Why are there so few posts on the feminism board? (Part 2)

[Jackieharris]

Since the last one filled up I though I'd start a new one as the conversation seemed to be mid flow.

Cross post.

rainbow, I would be afraid of a strange man in some circumstances when I wouldn't be afraid of a strange woman in the same way, though - would you not?

It's not that I think all men justify my fear, but I'm afraid of being raped by men, not by one specific stranger I could identify from a line-up, while another stranger is obviously a 'safe' person. Does that make any sense?

OK - I'll try again.

I don't believe that you can tell a person's nature by looking at them. Any person, not just men. And women have the ability to cause damage too. And the impression that the FWR threads give me is that only men should be feared and must be feared.

All women are potential murderers, but a woman is much less likely to murder me than a man is to rape me, I wouldn't feel at risk in the same way

And I wouldn't be at risk

Hmm. I agree with you everyone is capable of being a threat and we can't know who actually is. But I don't get the same impression from FWR threads personally.

Cross-post!

I probably would, but it's a well known fact that you are less likely to be raped by a stranger than someone you know so I also think it's a bit weird! I only feel that way because I have been taught to, yet I was raped by a family friend.

Some of the threads border on the ridiculous.
There is one about many beers and ales having misogynist names, but no supporting evidence.
Someone else has kindly linked to a comprehensive list of all Real Ales produced by all breweries in the UK. There are hundreds of them and 3 or 4 have questionable names.

Much ado about nothing really.

I'm sorry that happened to you.

And you're right, it's not easy to rationalise fear.

I suppose the way I see it is - I know I would find it hard to believe if a man I cared about did something like that. But I appreciate there being a community of women who I know would remind me that it does happen, and we can believe each other.

Posters could comment and say they disagree that beer and ale names are misogynistic, or they could ignore that thread and start a thread about something they do think is important. Not all the poster's in fwr will agree about everything, they won't all think ale names are misogynistic in the same way not everyone in the doghouse will agree that poodles are the best breed of dog. Also you can read and post in fwr without actively engaging in every thread.

Nobody expects everyone to be in agreement and full particopation on other topics so I don't understand why they seem to about fwr.

I'm involved in feminist groups IRL and online elsewhere therefore I get my feminist discussion elsewhere. That doesn't mean I don't like the feminism section here, just that I have discussions elsewhere.

paxtecum - I haven't read the thread. But I drink real ale. A lot of the popular ones do have misogynistic names.

Some of the threads border on the ridiculous. There is one about many beers and ales having misogynist names, but no supporting evidence. Someone else has kindly linked to a comprehensive list of all Real Ales produced by all breweries in the UK. There are hundreds of them and 3 or 4 have questionable names

Much ado about nothing really

Which is why I think some a post would sit perfectly on AIBU.

such a post

Actually it is more accurate to say the pictures attached to the pumps are often misogynistic. So Elsie Mo, a popular real ale, has a picture attached to it on the pump of a fifties pin up woman.

Same goes for whether it's right that female BA staff are still obliged to wear lipstick. AIBU for thinking that it's ridiculous this is still company policy in 2015? etc.

Why is it ridiculous? It's a requirement of the job to look groomed, there are specific requirements around that - even down to the colour, shock horror!

Females however, are not required to work for BA so all's well.

It's a feminist issue because men aren't required to wear lipstick

I assume they're not anyway!

I don't see that it is. Women are not required to work for BA anymore than men are. If you want to use cabin crew as a point, men are required to look groomed, wear the regulation shirts... whatever BA hoops there are. Same for any member of staff.

It's akin really to saying that on a hot day, in some offices all around the UK, men are not permitted to remove ties, jackets or wear short sleeves... women are not required to work jackets, can wear sleeveless stuff, don't have to wear socks/tights/trousers, etc.

Fair's fair.

I don't agree that men should be forced to keep their jackets on either though. It's still sexist that women are required to wear makeup when men aren't

Like most other people, I just don't have the time to be shouted down, belittled, insulted, and infantilized because I don't agree with everything they have to say on the feminist board.

The fact that such a huge number of people say they feel this way and the people on the feminism board still struggle to accept that as a valid opinion proves the point.

I don't think forcing men to wear ties can assuage my feeling that whether or not I wear lipstick SHOULD be a matter of personal choice. Men manage to look groomed without lipstick so I think I can too.

I rather think we shouldn't force men to wear ties at all. I think they should be free to turn up to work on hot days with a lightweight skirt and a floaty top, as I can.

... goodness, imagine the 'hairiness' debate that would ensue.

Women are NOT required to wear makeup. They are required to wear 'uniform' for certain jobs/roles/companies. That uniform includes makeup. A woman's choice as it always has been to work for them or not.

It would be lovely if everyone was free to dress as they chose to, and wear lipstick or not as they preferred

Why does a woman's uniform include makeup when a man's does not though?