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

[BertrandRussell]

..is a bad thing?

I do struggle with “intersectional” too. I think it’s an important concept, and the white liberal middle class bubble is a very cosy place to be. But there are fundamental “feminist” things that cut across class and race and I worry about diluting that message with other equally important but different messages. I wonder if that makes sense?

Arranging a marriage takes autonomy away from both members of the couple, particularly from the woman because, in general, she has fewer options than the man if she decides to bail out.

Arranged marriage is problematic even in cultures where it's the norm. Hell, marriage is problematic for women no matter if it's love or arranged.

I've certainly seen examples of arranged marriage where both individuals had complete autonomy. Usually in scenarios where it's less arranging a marriage and more arranging the individuals to go on multiple blind dates until they find someone they like, and there is a period where they get to know each other and can back out at anytime. The individuals decide what they want to do at every step of the way. In these cases, I can see a feminist slant to arranged marriage, or, at the very least, arranged marriage that has been heavily influenced by feminism.

And I've seen examples where the marriages are certainly forced. And that's just horrific.

We were talking about that when watching the news coverage of young people and climate change. The term "Give in to our demands" was used a lot!

When it comes to climate change I can kind of understand using these ultimatums and language...I mean the planet is at stake.

But very black and white thinking that shuts down discussion is generally the result of fear. And you see that a lot more now.

Oddly I don't struggle with the term properly applied. I am aware that my whiteness protects me from a lot of discrimination. I am aware that my apparent middle classness sets up barriers that the working class me keeps banging into. I know that the sexism I experience was more physical when I was younger, is more dismissive now I am older. When I had big tits and long ginger hair nobody thought anything of dismissing me as an air head.

I know that any one of my social and physical characteristics can be used to discrimate against me again when added to the term woman. That men don't get the double whammy.

I get all of that. And I know that here is more that I don't see, my inherent sense of 'me' won't let me. BUT I can't see how setting up one group of women against another using the term has anything to do with its actual meaning.

I realised that once I presed post Hulks

But it was the very determined "we are right, so shut the fuck up and do as you are told" tone of voice coupled with the angry bewilderment that nobody seemed to be listening... from a group of well to do looking and sounding mid teens, sat on cushions and bean bags in a coffee shop, drinking coffee and eating cake!

See that? I intersectioned them Age and social status

ereshkigal Feminism that disregards class (or economic background, maybe) isn't intersectional feminism, though. And as I said in my comment above, working class women "would probably be wary of a white feminist describing herself as intersectional because it's often a nice label without much action behind it".

That's a bit "no true Scotsman" for me. Intersectionality as Crenshaw originally conceptualised it is an important and valuable concept, but IMO the vast majority of the time today it is describing "call our culture" or the "oppression Olympics" often where things which benefit males and choice feminism are centred.

It was intended to highlight the issue of black women falling through the gaps when it came to affirmative action programmes which only benefited black men and white women.

And came to include other forms of discrimination. However I do not personally accept that male needs/wishes play any part in feminism. Feminism is the movement for the liberation of women and girls from sex based oppression. I think it's important to keep that focus, while trying not to compound other axes of oppression.

But there are fundamental “feminist” things that cut across class and race and I worry about diluting that message with other equally important but different messages. I wonder if that makes sense?

Kind of. But intersectional theory would argue that some women may experience these differently based on their positioning in terms of other characteristics (race, class, etc.). Socialist feminism used to argue similar in the old days.

But it was the very determined "we are right, so shut the fuck up and do as you are told" tone

I think of it as the tone of the young and starry eyed or the old and afraid. The only thing it's useful for his shutting down conversation and pushing people away. :)

I do struggle with “intersectional” too. I think it’s an important concept, and the white liberal middle class bubble is a very cosy place to be. But there are fundamental “feminist” things that cut across class and race and I worry about diluting that message with other equally important but different messages. I wonder if that makes sense?

Yes, perfect sense to me, it's pretty much my POV too.

I agree YetAnotherSpartacus - hence why I was repeatedly cautioning against it, and stated that I wouldn't define myself as an intersectional feminist. But I do think having more women on here who took an intersectional perspective would change the debate in interesting ways. As Curious has illustrated, there's a real push on this site to move away from it and I think that can lead to the loss of nuance. Women DO have a different experience of the patriarchy depending on their other lived experiences and disregarding that is unwise, imo.

Blake77 I don't automatically assume specific posters are white. I said that MN in general is mostly white British, given it reflects the general UK population. And I didn't say ALL BAME women would find it hard to post about experiences outside the white British norm - just that many must, given the reaction they often get.

but IMO the vast majority of the time today it is describing "call our culture" or the "oppression Olympics" often where things which benefit males and choice feminism are centred

It's being used wrongly then. Call out the wrongness, but don't disregard a useful feminist tool.

Yes it is being used wrongly. I'm not disregarding it, but the majority of people using it don't understand it IMO. It is reduced to a buzzword. Shitty misogynistic men proclaim what "intersectional feminists" they are.

I agree it would be good to have some more genuinely intersectional perspectives on MN/FWR. I don't mean the bullshit thought terminating "STFU white feminist you have nothing to say" ones.

Sorry, the debate moved on fast while I was posting! I totally agree with all the points raised about the problematic nature of modern-day intersectional feminism and I was never holding it up as a shining beacon of feminist perfection! Just pointing out that it would be an interesting addition to the site to have more women who leant that way posting here.

What makes me sad on MN if I’m honest, is that there’s a huge emphasis on feminism equating to “financial independence” (quite rightly)! However, there are so many threads where this seems to have translated into women clearly feeling they can have no expectations whatsoever of the men they have children with. You see couples who have totally separate finances and the woman claims this makes her more independent. Of course, it’s almost always her earning potential that has taken the hit and her income that buys most of the children’s stuff. Yet she is too “independent” to ask her husband to subsidise her in any way. There are quite frequently married women who have convinced themselves it’s perfectly reasonable that they have had to save and support themselves through maternity because they are too independent to “live off a man”. When and how did this become feminism? It’s sounds more like women being hoodwinked into letting men have their cake and eating it.

Similarly, there are women who vehemently claim they don’t expect a man to even bother proposing to them. They don’t want a ring - it’s misogynistic etc etc. I understand where they’re coming from, of course, but also, I wonder if the truth is that they’re just making excuses for useless, feckless men. If you have no expectations of men at the outset to express commitment (and justify this with feminism / equality) is this likely to translate into equality further down the line, or, as happens so often, is it the woman inevitably who will be left literally “holding the baby?”

However I do not personally accept that male needs/wishes play any part in feminism. Feminism is the movement for the liberation of women and girls from sex based oppression. I think it's important to keep that focus, while trying not to compound other axes of oppression.

I agree. However, I do think that you can focus on women while appreciating that ultimately, were feminists to achieve their goals, the whole of society would benefit and many other forms of oppression would be positively affected.

I agree YetAnotherSpartacus - hence why I was repeatedly cautioning against it, and stated that I wouldn't define myself as an intersectional feminist. But I do think having more women on here who took an intersectional perspective would change the debate in interesting ways. As Curious has illustrated, there's a real push on this site to move away from it and I think that can lead to the loss of nuance. Women DO have a different experience of the patriarchy depending on their other lived experiences and disregarding that is unwise, IMO

To me, the term 'intersectional feminist' is meaningless. It's a theory, not a type of feminism (not saying you are using it incorrectly, only that it is used incorrectly). As I said earlier on this thread, my main issue is that women, even on FWR, are eschewing 'theory' altogether, couching their feminism in identity politics, and especially arguing that they have special insight because they are 'Mothers'.

Ereshkigal I agree. All women experience sex ism regardless of background and all perspective is valid. I would prioritise minority voices when discussing those particular issues (ie I would prefer to hear the perspective of women from cultures where arranged marriage is the norm when discussing arranged marriage) but that doesn't means I'm not interested in the perspectives of all women. If that makes sense.

The Oppression Olympics crops up all over the site.

I have lost count of how many times I have read a disibility thread that suddenly becomes intensely hostile, posters being reported, emotional bombs being thrown and more able bodied people being vilified for asking, not understanding, wanting to understand.

Then the race based ones that go the same way. Discussion into how and why 'a thing' might have been or not been racist suddenly descends into a white hate fest fuelled by a small number of posters with highly emotional posts.

Suddenly a cogent discusssion into something becomes divied along an intersectionalist line and OMG, you'd better be a total expert, know every detail, be utterly certain of your case, have no questions to ask - or just fuck off you are disablist, racist, ignorant and absolutely REPORTED!

And the many threads that become a footrace to the very bottom. I can't have it, why should you/disabled people/ SAHPs etc etc? All that bile and vitriol.

I get it! Discrimination is shit. But not everyone experiences every kind of discrimination and so can't understand it or even spot it at 100 paces.

I agree. However, I do think that you can focus on women while appreciating that ultimately, were feminists to achieve their goals, the whole of society would benefit and many other forms of oppression would be positively affected.

Yes I do agree. But what's happening at the moment is that feminism is being repurposed into a catch all social justice movement for a vague notion of equality for everyone, and the needs of women and girls, and our sex based rights, pushed to the side. Who else will speak for us if not feminism?

YetAnotherSpartacus Yes, I see your point. It's difficult because you don't want to restrict discussion to only those with an in depth knowledge of feminist theory (I'd be out, for a start!) but I agree that strident identity politics aren't particularly helpful for a nuanced debate.

Ereshkigal I agree. All women experience sex ism regardless of background and all perspective is valid. I would prioritise minority voices when discussing those particular issues (ie I would prefer to hear the perspective of women from cultures where arranged marriage is the norm when discussing arranged marriage) but that doesn't means I'm not interested in the perspectives of all women. If that makes sense.

Yes, perfect sense.

Curious But doesn't exactly the same thing happen on the FWR threads if someone posts from a non-gender critical perspective? I don't think that issue is restricted solely to threads where intersectionality could be a factor.

Sorry, the relevance of all that above, is that I know various women who are in marriages that are perhaps more traditional in some ways, so if they posted in MN they would get a particular response - “tell him to f* off,” “The 1950s have called,” “He has too many hobbies.,” “He needs to cut his work hours and do more round the house or LTB!” Yet, they wouldn’t put up with some marriages on here in which women claim make them “equal” because they would see them as quite shocking and anything but feminist.

I was deliberately leaving that particular topic out peachgreen in deferenmce to Bertrands wishes for this not to keep comng back to it!

But yes, you are right. I was just musing on a a thing that post reminded me of. We all use, have used against us, our socio-political characteristics. The word is often used to set up a conflict between two women / groups of wmen. That's why I described posts here in MN, a mainly female site. Wheter we are ardent feminists or not, we are capable of using our differences as a very blunt instrument.

Sorry, just wool gathering. I am sure I had a point in there somewhere!

YetAnotherSpartacus Yes, I see your point. It's difficult because you don't want to restrict discussion to only those with an in depth knowledge of feminist theory (I'd be out, for a start!) but I agree that strident identity politics aren't particularly helpful for a nuanced debate

Yes. And it is when posters are arguing against identity politics whilst essentially practicising a variant that it becomes 'head on desk'. I actually have a PhD in feminist theory (don't get the modern stuff), but the anti-intellectualism just burns. Theory and academic feminism can add so much, but I would not expect everyone to be able to quote Kristeva I can't but in the second wave everyone read theory because they knew it was important to understand women's condition'. Now, posters dismiss theory on the grounds that "all they need is to be a Mother" and I think WTF?