Not quite a TAAT (I hope) but a follow on from the Are You a Feminist thread....

[BertrandRussell]

If you said no, could you say why? And if possible, could you give examples- I know a couple of people have said that they think feminism has gone too far, and feminists think all men are rapists that sort of thing. If you think that, could you say why? What have you read, or listened to that brought you to that belief? No “tearing to shreds” I promise!

I don't doubt that babies and toddlers are socialised to behave in certain ways from day one, but to me, the point is, that the socialisation itself comes from within us. Society is not an external force - we are that society. Whether it's unconscious or not, we must want to socialise children and ourselves the way we do, otherwise we just wouldn't do it.

@sapphireblu if the socialisation was innate it would be the same in all societies but it isn't. A pp spoke about how different socialisation is in the Scandinavian countries.

If it was innate you wouldn't see those big differences.

Until the mid 20th century pink was a boys colour.

I must be more militant than I thought, sapphire- I think most of the things you list are good things! Surely it’s better if children’s clothes are just clothes- and you/your child can just choose what you like? And the “I am so right on I let my ds wear his fairy costume in,public” are usually pretty tedious and look at me being so free spirited but the principle is good. And I think it is very important that people think about why they do things -it didn’t become the norm for women to remove their pubic hair practically overnight just by chance? SAHM? Well, I was one, but I still think that it can be a very precarious position for a woman to put herself in. And it’s important to think about how you present it to children. It was easier for me because I had a long and reasonably prestigious career before children but I do think can be problematic for younger women.

So if you think of all those things as militant feminism then i’m a militant feminist. To me, it just looks like common sense.........

Mousse - but with the exception of Scandinavia, I think the socialisation is actually more extreme in the rest of the world. Far more extreme actually.

Whether it's unconscious or not, we must want to socialise children and ourselves the way we do, otherwise we just wouldn't do it.

I don't think you can say that, when you put it in historical context.

People, many women, genuinely believed that women didn't understand politics and therefore shouldn't have the vote. That IS a gendered expectation. Certainly not one you would want to imbue your child with now.

The marriage ceremony, until recently, contained the word obey. With women not turning a hair.

How the hell did we let that gendered expectation get through?

Prior to equal pay legislation, the gendered expectation was that women were absolutely worth less money. How the hell could we ever have thought that? That's certainly not something we would expect now. Oh wait...

@sapphireblu yes socialisation is extreme in other countries but it is different. If these choices and decisions were innate it would be the same the world over and it isn't.

The desire for pink, glitter and waxing is based on twenty first century U.K.. Other countries and cultures are different. Society imposes these expectations on us.

The question is do we go with the flow and simply accept it or argue, discuss or militate against it?

Pink glitter etc is just marketing for the most part, though I can't think of a culture where women don't glamourise themselves to some extent.

I used to teach in a part if Pakistan where women rarely leave the house. It doesn't get more extreme than this really. If you look at most of the world, women's behaviours and lifestyles have been dictated by men's anxiety about being able to control their sex drives. So they take ownership of certain women through the family structure and marriage and set up whole systems for protecting "their" women against other men and on it goes. Huge swathes of the world carry on like this and women conform to it - even see it as a positive.

I don't think this is arbitrary at all, I think it tells us something about human nature. If human nature was different, societies would reflect that. I know huge progress has been made and people evolve. Education and better living standards are crucial. I can't help feeling cynical though when the reality is that in 2018, patriarchal structures still persist in just about every culture across the globe.

I can't help feeling cynical though when the reality is that in 2018, patriarchal structures still persist in just about every culture across the globe.

Me too. My cynicism is bottomless.

But you only have to look at the last hundred years in this country to see the strides that women have made. It does work. Slowly, but inexorably.

And the more women get political representation by women, the more the balance tips.

Can I ask what you have read or watched or heard that has brought you to this opinion?

MN.

Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' is often recommended.

So you’ve read posts on Mumsnet where feminists are saying that they want to “wipe out man altogether” or “to blend men and women into one bland being in neutral colours and names”?

"I've come to the conclusion that it's all about choice for me, so I am declaring myself a choicist"

Do you think that anyone has a completely free choice in society?

I think so. Being a choicist only works if we are all able to make completely free choices unencumbered by societal expectations.

If women have the same legal rights as men and choose to not exercise those rights, I'm happy with that.

Women have the right not to be raped. Nonetheless, 85,000 a year are.

Women have the right not to be killed. Nonetheless, two a week are.

Teenage girls have the right not to be pressured into anal sex, but they are.

Women have the right to not be paid less than men, but they are.

Women have the right to be hired if they are of childbearing age, but they are often not.

Women have the right to define themselves as a biological group with political representation, but they have lost that right.

It's less about women exercising their rights, and more about them not being upheld.

I like the idea of Choicism

I think we are moving towards a society where we can make choices without societal pressure but we still have a long way to go. However, women are significantly more able to make these choices than they were twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago.

I am aware that the fortunate circumstances of my life, parents, educational opportunity etc have given me more choices. I want more women to have access to the choices I have been able to make.

"In your opinion, perhaps. As I made up the term, it's arrogant of you to define it"

Eek. Sorry! I was only chatting!

Are you saying that in your new movement the concept of "choice" won't be subject to any caveats or analysis?

feminism fought and continues to fight for those rights and opportunities covers all that, I believe.

Not really. We fought for, and have those rights.

And many people think, great, job done. Don't need feminism.

Upholding those rights demands in shift in culture.

For instance, men often come on the feminist board and get defensive and say not all men are like that, don't tar me with the same brush.

If they stick around long enough (rare) they might ask well what can I do?

They are encouraged to do things like call out casual sexism. So if their mate says, down the pub, cor, I'd tap that, or great rack! He can look his friend and just say not cool mate, not cool. Or refuse to go to the strip club, on the grounds that it's not cool, no thanks. Rather then I can't, I've got a cold (cop out).

Making something illegal, is one thing, changing the culture to make it unacceptable (not cool), is another.

Men being aware of how prevalent sexual harassment is, groping on the train, unwanted arrention in clubs, is a really big part of it.

Women telling men, is the only way they get to hear about it.

Women are still, far too often, seen as lesser than. It has no basis in logic, hence laws being changed.

But that doesn't necessarily affect attitudes.