Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

294 replies

Jackieharris · 19/04/2015 10:18

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

OP posts:
laurierf · 19/04/2015 13:49

I was actually using the BA thing as an example for an AIBU topic.. however, for me, simple rules for all cabin staff - wear clean uniform, be washed, clean shaved face, short hair or tied back, short clean fingernails. Easyjet female cabin crew wear trousers.

laurierf · 19/04/2015 13:51

By the way, I like beards! But I have discovered that many people don't think they are hygienic and don't want food servers with long facial hair (male or female).

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 13:51

It doesn't, it only includes that uniform for certain very restrictive and elitist companies, not just specific airlines. I would understand the complaint if it were a requirement that ALL women must wear makeup, full stop, wherever they work. It isn't, is it?

Easyjet is not BA... just saying.

laurierf · 19/04/2015 13:53

Easyjet is not BA... just saying.

I agree - Easyjet is preferable.

lucycant · 19/04/2015 13:53

I think if an employer wants a uniform, it makes more sense to have a range of items either women or men can wear. So skirt, trousers, jacket, blouse, shirt, dress. Then a woman can wear trousers and a shirt if she wants to, and a man can wear a skirt and blouse.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 13:55

To you, not to me. That orange gives me a headache, and there isn't makeup garish enough to co-ordinate.

Horses for courses...

Wink

Tea? Coffee, Madam?

TheCowThatLaughs · 19/04/2015 13:57

No it isn't but to me it seems unfair that women who work at these companies are forced to wear makeup when they don't wish to.
It's also interesting to me that women have to wear it but men don't and I question why that should be. Also that women are allowed to wear more comfortable clothing than men in hotter weather.
It seems to me that in simple matters of clothing and what's acceptable for men/women neither sex is benefitting at some times

TheCowThatLaughs · 19/04/2015 14:06

Sorry just thinking about this s bit more, and I think what is wrong about it is that it implies that men are ok to just be smart, whatever their facial appearance, but women must be smart and pretty. Why?

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 14:09

Have you seen the range of men's moisturising products that are out there now? Insidious and on the increase. 'Just for men' hair dye? Male tanning? If women are being 'groomed' for positions, then so are men. Neither gender, it would seem, are exempt.

OTheHugeManatee · 19/04/2015 14:10

Also, what is very hard for some women, even feminists, to realize is that men are doing the oppressing on purpose. That it's not an accident. It's strategic and deliberate.

This, in a nutshell, is why I generally don't post. NB sakura I am not attacking you or your views; of course it is your right to hold whatever views you like; but you have just summarised clearly one of the central tenets of a feminism that is not mine.

I don't contest the existence of oppression of women, and I have plenty of first-hand experience of misogyny. But I just don't resonate with the view that this is intentional, and calculated, like there's some kind of all-male Illuminati out there scheming about how best to keep women down.

If there are other ways to talk about structural inequalities I'd love to hear them. I'd never have chosen to post this ^^ in FWR though. In an AIBU discussion, fine, as there is more diversity of views about feminism, but my sense is in FWR the consensus view is that The Patriarchy is a thing and questioning it is a waste of everyone's time when people would rather take it as a given and discuss specific things in the light of that agreement. Hence, being charitable, that in questioning this tenet I'm either daft or ignorant or possibly a MRA or a troll; and some - not all but some - posters would respond quite scornfully.

Now all that above is fair enough. Who am I to poke about in the basic premises of a worldview when others want to use those premises as tools to analyse other matters? So I think the best way for me to be respectful of that worldview is just not to show up and detail the discussion. I think Buffy's word 'incommensurability' might be relevant here.

So in summary I consider myself pretty alert to many issues of feminism and women's rights; yet I question what I see as the conspiracy theory of patriarchy. I'm no shrinking violet and so could theoretically stick around in FWR to argue the toss, but to be honest I deal with enough conflict and tricky negotiation in my actual real working life not to be very enthused about seeking it out on the Internet.

lucycant · 19/04/2015 14:10

Except men are not required to use them for work.

TheCowThatLaughs · 19/04/2015 14:11

No they're not exempt Sad
But it's also not compulsory for men to wear makeup or false tan in certain jobs
Apart from "gigolo" maybe??

OTheHugeManatee · 19/04/2015 14:11

That should be 'derail the discussion'.

OutsSelf · 19/04/2015 14:23

I don't the existence of male grooming products does not mean that women and men are subject to equal standards of grooming. Why are you keen to make this point, Lying? I just can't see why it's so controversial to say a company requiring only women adopt a uniform that includes lipstick is sexist?

Original poster
Jackieharris · 19/04/2015 14:30

I don't really think that when the fwr board was set up it was envisaged that the dominant threads would be on hair removal, beer labels and lipstick!

There is a place for these discussions but they don't sum up feminism for me.

OP posts:
LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 14:32

Giving this some more thought I've been pondering the Kardassians (sp)? Most men that I know - the one I married and the many that I didn't - don't like their girlfriends to be caked in make-up at all. It's purely for selfish reasons, they don't like the smell/taste/look of it on their own clothes or the smudge-effect on said girlfriend's face after a while.

So, given that some men generally seem to prefer a more natural look, why is it that some women favour such a heavily made-up look? It's not for men so who is it for? The answer - other women. These are women who are competing with other women who are doing whatever they do - for other women. Why?

I don't like the concept of feminism that seems to put down other women and men, hold men culpable of things that are ridiculous when you look at them and generally so far skewed towards what's 'right for women' as to be 'unfair for men'. I can't subscribe to that. I'm obviously a very bad feminist but a much better equalist. I think that if on a general level, equal consideration was given to both genders, those that comprise the 'patriarchy', ie. men, might become less defensive and driven to hold women down.

As somebody upthread pointed out, we are mothers and partners of men, we can't abdicate ourselves from that responsibility and nor would we want to. So isn't it in all of our best interests to see where there is inequality, for either gender, and focus on that from time to time, whilst plugging away at better rights for women?

laurierf · 19/04/2015 14:37

I don't like the concept of feminism that seems to put down other women and men, hold men culpable of things that are ridiculous when you look at them and generally so far skewed towards what's 'right for women' as to be 'unfair for men'. I can't subscribe to that. I'm obviously a very bad feminist but a much better equalist.

I'm a feminist because I believe in equality not because I like to put other people down or make things unfair for men. Which is why, for example, I think male and female cabin crew should have the same requirements.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 14:38

OutsSelf... I don't know that I agree with you. Male grooming products didn't really exist years ago, did they? They've appeared from somewhere so there's a demand for them, a market... what is that?

What's the difference between male grooming and female grooming?

You might want to re-think your "Why are you so keen to make this point, Lying?"... the inference being that I shouldn't? It sounds like that to me. We have a difference of opinion; I don't think that a company requiring women to wear makeup is sexist, you do. I've given my reasons above - women are not required to wear makeup if they don't want to work for other companies for which it's not a requirement. There are other companies (the majority).

Look at the recruiters and the interviewers for posts for any company... many are women. They are decision-makers as much as men.

laurierf · 19/04/2015 14:39

I don't like the concept of feminism that seems to put down other women and men, hold men culpable of things that are ridiculous when you look at them and generally so far skewed towards what's 'right for women' as to be 'unfair for men'. I can't subscribe to that. I'm obviously a very bad feminist but a much better equalist

I'm a feminist because I believe in equality not because I like to put other people down or make things unfair for men. Which is why, for example, I think male and female cabin crew should have the same requirements.

TheCowThatLaughs · 19/04/2015 14:42

Recruiters can be women and still be upholding sexist practices. It clearly is sexist because men are not required to wear makeup
But I'll have to agree to disagree now Smile

OutsSelf · 19/04/2015 14:54

I'm saying BA as a company is sexist by requiring different standards of grooming from men and women. Being able to work elsewhere doesn't make BA itself less sexist. I don't understand why you think it does. I also think that when we accept standards like this from individual companies, we accept sexist standards are reasonable. I do not think they are.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between male grooming products and female grooming products. This seems so odd to me that I find it suspicious. Have you not noticed the broader context in which women in general are considered unusual and possibly unreasonable for not wanting to wear makeup but men are not? Because that is certainly my experience, even with the existence of a (much smaller) range of male grooming products. I literally can't understand how this could be described as equivalent.

I think it's a mistake to think feminism means you are fighting against MEN. I'm well aware that many, many women participate in policing women's behaviour. An extreme example would be that women are heavily involved in facilitating FGM. Doesn't mean it's not a feminist issue though.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/04/2015 14:57

Fair enough CowThatLaughs... I'm always happy to agree to disagree.

I won't mention that in some roles, men are required to remove/cover up facial hair, women are not.

laurierf · 19/04/2015 15:00

Lying - pointing out that there are roles which are sexist against men, doesn't change anything?!

laurierf · 19/04/2015 15:05

Also wondering which roles require men to remove noticeable facial hair but not women...

laurierf · 19/04/2015 15:06

(not saying they don't exist but which ones are they?)

Swipe left for the next trending thread