Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

'There is no need for feminism in first world countries because females are no longer oppressed...'

458 replies

TinyRick · 07/04/2017 11:52

And apparently we have 'more rights than men now'.

One example of many - www.debate.org/opinions/women-are-not-oppressed-in-first-world-countries

I was going to post this on the Feminism boards but I have heard this from females too so thought I would post here to see views from those who do think this and agree with it.

I'm on a social media site and this comes up quite often. Yes, quite presumably from young males but I have also read about the 'Red Pill' and the 'MGTOW' movements which are mostly populated by the older males.

Aibu to think that Feminism in the first world is still needed and as relevant as ever? And amongst our 'luxuries' we are still the oppressed class?

OP posts:
skerrywind · 08/04/2017 07:35

I realise that STFU, but men procreate too.
But women are disengaged because of it.
And you don't think Patriarchy is broken?

'There is no need for feminism in first world countries because females are no longer oppressed...'
'There is no need for feminism in first world countries because females are no longer oppressed...'
Lweji · 08/04/2017 07:38

You just need to make men take as much as their partners in paternal leave.
Then make sure that no father is allowed to work more than 40h a week. (Or any worker for that matter)

See how that would make the field much more level.

skerrywind · 08/04/2017 07:40

I agree.

I think increasing paternity rights is probably a way forward.

STFU · 08/04/2017 07:40

"have to shoulder the burden"

You don't have to. It. is. a. choice.

Some women do decide to not have children because of the financial implications and other reasons. They tend to be much more successful in their careers.

Not all women would decide to do this but if a few did then it wouldn't do the world any harm. Look it up.

What do you suggest is the solution to ensure that the mother of who takes the absolute maximum permissible maternity leave per child doesn't miss out financially or in her career prospects?

@KarlosKKrinkelbeim - what does he do if there are two in front, on either side of the road and ones coming behind who would be afraid should he stop and wait?

picklemepopcorn · 08/04/2017 07:43

STFU with that many women around they would be less concerned by a lone male.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 08/04/2017 07:46

I don't know, STFU. I guess he works it out. Your level of concern for men on this entirely trivial issue does suggest you may have things perhaps a bit skewed? Sense of proportion always handy, I find.

r0tringLover · 08/04/2017 07:46

Forced leave? How about if you're paid hourly or self-employed?

Ensuring that men can't work over 40 hours? That does nothing to help women, it simply punishes fathers. The fathers who are working 40+ hours a week to provide financially for their children and spouse. You may then notice career differences between parents and non-parents. At least feminists wouldn't pretend it was misogyny anymore, they would be protesting at parentist institutions.

Do you still think your ideas were good?

jellyfrizz · 08/04/2017 08:05

You don't have to. It. is. a. choice.

So the solution to equal pay is for women to stop having babies?

BertrandRussell · 08/04/2017 08:17

STFU.

Please could you say a bit more about the men's rights you advocate for?

So far you have talked about a man's inalienable right to refuse to modify his behaviour to avoid worrying other people. Yep-i reckon that battle's been won. What else?

STFU · 08/04/2017 08:26

@jellyfrizz - we have equal pay. Through choices, you may not have the same career trajectory and yes, the solution to this is to decide to not have children.

I took a job at a different company (same role but smaller place so fewer work demands) after having DS1. Cost me around £30k a year lost income.

DH took a couple of years off when our second was born. He thinks the 2 years set him back 5 or 6 years in his career.

They were both choices we were happy to make.

BarbaraofSeville · 08/04/2017 08:26

We could stop the presenteeism culture in many jobs where people are expected to be at work until 7/8/9 pm most nights 'to show willing' or go out for drinks for team bonding or to show that they are a team player.

In Denmark/Sweden it is considered a bad thing to work late because it shows that you can't manage your workload, or are working ineffectively. In those countries it is also a requirement that men take a significant part of parental leave when children are born (several months).

If all adults are likely to take similar amounts of parental leave when babies are born, and all adults are expected to take responsibility for child rearing and domestic tasks women are less likely to be discriminated against in the workplace because it's not always them whose working shorter hours, looking after sick children or bearing the brunt of domestic shitwork. There's only so many hours in the day. If you are doing more hours at home, it follows that there is less time available to be at work.

STFU · 08/04/2017 08:27

@bertrandrussell

The question answering is very one sided as you have ignored any I've asked you.

BertrandRussell · 08/04/2017 08:31

Sorry. Happy to answer. I thought the only question you had asked was the "nobody wants to be a feminist any more, and that other people had answered that adequately. What would you like me to answer?

jellyfrizz · 08/04/2017 08:34

DH took a couple of years off when our second was born. He thinks the 2 years set him back 5 or 6 years in his career.

If it were accepted as normal that men do this then I agree. But it's not.

merrymouse · 08/04/2017 08:35

Many first world countries don't have shared parental leave and it's too recent in the U.K. to have had much effect on the workforce, particularly for women in their 40's and 50's.

There is still a long way to go.

TizzyDongue · 08/04/2017 08:36

why is it then that having two children has left me lucky to earn a bit more than minimum wage!

Because instead of getting promotions or an education or training on the job, you popped out two children. Is this ludicrous?

Well, for a start, it's not the popping out that's causing the inequality. If it were then it'd set a woman's career back by a few months for each child. What causes the inequality is being a parent; which is why it's an inequality because there's a similar amount of men out there who are parents.

Fathers don't experience any negative consequence of being a parent. Only mothers.

You've actually gone on, STFU, to show that this is a fact: by suggesting in order to not experience it then women shouldn't have children.

All this before we even enter into the fact that there's nothing close to equal numbers in higher management (because women don't want the pressure. Apparently.)

STFU · 08/04/2017 08:39

My question was, "If you think I'm wrong, how do you explain the numbers of people deserting feminism?"

Someone said that all of the articles were click-bait but every study shows the number of people who identify as feminists is decreasing despite agreeing with the theory of what feminism means.

As far as I can tell, the only possible explanations are that feminism is a) not necessary b) not what it pretends to be and the veneer has slipped.

@jellyfrizz - that is not normal because we were extremely lucky to be able to afford it. It's unlikely to ever become normal because most couldn't afford it and the government certainly shouldn't be supporting so indulgent.

jellyfrizz · 08/04/2017 08:43

@jellyfrizz - that is not normal because we were extremely lucky to be able to afford it. It's unlikely to ever become normal because most couldn't afford it and the government certainly shouldn't be supporting so indulgent.

Huh? It's common for women to be SAHP but indulgent for men to do so?

BertrandRussell · 08/04/2017 08:43

That question was answered. You may not like or agree with the answers, but it was answered. More extensively than you suggest-can I refer you to aRumWithAView's post of 16.31 yesterday?

I repeat. What men's rights are you advocating for?

jellyfrizz · 08/04/2017 08:44

What causes the inequality is being a parent; which is why it's an inequality because there's a similar amount of men out there who are parents.

^^This.

Flopjustwantscoffee · 08/04/2017 08:47

The other women in developing countries have it worse argument always feels like a wider version of being told "other men hit their girlfriends, I only push you/spit in your face/stop you going out" etc etc

STFU · 08/04/2017 08:59

@bertrand

She began by saying "there's always been a large proportion of women (maybe even a majority) who claim to be repulsed by anything to do with women's rights."

She headed into crazy-land for a while "Women know that, if you step out of line, there's a whole arsenal of techniques to shut you up" (do we? I don't)

She then suggested that women are "initially, instinctively drawing back", but this isn't an initial draw-back It's an abandonment of the label and its' happening at an increasing rate. It has nothing to do with not seeing inequality, it's about not wanting to identify as a feminist.

Many of those not wanting to identify as a feminist any more don't believe that we live in a patriarchal, misogynist society and many think that there are still issues but that feminism is toxic.

So, my question as to the abandonment has not been answered.

@jellyfrizz

Each parent taking 2 years off work, at the same time, certainly felt indulgent to us.

Lweji · 08/04/2017 09:13

Someone said that all of the articles were click-bait but every study shows the number of people who identify as feminists is decreasing despite agreeing with the theory of what feminism means.

As far as I can tell, the only possible explanations are that feminism is a) not necessary b) not what it pretends to be and the veneer has slipped.

Or a backlash against feminism, which is somewhat expected.

I think it says more about society than about feminism.

jellyfrizz · 08/04/2017 09:15

STFU I would only recently have considered myself a feminist so not everyone is heading away from feminism.

Each parent taking 2 years off work, at the same time, certainly felt indulgent to us.

The point is that it's usually the woman that takes the time off and shuffle their career around to be there for the children. If it were normal for men to take on the responsibility why wouldn't women's overall pay match men's regardless of children? There are overall equal numbers of male and female parents and both took the decision to have children.

Lweji · 08/04/2017 09:24

Ensuring that men can't work over 40 hours? That does nothing to help women, it simply punishes fathers.

Interesting that you think limiting fathers hours is punishing them. But mothers's having to limit them, effectively, is not?

And if all workers are limited then there should be no problems for parents.