Am I being dramatic to consider ending things over DP’s view on feminism?

[Ubadl]

I feel really shit about this and don’t know if I’m blowing it out of proportion.

DP is 43 and I’m 37. We’ve been together 5 years and have a two year old DS. DP has a highly respected career and is on the face of it very educated and likes a debate, can usually see two sides to something etc. In recent years my feminist views have been more vocalised, I guess as a result of getting older and seeing the realities more and more as to how women were and are treated.

We were playing with DS today and the topic of feminism came up. I said I hope DS is a feminist as he grows up … this was said in the middle of play and DP suddenly said I hope he’s not. I obviously questioned what he meant and he said he ‘didn’t want DS to ‘be’ anything’ as long as he wasn’t misogynistic, racist or homophonic etc. I felt immediately offended about this and couldn’t even bring myself to explain to him that feminism is part of combating misogyny, for example. He knows I’m upset but hasn’t spoken about it since and this happened several hours ago.

He is otherwise a decent man. He’s a good parent to DS. I feel so upset about this I am genuinely considering whether we have a future. Not sure if this is a dramatic reaction… I’m not an ‘extreme’ feminist and rarely talk about such matters with DP as they don’t come up, but I am of course a feminist and his comments have made me feel shit.

I see. So, how would a candidate set about proving that? Because what tends to happen is that you are simply informed you've been unsuccessful. You can request feedback but can't demand it. A SAR would give you the rights to see the notes about you, but, importantly, not the notes about anyone else. So the feedback if you recieved it, would be along the lines of 'you interviewed well, but we offered to someone with more experience/we felt was a better fit/showed more passion for our vision' etc. You have no way of proving that any of that is false. The law is great in theory, but only helpful in internal interviews, or where you can show there is a clear pattern of bias. Which is almost impossible for an external applicant.

maybe one way around this would be the entire interview to be done completely blind so no name on application and the interview process is again written and online so there is no way to say if this is a female or male person. could be one solution i suppose

This.

I'm not sure I could be in a relationship with a man who doesn't consider himself to be a feminist.

I agree with this. I am a 64 year old feminist, a strong proponent of women’s rights, I work, and have two gay daughters but I no longer identify with the “feminism” at Mumsnet and would not be surprised to find others will also reject the label. Frankly the descent of british feminism into anti trans activism and anti trans shitposting has made me reconsider the term. I now want something that indicates my support for all people rather than a “check the vagina first” model.

This is completely untrue and absolutely reams of economic and sociological studies have proved it is untrue. As well as your assertion elsewhere that companies would hire women preferentially to fill jobs because female labor is cheaper. Hiring and pay decisions—which have also been extensively studied—are not the product of strictly rational, sound, economic decisionmaking. Racism, sexism, cultural affinities, classism all combine to create a situation in which the best/cheapest hire is not necessarily going to be chosen.

So you’re no longer a supporter of women’s rights? Just human rights?

By calling feminism anti-trans you’re simply proving that trans activism is anti-woman. Which is true, it is. It’s also pretty homophobic so I’m surprised that someone with 2 gay daughters supports it at all. You know that the recent former CEO of Stonewall called homosexuality a prejudice akin to racism?

That sounds like an open door to fraud, to be honest, and an incredibly desperate way to pretend that sex bias in job applications and interviewing doesn’t happen and is impossible to prove when it does.

well what would be your suggestion? a woman be given automatic preferential treatment

When I was at school we had a hardcore feminist teacher.
Always women first, men bad etc. I have no idea about the father apart from he left her.
She had two children.
The eldest, a male was taught feminist ideology from as long as he could remember.
This meant that his younger sister was put first for everything.
Both of them have told me this.

In the end the mother lost both her children, the son because he rebelled against the almost abusive situation that he was brought up in and the daughter as she sided with her brother over the mother's treatment of him.

The only point to this is that if theOP decides that what she wants comes before the needs of the child then there is a good chance that she will lose not only her DH but her DC as well.

Given there is clearly a lot of disagreement on here regarding whether a male can even be a feminist I think YABVU in the strength of your reaction. From what he said immediately after the offending comment, particularly re your son not being misogynistic, it seems obvious (and it should have been then), that there's just been a straightforward misunderstanding as to what exactly 'feminism' is. Is it thinking that women should enjoy the same opportunities, rights and freedoms as men while recognising the shitty deal they've had historically (and still do in far too many ways now)? Or is it being Millie Tant from Viz?

I mean, if the problem is that his understanding of 'feminism' is more like the latter, don't you think your reaction here is a bit of a case in point?

They did go to blind tests for orchestras and demonstrated that it was racism and sexism keeping orchestras largely male and white.

This^
It could be that you had in mind completely different things so I would have a conversation with him first, but not a confrontational one.

When people talk about feminism and how toxic it is, are we talking exclusively about trans issues? Are people happy to throw out the whole baby of women’s emancipation, VAWG, reproductive rights and employment rights with the bathwater of the trans debate?

I’m not here to argue with you. I am completely uninterested in the form that feminism takes on mumsnet. It is literally perverse and strange to me. More rights for everyone is more rights for women. Women are not under attack from trans people. Trans is not some hyper male trick to steal women’s rights. Get out of your mumsnet bubble and touch some grass or meet some human beings.

i just also want to lastly say my original points in regards to the wage gap

i think a lot of the gender wage gap conversation gets confused because we’re often comparing different jobs, different hours, and different industries. that makes it hard to have a fair or useful discussion.

legally, no one is allowed to be paid less for the same job just because they’re a woman, and if companies could get away with paying women less for identical work, they’d just hire all women. but they don’t, because that’s not how it actually works.

the truth is, career progression often comes down to availability. the people who can put in longer hours, travel, or stay late are usually the ones who get promoted. that’s not necessarily a reflection of talent or value, it’s just how most workplaces are structured.

yes, it can feel frustrating or unfair especially when caregiving impacts availability. but instead of blaming companies or assuming bad intent, maybe the conversation should focus more on trade-offs, choosing supportive partners, and figuring out what balance looks like for each family. it is up to the individual family and women how they want to structure their live.

also worth saying: a company that hires based on gender rather than the quality of the candidate probably won’t last long. hiring the best person for the role regardless of gender isn’t just fair, it’s smart business.

and finally women are absolutely free to choose the work they want to do and the hours they want to work. that freedom is the goal. but with freedom comes trade-offs, and those trade-offs don’t always come with equal outcomes. that doesn’t mean the system is broken. it means people are choosing different paths and that’s okay. people who do want to focus on their careers are free to pick a partner that would allow them to do so or opt to not have children.

equality isn’t about forcing identical lives or outcomes it’s about protecting the right to choose your own path, without judgment or unnecessary barriers.

I'm sort if the same opinion as this writer. Her experience when meeting male feminists, has mirrored mine. They think the label is enough.

https://medium.com/sisterly/can-men-be-feminists-d6807241129f

I think you need to have a discussion and understand what each of you actually thinks they are saying to each other. Considering ending a relationship that has resulted in a child over a flippant comment made during playing with the child seems premature.

Is he actually supportive of women's rights and seeing women as equal human beings who have suffered from patriarchal power and deserving of action to reverse this?

Will he bring your son up to reject misogynistic views?

Why do you think the Equality Act exists? To balance competing rights. Trans people were told (lied to) that they had additional rights that negated some women’s rights. That has now been corrected thanks to the amazing women of For Women Scotland who were supported by the women of FWR.

Anyway, that’s fine but you’re not interested in women’s rights if you include male people in your definition of women.

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with both of you. There's a certain arrogance about male feminists, and as the author notes, often a hidden genda. We are told to keep out of men's business, maybe they could do the same.

Where have I said that? Can you point me to that post because I don’t recall saying any such thing.

Making things up doesn’t shore up your position.

Ultimately the world of work is one designed by and for men from a time when men (and a few unmarried women) made up the bulk of the workforce. Yes, it’s been tweaked and twiddled with a bit as more women, including married women and mothers, entered the workforce but without tearing that structure down and rebuilding it anew, we will carry on much as we are. To do that work there needs to be acknowledgement of the issue by both men and women and a willingness to do something quite radical.

and what would your radical suggestion be? what alternative do you offer

Have you found the post where I suggested that women should always be favoured over men in job applications?

you have not so i apologise for that. it was more in response to the attitude that the work force and hiring system is unfair to women etc. i apologise.

it

if you would split up over a difference in opinion about whether or not to use a label about something you both agree on may I suggest you must have a pretty shakey marriage.