat from the 'girl's toys' aisle is given to boys? Really? Because you are deluded if you think that.