to think that understanding feminism isn’t that hard

[suresuresuresure]

Why do people seem to think that feminism is about women wanting to be the same as men rather than wanting equity. It’s not that hard to understand is it?

In regard to women not wanting trans women in women's sport, I keep reading that women shouldn’t be trying to keep trans women out because feminists asked for equality.

AIBU to think this logic is odd. I mean we don’t think men should start having babies or periods in the name of feminism, so why would we think that women and men are the same in sports and physicality?

YABU - Feminist want to be men
YANBU- Feminists want equity

Feminism to me, is wanting not to be disadvantaged because of our biology.

Nothing to do with being treated exactly the same as men, which is what some people seem to think feminism is.

The way women are treated in Afghanistan, FGM, honour killings etc., this is what the fight is for and needs to be thought about more.

Feminists who think twaw, are usually white, westerners who only care about themselves and are NOT feminists in the true sense, even though the state that they are.

Tradwives who are totally dependent on a man are in a very vulnerable position. It’s hard to argue it’s a feminist choice. Arguing that child rearing is important and should be supported in a way that doesn’t make a woman dependent on her husband would be a feminist position imo.

Choosing as a woman to lose name and financial independence is unlikely to build equity for men and women.

Isn't the concept of 'tradwife' based on being subservient to their husband? In that it is not in anyway an equal partnership?

It would be very hard to argue that being a 'tradwife' is a feminist decision.

@Helleofabore

Is there something to say that a woman making the choice to be the person who takes on the load of caring for their children isn't a 'feminist' choice. I don't believe that feminists believed that women should automatically choose to outsource childcare, did they? They believed that women should have this choice and it should be based on what is best for them and their children.

I didn't say that feminists believe that women should automatically choose to outsource childcare and choosing to care for children can be a feminist choice as long as the woman has taken steps to protect herself and her children financially. I have no problem with any choice a woman makes for her life and her childcare.

But it's not quite as easy as saying any choice a woman makes is automatically a "feminist choice", which is what happens a lot on Mumsnet and elsewhere. A "feminist choice" would be one which is in alignment with and supportive of the broader goals of feminism, which are to end discrimination against women, to level the playing field in favour of women and to protect women.

For example a woman choosing to stay at home to look after her children when she has protected herself appropriately (through marriage perhaps or by working part time or choosing a route back into employment at the appropriate time) could indeed be making a "feminist choice". A woman choosing to make herself wholly financially dependent on her husband or partner for the rest of her life is not. It may be the right choice for that woman at that moment (it may be her only choice) and it can be a choice made a feminist. But it's not a "feminist choice".

That's a bit like choosing to work in a corporate job selling luxury goods to high net work individuals an calling it a "socialist choice". You may be a socialist in your heart and you may be doing it for completely justifiable reasons, but its not a "socialist choice".

It may sound like semantics, but its quite important. Choice is an element of feminism of course and its a precondition for women to be free. But that doesn't mean that any choice made by a woman is automatically a "feminist choice" regardless of what it is. There's a lot more to feminism than just doing whatever you want because you can.

"In regard to women not wanting trans women in women's sport, I keep reading that women shouldn’t be trying to keep trans women out because feminists asked for equality."

Yes, that is the favourite retort of the misogynists, gloating over the removal of opportunities / rights / fairness from those uppity women who dare to think they are as fully human as men when really they should put up and shut up and get back in the kitchen.

Feminism demanded equality of opportunity. The same access to education, jobs, bank accounts. I am old enough to remember schools teaching woodwork and metalwork to boys whilst girls were relegated to cooking and sewing and being discouraged from academic subjects because why would we need them? Careers advice at school that channelled girls into being typists, shop workers or hairdressers. Women being overlooked for promoted positions because they're just going to get married and have children and leave so what's the point? Best not employ them at all, really. Banks needing your husband or father to authorise you having a bank account or a, heavens above, a credit card or (retires to fainting couch with smelling salts) a mortgage in your own name!

Feminism was actually easier then. The palpable unfairness could not be denied, except of course by those who clung to their delusion that women were feeble-minded emotional creatures who were little better than children (who should be seen and not heard) and really should be protected from the demands of adulthood because they're just not up to the job.

Having won those big battles, there are sadly plenty of skirmishes left. the unsuitable/unsafe stab vests, the seatbelts, the medicines untested on women have already been mentioned. At heart, all caused by the systemic foundations of men still being the default human with women as the add-on that is often forgotten/ignored/too much trouble to bother with.

So no, understanding feminism really isn't that hard. Equality of opportunity, and the needs of men and of women given equal weight by society at large.

To be fair, OP, when I see the 'women wanted equality' argument used, often it is by a Men's Rights supporter. There have been a few on MN who used to post regularly on AIBU although I haven't seen them for a year or two. Maybe they disappeared after poster after poster posted explanations about what is equality and what are equitable solutions to gain equality in response to that phrase being used.

I do see it posted from time to time as some kind of misinformed post where the poster declares that sport is only segregated because decades ago male athletes complained that they didn't want to lose to women. It has even been written in papers published by academics over the past few years where those academics support male inclusion in female sports events. It is such a misinformed opinion that is not backed up by evidence at all. However, those papers may be why we have seen some posters try to use it as an argument.

Thank you for the clarification and the expansion. The distinctions you make are important I agree.

I would also go one step further too and argue that 'empowerment' has been misused by many people in the same way as 'feminist choice'.

My personal pet hate is when people who know nothing about feminism come out with "surely feminism is about choice?" before going on to explain that they have taken their husband's name, had ten kids and become a tradwife because its their "feminist choice". Sorry, it's not that easy to whitewash it.

You have modified your language to remove the word woman.

Why do you think you have ended up not using the word woman or mother in that ^ context as only women can birth children?

Feminism is about creating social change which creates choice which allow women to live better lives.

What social status have you given your tradwife work dropout with ten children?

What issues are a "tradwife" role highlighting?
Birth control and abortion and mothehood.
Recognising work within the home is unpaid untill a level of wealth allows the householder to buy in labor (mainly from women)
Giving birth and all the health risks and complications remain with the woman.
Primary responsibility of raising a new human will always fall to someone and that starts with the woman who gave birth so thats a problem for the "new batch" of women to sort out but in the end someone has to do it.
The women dont drop out of the workforce they choose not to or can not afford to pay another woman minimum wage to look after their child.
Etc

There is a whole lot to unpackage there.

Indeed.

@AnSolas

You have modified your language to remove the word woman.

I haven't modified my language in any way whatsoever. I typed as I thought. You can deconstruct as you see fit but I promise you there was no deliberate attempt to exclude the word woman. I assumed it was a given, as the discussion was about feminism.

Feminism is about creating social change which creates choice which allow women to live better lives

Agree. But that social change, by definition, cannot come from women adopting traditional roles which favour men at their expense without question or without making any attempt to think about the impact of what they do on other women. That doesn't mean the choice is wrong for them, but it cannot be feminist.

What social status have you given your tradwife work dropout with ten children?

I'm not sure I understand this question? None, I would think, but what relevance has this?

Recognising work within the home is unpaid untill a level of wealth allows the householder to buy in labor (mainly from women)

True. But women won't change this if they voluntarily opt out of being economically productive in perpetuity.

The women dont drop out of the workforce they choose not to or can not afford to pay another woman minimum wage to look after their child.

But you seem to be assuming that the only way for women to avoid dropping out of the workforce is to pay another woman minimum wage. Why is it out of the question that the man in her household could step up to take on some of the domestic labour?

I agree there's a lot to unpack. My beef isn't with women making pragmatic choices to suit their lives. Almost all of us do this at some level, unless you're obscenely rich its unavoidable. My beef is with people making choices which manifestly are not supportive of the advancement of women in society and then positioning them as a "feminist choice" purely on the basis that a woman has chosen to do it.

I promise you there was no deliberate attempt to exclude the word woman.

Its a cultural nuanced

You did not even identify a woman in your first post you brain when a group of men and women ( or people ) when you were thinking one single woman and her choices?

My personal pet hate is when men who know nothing about feminism come out with "surely feminism is about choice?" before going on to explain that their wives have taken their husband's name, had ten kids and become a tradwife because its their wife's "feminist choice". Sorry, it's not that easy to whitewash it.

My personal pet hate is when women who know nothing about feminism come out with "surely feminism is about choice?" before going on to explain that they have taken their husband's name, had ten kids and become a tradwife because its their "feminist choice". Sorry, it's not that easy to whitewash it.

See the importance of the word woman or mother?

My beef isn't with women making pragmatic choices to suit their lives. Almost all of us do this at some level, unless you're obscenely rich its unavoidable. My beef is with people making choices which manifestly are not supportive of the advancement of women in society and then positioning them as a "feminist choice" purely on the basis that a woman has chosen to do it.

Why is your "feminist" brain still choosing to people-ing women?

women adopting traditional roles which favour men at their expense without question or without making any attempt to think about the impact of what they do on other women.

You are making an assumption that the women who make the choice do so without thinking.

I'm not sure I understand this question? None, I would think, but what relevance has this?

I know you dont understand the question.

Its Noah and the Arc or Who gets into the Bunker to ensure humanity survives.

Take your people split them into groups and allocate each a social status. What have you used to make the groups and which groups dont get a space.

Did the tradwife group get a space?

But women won't change this if they voluntarily opt out of being economically productive in perpetuity.

Do you see any economic value in birthing a child?
Or creating a functioning adult or 10?

But you seem to be assuming that the only way for women to avoid dropping out of the workforce is to pay another woman minimum wage. Why is it out of the question that the man in her household could step up to take on some of the domestic labour?

Your socioeconomic bias is on show here.

Growing and birthing new humans is sex specific. Recognising the economics involved, recognising that process and the subsequent issues is what feminism is about.

" Primary responsibility of raising a new human will always fall to someone and that starts with the woman who gave birth so thats a problem for the "new batch" of women to sort out but in the end someone has to do it. "

You assumed that there is a man and that he is willing to step up. MN is filled with examples of how that is not happening.

Recognising mothehood as a good thing, as economic and social role, as not a drag on society is feminism.

@AnSolas

You seem really hung up on the fact that I haven't used the word "woman". I'm sorry if I didn't use the word "woman" enough. I am a woman and a feminist and I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you so you'll have to take this on trust but it seems a bit of a side issue.

On your most material point:

Growing and birthing new humans is sex specific. Recognising the economics involved, recognising that process and the subsequent issues is what feminism is about.

I think you're conflating two related but separate points.

Of course growing and birthing humans is sex specific. Feminism doesn't work if it doesn't recognise this. Birthing new humans takes a huge economic hit on women, which is one of the things feminism tries to tackle and so it should. But it doesn't follow that feminism is only about protecting women as they grow and birth children and it doesn't follow that this is always women's most important role. Feminism exists for childless women just as much as women with children.

Assuming that feminism is only about protecting the rights of women with children is a misreading, in my view.

Do you see any economic value in birthing a child?
Or creating a functioning adult or 10?

Not particularly, no. There's societal value in birthing a child. Not particularly economic value, there are already too many people on the planet and a child is a financial drain.

I'm guessing where this is going is you're pursuing this argument that domestic work should be valued equal to paid work outside the home.

This is a very seductive argument (which has been endlessly made on here) and is morally attractive but it doesn't work in practice: the only way to "recognise" child-raising as an economic activity is for someone (usually either the government or the woman's partner) to reward women financially for remaining at home. This is highly problematic a) because it incentivises women not to work and thus to become dependent which is not feminist b) because it discriminates against women without children and c) because it creates some arbitrary moral/societal connection between being a mother and being a "good person". Which I don't accept. Women without children are just as entitled to respect and support as those with children.

And I absolutely don't think there's economic value in creating 10 children. This is a needless drain both on the mother and on society.

Recognising mothehood as a good thing, as economic and social role, as not a drag on society is feminism.

Supporting motherhood is a feminist act, yes. But the devil is in the detail. Incentivising women to give up their own financial autonomy is not a feminist act. If you think that women should be rewarded above all else for creating children you're setting a problematic social precedent.

So @Thepeopleversuswork is the tradwife group getting a space in the bunker or not?

Not for me, no.
Tradwives can suit themselves, but by no stretch of the imagination is their behaviour feminist. It sets feminism back hundreds of years.

@Thepeopleversuswork what is your maximun number ( socially acceptable ) of births than one woman can have?

What a bizarre question. Provided a woman (or her family) can support these children I couldn't care less how many kids she has.

But that doesn't mean it's a "feminist choice" to have a huge family.

A woman with a very large number of children (let's say more than four) is going to find it much harder to be financially self-sufficient than a woman with a smaller number.

If people can support these children let them crack on. But the reality is that if that sort of behaviour was standard it would massively limit their financial autonomy.

If you think the goal of feminism is promoting women to have as many children as possible maybe you're a feminist (although it's not the definition I have usually worked with). But my version of feminism values the financial autonomy and freedom of the mother over the need to keep churning out babies like a walking dairy. And funnily enough, the wealthier and more educated societies become, the fewer children women tend to have. So most women would seem to prefer my version of feminism.

And I absolutely don't think there's economic value in creating 10 children. This is a needless drain both on the mother and on society.

Can you explain this statement?

Your number is somewhere between 0 and 10.
So what is your number?

So well explained. Thank you

Imo that's fine as long as we don't consider everything that doesn't qualify as a "feminist choice" therefore anti-feminist. That would be too simplistic to me (and possibly an anti-feminist stance!)

I have seen the whole 'trans women men should be included women’s sports because it helps women, feminist want this for true equality.' Very often written by women. I just can’t believe that many women think this is feminism.

Some women believe that feminism is about fighting for equal opportunity for ‘all’ people. And that feminists must fight for all oppressed people.

This seems to be a flow on from the mantra of ‘be kind’ maybe? It certainly seems that some people believe that feminists should ‘mother’ the world, if I can describe it that way.

@takealettermsjones

Imo that's fine as long as we don't consider everything that doesn't qualify as a "feminist choice" therefore anti-feminist. That would be too simplistic to me (and possibly an anti-feminist stance!)

Of course. As plenty of people have pointed out, almost no one lives an entirely "feminist life". We all have to make compromises of various kinds in our lives and patriarchy is patriarchy.

But it's too easy to assert that the fact that a woman has chosen to do something means its automatically "feminist". It removes any meaning from the concept of feminism if you can just pick and choose anything (including something incredibly regressive and anti-feminist) and say "it's OK its a feminist choice".

I haven't provided a number! You're the one who's obsessed with the idea that I have some optimal threshold. I've said clearly I think women should have as many kids as they like as long as they can support them. I couldn't give a shit.

But that doesn't make it a "feminist choice".

So you are a Laissez-faire capitalist.

No child care funding or schools, no public health cover, no labour law protection, no social funding for maternity or child welfare.

Your social system choice is benchmarking against your ideal people being men.

@AnSolas

So you are a Laissez-faire capitalist.
No child care funding or schools, no public health cover, no labour law protection, no social funding for maternity or child welfare.
Your social system choice is benchmarking against your ideal people being men.

Wrong. On all counts. You know nothing about me and this is a million miles from what I believe. And I've said nothing that even hints that I believe any of these things. But you tell yourself this if it makes you happy.