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 think it's always good to question my views and perceptions of any ideology or philosophy, political or otherwise, including feminism, as I see little good in rigidly adhereing to one. There are many branches of feminism though and it reads more like your questioning how others' different views, possibly from other branches of feminism, effects your own.

In this situation, I would push for better disabled and sex-neutral facilities rather than expect sexed changing rooms to be more open. It is frustrating how hard it can be to find good facilities and that many pools and other places are not better equipped for disabled people and their carers or parents with disabled kids of the other sex. It makes it not only awkward for the carers and parents but it can be very uncomfortable and rather undignified for a disabled person to be forced into the situation of having to be in the other sexed changing facilities.

This for me has little to do with feminism or sex equality but the rights and dignity of disabled people. I wouldn't want to be forced into the male changing facilities because my main carer is male. My 13 year old son certainly doesn't want to go into female changing facilities. Our disabilities do not neutralize our sex or make it any more right or dignified than if it were for a person without disabilities. We deserve better facilities, not the right to be in different sexed facilities.

Feminism is a broad church: just because one feminist thinks something, it does not mean all feminists will (or should) agree.

thetriangleisarealinstrument
I thought the duty lay with the establishment to provide larger lockable changing rooms so that anyone who needed a carer with them could be in an actual private space.

Thats the radical feminist perspective. Make a society thats fit for people, not try to shoehorn people in.

Surely all feminisim is saying is that burden of kindness and decency should not by default, fall on women.
100% agree with this

Yet a woman and girl using the disabled toilets example, is not a disabled right issue.
Is it not? I would have thought able-bodied people blocking use of disabled facilities would be a disabled rights issue, them being female doesn’t give them a free pass. But, sometimes we can afford to be kind.

OP, I would say discrimination against you as a female carer is a concern of feminism, but, in this case, the answer is still for services to provide appropriate changing facilities for your son, not to ask feminism to budge up and accommodate males.

And damn real life. Getting in the way

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.

OP I think @BlackeyedSusan posted an excellent post relevant to your particular situation and concerns tbh

It’s just that ultimately the needs of men are simply not the concern of feminism.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The women I talk about feminism with are all looking for a happy compromise between women and men that gives both space for self-expression and respects essential differences.

I am absolutely adamant that both men and women deserve to have toilets and changing rooms in public spaces that are reserved for them.

It is perfectly possible to do that, and to also provide a few neutral spaces for categories and groups of humans with needs that do not slot neatly into small and highly gendered spaces e.g a parent with both small sons and small daughters; transexual people; some people with special needs etc.

It’s just that ultimately the needs of men are simply not the concern of feminism.
I'm not sure I agree with this. The women I talk about feminism with are all looking for a happy compromise between women and men that gives both space for self-expression and respects essential differences.

We are all free to disagree however, saying that the needs of men is not a feminist concern, is not mutually exclusive of seeking compromise between men and women (which I think is a problematic concept in itself - it’s assuming that the rights/needs of men and women are in direct competition, I don’t believe they are), nor denying self expression or respect to anyone. Feminism ≠ female supremacy. It is just fighting for the rights and needs of women and girls. It feels that you’re automatically taking that to mean at the expense of men, but that’s not what I said. As the anonymous quote goes, “when you’re accustomed to privelige, equality feels like oppression”.

I don't think that the needs of men and women are in direct competition, and I don't believe that the concept of compromise assumes that they are.

If they’re not in competition, what are you compromising between?

It is not correct to assume that "compromise" always means that one party loses out i.e. a win-lose situation. "Compromise" is very often a win-win situation, reached by reasoned debate and negotiation.

Feminism puts women front and centre. But men benefit too. That's not the main focus of feminism but it is certainly a happy side effect!

Bertrand absolutely! Equality is good for everyone. Good to see your name popping up on the boards again btw

user But again, what is the compromise you describe between? I didn’t assume a win-lose situation btw - that wouldn’t be a compromise It usually means neither ‘side’ get everything they want/need in order for both to get some of what they want/need. But whatever the semantics it still pits men and women as opposing parties, which isn’t a concept I am in favour of.

No, the concept of compromise does not pit women and men as opposing parties.

Btw user genuinely welcome to MN/FWR, always good to hear new voices/opinions. If you grab yourself your own nickname it’d make things easier to follow though as sometimes there are multiple “userbignumber” and it can be confusing.

Trying to put the rights of disabled people against those of women is false. Many women are disabled.

Why was the female changing room deemed a suitable place for a disabled boy to change? What about his right to dignity and sex segregated facilities?

I also believe that it is very hard to discuss the roles of women and men (i.e. adults) without discussing the roles and needs of children, the elderly and the sick i.e. those people who are economically inactive in society and require economic resources to be directed to them, a role which has traditionally been assigned to women.

So what are you compromising between, if there is no conflict?

It's not conflictual to understand that humans have shared objectives for the benefit of all and that roles need to be agreed and understood by all for the benefit of humanity and the planet.

"I also believe that it is very hard to discuss the roles of women and men (i.e. adults) without discussing the roles and needs of children, the elderly and the sick i.e. those people who are economically inactive in society and require economic resources to be directed to them, a role which has traditionally been assigned to women."

And that is one of the big problems that feminism faces. It is very hard to focus on the needs, wants and rights of women because women are expected to be all things to all men (sic). Nobody ever says to an anti racism campaigner "Hang on, before we talk about the under achievement of black boys in school, what are you going to do about the shameful lack of accessible loos in city centres?"

roles need to be agreed and understood by all

Roles, yes. But not roles based on arbitrary gender-based assumptions.

And that is one of the big problems that feminism faces. It is very hard to focus on the needs, wants and rights of women because women are expected to be all things to all men (sic). Nobody ever says to an anti racism campaigner "Hang on, before we talk about the under achievement of black boys in school, what are you going to do about the shameful lack of accessible loos in city centres?"

I agree that feminism, as a cause, gets displaced by other causes. I get upset when I see firms engaging in "diversity" programmes and start putting percentages on the share of "diverse" workers they are going to employ. The share of straight white full-blooded males never seems to go below 50% at best. "Women" then have to share the other 50% with gay males, black males, special needs males, Muslim males (you get the picture).

user, you’ve lost me now, I wasn’t arguing that there is conflict, I felt that you were, necessitating the need for compromise that you suggested.

I’m also not with you on “roles need to be agreed and understood by all for the benefit of humanity and the planet”. What roles? Do you expect all of humanity to agree on these roles? That sounds a tad optimistic. Could you explain that a bit more clearly?

This is all getting a little esoteric now though and probably not helpful to the OP.