AIBU to think that Mumsnet is becoming increasingly less feminist and that this..

[BertrandRussell]

..is a bad thing?

Also I can’t bear this smug catchphrase “it’s the huns innit.” I’m mainly on AIBU or the education boards and I’ve never seen anyone use the term “hun” or “live your best life”. Who are these bloody “huns” anyway? Anyway, I don’t bother with Facebook etc and I don’t care. I just find it irritating when some posters on MN take themselves so seriously and fail to realise that their own “key phrases” could make them just as much of a laughing stock - “DH”, “No is a complete sentence,” “the 1950s have called,” “Go NC,”

I don’t mind the focus on a current pressing issue. Especially as it gets shut down everywhere else. Also starting a thread on something else might not run in the same way.

What I find about the board at the moment is it ironically is very strict on what you can say and the very strict gender critical stance is the only acceptable way to be on there.

The guidelines very strictly police gender critical stances though! Given the rules on misgendering, GC posters aren't able to fully articulate their views. So it's only acceptable up to a point. The banned list is evidence of this.

PeterRouse that’s an awful lot of investment to make a quick comment on a message site. So one side can get away with insults and so on but the other has to be entirely thought through and well-researched. Sounds a bit uneven.

I appreciate the original question was about mn changing overall and I am actually interested in how we fare against the wider internet.

I guess hamster that when you have lived your life on the sharp end of assumptions about your capabilities that are based on an implied ladybrain concept, when no evidence exists for it, when the slightest suggest of a ladybrain ( aka hormonal influences on the brain affecting ones personality or capabilities ) leads to a "ah knew it all along" and reinforces gender stereotypes, meaning suggestions of ladybrain are harmful to women.

and when we know that untangling any nature /nurture effects on the human brain is way beyond modern science, so a pointless discussion.

I think on the whole the GC community is quite happy to have biological differences acknowledged and respected. And at the same time not over exaggerated. But I guess also many women who don't fit eg a caring stereotype may feel that their right to be called woman is challenged when people suggest that caring is more common and natural for women. Because for a lot of women the only common factor is their physical biology. Am I really a male if my brain is not considered typical for a woman or am I still a woman because that's how society treats me and I have babies? So such discussion are also hurtful.

@Doobigetta - that’s an interesting point- I hadn’t thought of that.

That actually makes me feel more positive and realise that I can - and should - feel free to post about women’s issues in Chat (or AIBU)

Since this seems to be a general discussion around feminism does anyone recognise this?

When I did feminism over twenty years ago at university (with one of the greats!) we talked about sex as fixed and gender as a spectrum. You were female or male but could be anywhere on that line right at the other end. Did this change to gender as a stereotype and restrictive and damaging?

that this thread has been hijacked

cosima1

I agree, it is a shame because there have been some interesting contributions, including your own. In fairness to the OP, she has repeatedly attempted to return it to its original purpose. However, as you point out, it has been repeatedly returned to the trans topic. I wonder why? Some seem determined to keep it there and they are not all FRW denizens......

My feeling is that the trans issue has galvanised women on MN to make a case for the biological distinctiveness of women, but often without any or much consideration of other issues. To this end, they ground their critiques in being women or mothers, rather than being feminists per se and they largely do not have an understanding of the history of feminism, the different approaches to feminism or the core debates. On many issues, they are decidedly not 'feminist' or they adopt the same liberal/libertarian 'fun feminism' approach that they critique in relation to trans issues. This is also decidedly anti-intellectual, evidenced by the number of complaints about 'academic feminism' being dominant/confusing and/or obscuring 'real women's issues', which seem to be tied mainly to being mothers, (and 'being a mother' seems to carry more status in 'being a feminist)'. The fact that many can't tell the difference between radical feminist and conservative approaches to sex, gender and trans, or who are prepared to support conservative approaches without nuance or understanding the contradictions is quite scary. For a time FWR was very orthodox, everyone was supposed to 'hold the line' and questioners were damned. To be clear, these were not questioners about trans itself, they were posters who questioned things such as conservative alliances. On the main boards I find it puzzling that we can critique individual men and tell posters that he is abusive, and they should 'LTB', but posters who raise questions about the systemic nature of male violence or privilege or the enduring nature of patriarchal institutions such as marriage or 'taking his name' are in the minority and/or silenced. I don't see MN as particularly feminist, but these days it's about the best out there.

PeterRouse that’s an awful lot of investment to make a quick comment on a message site. So one side can get away with insults and so on but the other has to be entirely thought through and well-researched. Sounds a bit uneven.

I can't quite tell what you are saying here? Which sides are you talking about.

The GC feminists on FWR have spent countless hours collecting evidence, links, meeting in real life researching, writing to people in order to get together their arguments. There was one poster (who doesn't seem to be posting anymore) who literally just posted links which would help others. I have learnt absolutely loads from reading the posts on FWR and it's all backed up.

That is in rather stark contrast to the 'youre all transphobes' ploppers who refuse to come back and expand on what they mean when asked.

I don’t mean the you’re all transphobes posters but just the casual poster who might want to engage but hasn’t spent hours collecting evidence.

I guess hamster that when you have lived your life on the sharp end of assumptions about your capabilities that are based on an implied ladybrain concept, when no evidence exists for it, when the slightest suggest of a ladybrain ( aka hormonal influences on the brain affecting ones personality or capabilities ) leads to a "ah knew it all along" and reinforces gender stereotypes, meaning suggestions of ladybrain are harmful to women

But what this misses is how many women feel about trying to align their desire to look after their children and care for them (debating the biology of this for example would be interesting).
On FWR now you can never discuss anything biological as it is dismissed under the ‘ladybrain’ argument because of what you have said (I do get that) but ultimately I think we do women a disservice by not acknowledging some of our base instincts, and then seeing how we best live with them.

Helping and supporting women to navigate the penalty of child rearing is where we are lacking any discussion

There was one poster (who doesn't seem to be posting anymore) who literally just posted links which would help others.

The great R0wantrees. She’s dealing with RL at the moment but I hope she’ll make it back some time.

I hate the debate around self-Id for 2 reasons. Firstly self-Id itself is a terrible idea that erodes women's rights. Secondly it has meant that other important feminist issues are not given the time or attention they need. The trans thing has sadly turned off many people from feminism as at first glance it sounds transphobic (and tbh sometimes is).

I don’t mean the you’re all transphobes posters but just the casual poster who might want to engage but hasn’t spent hours collecting evidence.

But that's the nature of the debate on FWR?! It's all backed up! Are you saying that's a bad thing?

Are you saying people shouldn't spend time researching their arguments so that it's not too intimidating for people who haven't bothered to look into the issue?! That's ridiculous.

No research all you like just don’t be insulting to people who haven’t.

I don't want to derail the thread any further (sorry Bertram) but there is a huge difference between criticising Stonewall's current behaviour / stance and comparing them to right-wing anti-choice homophobic groups which is what a PP was doing. They are not the same thing, historically or presently.

FWR is the only board on MN that is, quite literally, under attack.

There are a sinister bunch of misogynist homophobes known as the ‘monitors’ who publicly declared their intention to keep an eye on FWR & report anything they didn’t like. I’m not sure whether HQ still allow them to do that from Twitter, but they have in the past.

That’s where the trans rights activists (TRAs) in the guise of people who ‘just want to learn’ or ‘just want to explain’ come from. They’re trying to garner screenshots for Twitter or goad women into breaking the rules and getting banned.

That’s what we’re up against. That’s why we’re wary of disingenuous / innocent-sounding comments from unfamiliar posters.

Helping and supporting women to navigate the penalty of child rearing is where we are lacking any discussion

In the old days the debate would have been around 'same or different' or the issue of 'different spheres' as well as 'nature or nurture'. The desires of men to rear children (and how these might be changed towards wanting to rear children with different socialisation) would also be acknowledged. Ditto women who would rather have a career, utilise public childcare and/or have their partners stay home. The argument about public and private in the context of how much the state should support women for their individual choices and/or pay for publicly funded care would have been had. Liberal, radical and socialist feminists would have had different views, and in the UK socialist or Marxist feminists would have been at the forefront with arguments for publicly funded care and women's financial autonomy (before the revolution of course). Now it's just about marriage being women's 'protection' ...

“ Helping and supporting women to navigate the penalty of child rearing is where we are lacking any discussion”
I absolutely agree that this is a shameful disregarded area. And, as I have said before, I think this was a failing of the feminist movement from the beginning. I think we were so anxious to get away from assumptions about women’s roles in the domestic sphere we sort of forgot about the fact that domestic stuff still has to happen.

there is a huge difference between criticising Stonewall's current behaviour / stance and comparing them to right-wing anti-choice homophobic groups which is what a PP was doing.

I’m happy to agree that Stonewall aren’t right-wing or anti-choice. But Ruth Hunt casually dismissed the need for single sex spaces with the comment that ‘Men are always going to rape women’ and not even Thatcher suggested that gender nonconforming children with a high chance of being LGB should be given drugs to stop their development, raised as the opposite sex and, once they’re young adults in pre-pubertal bodies, have their genitals operated on to make them resemble those of the sex they’re presenting as. That’s the ultimate in conversion therapy,

The real danger of Stonewall is that everyone still assumes they support LGB rights.

I absolutely agree that this is a shameful disregarded area. And, as I have said before, I think this was a failing of the feminist movement from the beginning. I think we were so anxious to get away from assumptions about women’s roles in the domestic sphere we sort of forgot about the fact that domestic stuff still has to happen

Juliet Mitchell, Ann Oakley, Sheila Rowbotham, Zillah Eisenstein and the French author who wrote about material feminism and whose name escapes me all discussed this, amongst others. It was radical femimists who drew the debate towards porn in the 80s and postmodernists who threw a bomb into feminism who derailed this analysis.

I think we were so anxious to get away from assumptions about women’s roles in the domestic sphere we sort of forgot about the fact that domestic stuff still has to happen

I totally agree. Every woman still struggles with this. And would be interested in it. Trans is important and needs to be highlighted, but for many women, it doesn't go near their every day challenges

And to go back to my original point (get in that bag, tent!) very often when women do post about domestic issues, there is a rush to absolve or excuse men from any involvement.

And to go back to my original point (get in that bag, tent!) very often when women do post about domestic issues, there is a rush to absolve or excuse men from any involvement.

Maybe, can't say I've really noticed that. It's not a blanket 'men's fault' thing ever anyway.

But the fact that FWR is not talking about these things anymore does mean that 'relationships' has taken a different path. Regular posters on FWR used to post a lot on 'relationships' because they were relevant to what was being discussed. Trans being the main topic on FWR has changed that.