To question feminism, my views and common sense?

[Shedmicehugh1]

Following a thread the other day about a boy HAVING to change in the female changing rooms ie obvious disability and within female rooms ‘rules’. I was shocked at how many argued ‘trumps’ for woman’s rights over disabled rights.

I am starting to question whether feminists allow little room for common sense, flexibility or humanity?

I’m a woman, I also have a disabled son. Can you be a disabled (male) campaigner, humanists and feminist? Or AIBU and just not understanding what feminist are?

I’m not sure I really understand your post and how it relates to woman’s rights.

Why did your disabled son have to change in a female changing room rather than a male one? And how does this make feminism allow little room for common sense?

I think you need to say more about where the contradiction is for you?

I didn’t see that thread so I’m not sure what the background is.

In general, however- feminism is a women’s rights movement.

How a women’s rights movement intersects with other groups rights is going to vary, depending on the situation.

I am starting to question whether feminists allow little room for common sense, flexibility or humanity?

“Feminists” are not a homogeneous group.

Depends on the age of the boy, I guess. 5 fine. 17 not fine.

i am starting to question whether feminists allow little room for common sense, flexibility or humanity?

Read that thread common sense is to use the disabled changing room or many of the other options that were suggested in the thread when the boy is over the age that he can no longer go in the women’s.
I’m disabled and feminist, neither rights should trump the other, women have the right to a female only changing room (apart from the boys under the age of the changing room rules) and disabled people in need of seperate changing facilities have a right to a disabled changing room.

Sometimes an area can be lacking ie only one disabled changing room, but the solution to that is for people to complain/write/campaign for another one not to instead take the rights of women away or vice versa for example don’t use a disabled cubicle just because the women’s section doesn’t have cubicles and is only open planned for example.

I think the problem is that you're framing the argument in a way that pits 2 different oppressed groups against one another, which is unfortunately very common. I've never heard of a mother with a disabled son demanding to go into the men's changing room in order to facilitate his involvement in a sporting activity on an equal footing with other men.

Surely the solution is to provide adequate, appropriate changing facilities for disabled people and their carers, so that everyone is accommodated and can access venues in a way that suits their needs without any other groups rights being trampled.

I would imagine that some of the responses on that thread had more to do with the goady entitled attitude of the OP.

If she had started a neutral thread asking for advice on how to find a common ground then the responses would have been different.

My contradiction, is where does one start/stop.

Do you use common sense, rights (whoever they might side with) is it black and white? Grey area?

We should have women's only swimming pools too.. I mean why stop at the changing room? You can see every bump and ripple in a Lycra swimsuit can't you?

Why exactly are you blaming feminists? Did everyone on the thread identify themselves as a feminist?

My apologies I am not blaming anyone and this is not about a particular thread, more my questioning my views and my views of feminism.

The thread mentioned was just an example, as it gave me the impression that feminism (in general) allows very little or no empathy for males.

2 sets of ‘rights’ which are at times conflicting, which makes it difficult being the mother of a disabled son.

I'm not a very radical feminist - in fact am more of the woolly type...

But - I think that there is a lot of empathy for males, it's just the assumption that if there's a problem, woman automatically are the group to "give up" their right as caring usually falls to woman - it is worth challenging as an idea.

There were other options in that case other than "woman's rights must stop as soon as a male needs something".

Problem is, 'empathy for males' is usually demanded, not negotiated, at the expense of women. And the problem with your post is that it suggests women's rights are all very well until they conflict with those of a male - well, isn't that the same as no rights?

I have a disabled male child. we need to be togetherish. therefore there needs to be a changing room for disabled children/adults. preferably more than one as there are lotsof us about. he does not want to be seen any more than others want to be seen by him.

There are quite a lot of single parents who can not do stuff because they have a disabled child of the opposite sex.

lots of women are pissed off at always being the group that has to accomodate males needs. because the male environment is too dangerous. we need to sort the dangerous space out not take away womens space, dignity, privacy.

I get that coffee all rights fall to options and if other options are available, that do not impinge on rights, they should be taken.

It’s more when there are no other options available, should empathy be used?

For example mother and young girl, ladies toilets are shut. Young girl is going to wet herself if she doesn’t go soon. Disabled toilet is free. Should she use the men’s?

No, she should use the accessible toilet, seeing as that is what it is

Why would she use the men's if the accessible toilet is free?

"when there are no other options available, should empathy be used?"

This is just another way of saying that women should give up their rights for others, or be reprimanded if they don't.

Sorry OP it's not only you, but I'm so fucking fed up with that kind of argument that I could just scream.

I don't really understand how i adequate changing facilities or closed ladies toilets means feminists don't have empathy? Generally women's spaces have been more likely to be used as inclusive spaces than mens when needed because women are, as a group, less likely to be dangerous than men.

feminism (in general) allows very little or no empathy for males

I don’t think this is exactly true, but even if it is - why do women need to display empathy for men? When (in general) men display little for women?

I have a lot of sympathy for disabled people and their carers. I expect the disabled person doesn’t want to change in a room full of people of the opposite sex. The spaces/services need sorting, not feminism.

Why should a movement for women have to include or be sympathetic to men?
Why should a disabled boys need to use the female changing room trump the need for women's need for privacy?
In fact it wasn't even a need in that particular case, there were disabled changing rooms she just didn't want to wait for one to become available.

Except in the case your arguing there WAS a disabled change that the mother didn't want to wait to become free.

it gave me the impression that feminism (in general) allows very little or no empathy for males.

Well, for starters, feminism is not about males. Feminism is about the rights and needs of women and girls and seeking liberation from patriarchal oppression and discrimination on grounds of our sex. Also, there is no single rulebook for what feminists believe or how feminists should behave; we are not the Borg. Feminism comes in a myriad of flavours, some of which don’t even recognise each other as feminists. So lumping feminists together under any single theory or approach is not possible.

That said, just because feminism is not about men, that doesn’t mean that feminists hate men or want to deny them any human rights. Nor that feminism is a feminist’s only concern. My experience is that most feminists are incredibly aware of how the same structures that damage women and girls can be harmful to men and boys - such as concerns around toxic masculinity and gender stereotypes. It’s just that ultimately the needs of men are simply not the concern of feminism.

I haven’t seen the thread you refer to, but I would be wary of any argument framed in an “oppression olympics” way, such as pitting women’s rights against disabled rights. For starters, these are not mutually exclusive - women can be disabled. Most feminists are very aware of and interested in “intersections” where multiple oppressions can affect a person - such as race, religion, disability, social class, sexuality etc as well as their sex. These are not seen as competing or playing top trumps, rather than acknowledging that some people face battles on multiple fronts when it comes to society recognising their rights and needs, and being seen and treated as equal to others.

And most young men would rather change in a male or private changing room surely? Most disabled right cmapaigners would be campaigning for dedicated, accessible changing facilities not forcing young men with disabilities to change with women?
(I might be better at this discussion if i knew the thread you were referring too obv)

The thread I was referring to the boy was in the age range to be using the female changing. A moot point. Apart from there was lots of conflict between the 2 sets of ‘rights’.

why do women need to display empathy towards men the term I used was male, to include children.

It seems women with boys with disabilities are discriminated differently.