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.

oh a Greenham get together would be fun

OK, I'll put the Greenham idea firmly in my mind

Oh yes gordys,we could share some tales and songs round a campfire.

What's Greenham?

I haven't yet read this entire thread although I will.

What stands out for me is the genuine disbelief that some women don't describe themselves as feminists. I find it very hard to comprehend. Is it the 'old-fashioned' (pushed by men) idea that feminists are "ugly lezzers"?

The other point that stood out for me was the describing of the FWR board as 'scary'. It really isn't. What holds me back from posting there is that the majority of posters are very intellligent and in a nutshell, i'm not! Otherwise it is not 'scary' at all.

Off to read whole thread.

Tee

Greenham common womens peace camp

TooOldForGlitter
Nah, they are not any more intelligent that you. They just use big words and like to reference obscure text books and feminist writers. Don't be intimidated, and don't ever ever say that you are not intelligent. (sorry, but it is a bugbear of mine at the moment, when women put themselves down).

Oh God camping. No thanks.

Tee, it was awesome.

Just read the thread, v interesting.

I do find FWR off-putting, only because it's lots of very well-informed people discussing points and ideas that mostly go over my head.

This thread was a bit of a 'guide to feminism' in layman's terms and made a lot of sense (thanks you guys!!).

I am at the argos catalogue, I know obviously that things have 'gone pink', but I have boys so hadn't noticed the extent. I had doll's houses/pram/kitchen etc growing up, but none of it was pink - it was mini-replicas of actual things.

I have never 'identified' myself as a feminist as such, as I would not have said I was vehement enough in my views, but thinking about it I probably am. I am passionate about girls not being confined to being 'lesser', for them to have ambition whilst growing up and for them to have good, aspirational role models; I want young girls to stand up and not be afraid to fail (I think boys in general are brought up to 'give anything a go', whereas girls are in general edged towards 'safe, achievable outcomes').

I work in a very male dominated job, and my working dress is overalls; I have mainly been an outdoor worker and always looked scruffy and windswept, with filthy broken nails, covered in oil, scratches and bruises whilst at work. When I am not in work, I like to look 'like a girl' - I get my nails/hair done, I epilate, I have had a bit of botox and I like pampering breaks every now and again.
What jars with me is: am I a feminist because I have fought hard for my right to do the job I do, and succeed in it - or am I letting down women by subscribing to the want to be seen as a woman and not 'just as good as the men, one of the boys' when I am not in work?

Apologies for being very generalised in this post, but I hope it came across as I meant it to!

If God had wanted me to camp, he would not have created high tea at The Ritz.

I think that it's using artistic licence to call it camping really Tee.
It wasn't quite so luxurious as that.

Ages upthread now, but about that article, I didn't mean that it was any kind of endorsement about feminist theory, I meant that the second half basically said "This research is little more than pop psychology because the brain is too complex to explain like that."

Yes the patterns are interesting but to draw from that that men and women are "wired differently" is simplistic. For one thing, the human brain is nothing like a computer or an electrical circuit and to look at "connections" as though they work in the same way is totally baffling. It's like likening the digestive system to a railway network. Yes it moves something along a pre-aligned pathway but other than that there is nothing the same about them at all.

Flatpack nobody runs free with the wolves in high heels except Carrie Bradshawe. Heels may exaggerate hip movement but in a manner that shortens leg tendons and ligaments with prolonged wear.

Not liberating.

"Is it the 'old-fashioned' (pushed by men) idea that feminists are "ugly lezzers"?"

What puts me off is some of the extreme viewpoints, on local radio during the lads mags campaign a few months ago there was a woman from a well known feminist group describing people who bought FHM and similar titles as paedos.

Me too, HappyFeet. Me too.

monica in a word, no you are not letting anyone down by wearing exactly whatever the hell you want. That's one part of feminism - wear what you want, look how you like.

Mignonette

Flatpack nobody runs free with the wolves in high heels except Carrie Bradshawe. Heels may exaggerate hip movement but in a manner that shortens leg tendons and ligaments with prolonged wear.

Not liberating.

It's not about whether it's liberating or not. You stated:

"But so much of the beauty industry is orientated towards minimising some aspect of being a Woman as opposed to maximising it."

Clearly with heels that isn't the case. There's no attempt to minimise any aspect of a woman with heels, is there?

Monica- FWR isn't scary. Really it isn't. Try dropping round the 'pub' some time. It sounds like you'd enjoy the chat .

Monica FWR is terrifying. Avoid it at all costs.

Tell me about it.

I shake in my shoes thinking about the amount of time I spend in there wittering on about my ideal pub and my favourite women authors.

Yes heels DO minimise women because they diminish their ability to walk and run. They diminish and harm their muscular skeletal system. They are designed to direct the male gaze onto an arched foot, a pelvis made to move in an unnatural manner because if it was natural, women would walk like that all the time.

It minimises many aspects of being a woman and living freely as one.

Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes - OED definition.

OP if you believe in the above you are a feminist. That's all. Academics can tear the guts out of the debates about social pressures, hairy armpits, pink tat and what is or isn't a feminist thing to do - but TBH that's all the dancing that goes on round the edges.

And there is absolutely no mention of celery in the OED definition.

So, feminism is doing your own thing for your own reasons and bugger what society, culture, stereotypes and other people say. You say sod 'em.

Rocket science it ain't.

Mignonette

Yes heels DO minimise women because they diminish their ability to walk and run.

That isn't (your quote) minimising some aspect of being a woman. Everyone walks and runs, it isn't peculiar to women.

They diminish and harm their muscular skeletal system. They are designed to direct the male gaze onto an arched foot, a pelvis made to move in an unnatural manner because if it was natural, women would walk like that all the time.

Women DO walk like that all the time, but the heel exaggerates it. It - to use your term - maximises the movement.

It minimises many aspects of being a woman and living freely as one.

Only when you twist the term 'minimise' to breaking point. But, this is the 'feminism' thread, so I'll leave you all to it.