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

You have provided supporting evidence for @Maryslion

You did seem to have a real contempt for Morherhood there though.
Motherhood should be a key concern of feminism.

Child care is only work when its someone else being paid to do the work. You will pay a stranger to provide child care but are offended at the idea that you could pay the mother for the same work.

Wealthy educated women choose not to have babies and women who have too many are cows.

Why is the idea of recognising the economics of having babies such a difficult concept?

If your theory of feminism is correct only a small number of women will choose to mothers and society as a whole carrys the full economic cost of producing replacement humans even when that cost includes a woman choosing to raise her child herself.

@AnSolas

Child care is only work when its someone else being paid to do the work. You will pay a stranger to provide child care but are offended at the idea that you could pay the mother for the same work.

I'm not "offended" by the idea of paying a mother for the same work. I'm just trying to understand the economics of it.

You seem to be suggesting all women (or most women) should be paid to remain at home to raise their own children? Who is going to pay for this? The state sure as hell isn't going to. No government on earth is going to underwrite all women remaining at home to raise their kids.

If your theory of feminism is correct only a small number of women will choose to mothers and society as a whole carrys the full economic cost of producing replacement humans even when that cost includes a woman choosing to raise her child herself.

It's not "my" theory of feminism: it's fact. Study after study has showed that the number of children a woman has is inversely correlated to the average income level of her country. Most women don't want huge families.

You seem to be positioning the idea that its desirable for most women to have as many children as possible. If this is such a seductive idea why do most educated women in affluent societies choose limit their families? Because they understand that having large numbers of children costs a lot of money and severely limits their freedom.

I'm with the poster who said it irks her when women say "feminism for me is doing exactly as I want." A bit like the "feminism but only when it suits me" brigade.

Why is it up to women to carry the cost of producing the next generation of workers?

Why is this work not seen as a shared social cost?

@AnSolas

Why is it up to women to carry the cost of producing the next generation of workers?
Why is this work not seen as a shared social cost?

It's not up to women and no one has said it is?

The cost of raising children is usually shouldered by the parents jointly, the father or state. Women who singlehandedly support their children are in a minority.

You could say its already treated as a shared social cost. The government pays a sizeable chunk of the cost of raising children.

@Thepeopleversuswork

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".

Where is the shared social cost ^ here?

Different women have differernt views about what feminism means, OP.

Some think we should grow babies in a bag, some think we should make sure women with babies don't need to work. Some think we should abolish sex separated activities of all kinds, some thing women should collectivise and live without men.

So , no, not really so obvious.

Life isn't automatically fair but, due to anatomical differences (being smaller & bearing children) and historical male privilege, it's more unfair for women than men.
Personally I think feminists recognise this and would wish for a move towards equality (to address the balance by improving women's lives), although there is no one right way to create equality.

"You seem to be suggesting all women (or most women) should be paid to remain at home to raise their own children? Who is going to pay for this? The state sure as hell isn't going to. No government on earth is going to underwrite all women remaining at home to raise their kids."

The partner should pay.

We need to do something to change the perception that ‘women’s work’, and by that I don't just mean child care, is recognised throughout society as valuable. We know women’s work includes caring for elderly parents, executing Christmas, being the default person to be called to pick up the kids, organising the family schedule, having to manage the day to day cooking and cleaning etc. This is the reality for most women and it goes unnoticed and unpaid.

If a couple have children and the state deducted at source for the 'women’s work' from the person not doing any of it then perhaps it would be recognised as actual work. Of course this would be total impractical to administer but we need to start recognising all the extra work women do whether they are a stay at home parent or not.

One really good example is the way couples will decide that the it’s not worth the mother going back to work if he nanny fees are the same or more than she earns. The decision should be made on half the nanny fees, the other half of the fees are the responsibility of the other partner. This seems like a small thing but it’s a way of unconsciously thinking the childcare is not the responsibility of the male. Obviously I’m generalising and very occasionally this can be reversed.

@suresuresuresure

I totally agree with you about the burden of unpaid work which falls on women and how this skews the playing field massively against the woman. This is endemic and its a huge problem for women.

While I agree that a partner should pay for the work he's not doing in the home as part of household, the default assumption is that the partner should always pay is also a bit problematic.

The situation you describe in your final paragraph, where the family decides "it’s not worth the mother going back to work" is much more likely to happen if its mandated that the partner pays. It hugely raises the incentive on women not to go back to work. That may work beautifully for families in certain instances (and why not do it if the economics works) but it doesn't help the broader problem that women face in the workplace. It deepens the already strong tendency of employers to believe that a woman with children is less reliable, less hardworking and more likely to drop out of work. That would not benefit the large numbers of mothers who want to work.

But by the way your suggestion about the state deducting at source the "woman's work" is probably the most sensible idea I've ever heard for dealing with this. I don't think it will ever happen, but most of the ideas about "rewarding" mothers for raising children are pie in the sky. This one is actually quite pragmatic.

Sorry but again I don't understand the question?

We don't have equity, we have privilege.

We have whole systems dedicated to giving us advantage simply because we are women.

We have whole days of the year dedicated to how great we are.

We are given preferential treatment in the justice system.

We are given custody of the children when relationships break down.

We control all aspects of sexual relationships "happy wife, happy life".

We out perform men/boys in terms of academic achievement.

The only reason women don't earn as much as men is because men work longer hours and are willing to sacrifice more of their personal life.

Feminism is a dead concept that doesn't represent me or anything I believe in.

It's embarrassing and outdated.

Wealth distribution, prostitution/FGM/rape and murder VAWG,
Healthcare and safety features that fit male bodies,
Missed these much?

We don't have equity, so we need to address the gap we have privilege.

We have whole systems dedicated to giving us advantage legal equity simply because we are women men won’t treat women as equals of their own according including 1 in 4 women being raped in their life time by a man.

We have a whole days day of the year dedicated to how great unrecognized we are but many men seem to moan “what about men” on the day or it’s taken over by men’s womanhood.

We are given preferential sometimes unfair treatment in the justice system where women’s sentences for petty theft are often longer than male rapists. Or in the case of the talented swimming freshman rapist his future job prospects were deemed more important that justice for the female victim.

We are given custody of the children when relationships break down because generally women will and do take care of the majority of domestic work.

We control all aspects of are in control of our own sexual relationships "happy wife, happy life". Unless we are raped of course.

We out perform men/boys in terms of academic achievement and then earn less.

The only reason women don't earn as much as men is because men work longer hours don’t sacrifice their careers to do unpaid childcare and women are more willing to sacrifice more of their personal life of their future earning capacity and security.

Fixed it for you @Chiseltip

If even a fraction of that were true (rather than a regurgitation of the embittered ramblings of MRA) then, didn't we do well? Not sure what there is to be embarrassed about by a movement that has already achieved so much for women and girls. If that grinds your gears because your own life isn't as good as you think you deserve, then why not take a leaf out of feminists books and strive for improvement for yourself? Or if you are a woman, then simply decline the 'advantages' offered to you. Sitting around all coy and embarrassed about something that's nothing to do with your life seems rather odd and unproductive.

A picture, a thousand words etc ..

Feminism is a very simple concept, people just decide to willfully misunderstand because it suits their agenda.

What a load of old shit.

@Deadringer Totally agree! The worrying thing is that @Chiseltip believes these fallacies to be fact!!

The "Where is the shared social cost ^ here" question?

marriage
This is a temporary contract which can be terminated by either living party or by the death of one. There is no legal obligation on the womans spouse to provide financially with in the marriage. She and her child could be starvimg to death on the side of road and the States starting point is a DNA test and half the cost of feeding and housing any child [(edit) is still the responsibility of the mother]

She can be disinherit via her spouses will.

If disinherit or divorced she needs to be able to afford to go to the courts and argue a legal case that her life and non-financial contributions within her marriage were sufficient to allow the courts to transfer some of her spouses personal property (assets) to her.

You have argued that her contributions have no economic value. If that is true she gets no rights to access any accumulated wealth of her spouse.

by working part time
This at a financial cost she needs to be able to pay for child care before she can free up time work.

choosing a route back into employment at the appropriate time
Again this is at a financial cost. Some of this cost may be covered by public funds by paying a childminder or teacher but regular employment hours are not designed around raising a replacement worker.

It hugely raises the incentive on women not to go back to work. That may work beautifully for families in certain instances (and why not do it if the economics works) but it doesn't help the broader problem that women face in the workplace. It deepens the already strong tendency of employers to believe that a woman with children is less reliable, less hardworking and more likely to drop out of work. That would not benefit the large numbers of mothers who want to work.

You keep using the word work and reward.

Is the childminder (a stranger to the child) rewarded or paid?

Is the teacher (a stranger to the child) rewarded or paid?

If a mother is doing the same work why is it a reward not a payment for the time invested?

At the end of 9 months + 18 years society ends up with the finished product. A human who may or may not be a benificial contributor to society.

Someone has to do the work as children dont raise themselves.

Yet when it comes to recognising that raising a child is work Western society is not willing to see a mother as a worker role or as having engaged in work at all.

@Chiseltip

We don't have equity, we have privilege.
We have whole systems dedicated to giving us advantage simply because we are women.
We have whole days of the year dedicated to how great we are.
We are given preferential treatment in the justice system.
We are given custody of the children when relationships break down.
We control all aspects of sexual relationships "happy wife, happy life".
We out perform men/boys in terms of academic achievement.
The only reason women don't earn as much as men is because men work longer hours and are willing to sacrifice more of their personal life.
Feminism is a dead concept that doesn't represent me or anything I believe in.
It's embarrassing and outdated.

Literally every single one of these statements is wrong, with the exception of the one about academic achievement.

The claims about controlling sexual relationships (when the vast majority of rapes go unpunished) and being given custody of children (when this is almost always because the fathers are unwilling to care for the children) are insulting.

Educate yourself.

@AnSolas

Yet when it comes to recognising that raising a child is work Western society is not willing to see a mother as a worker role or as having engaged in work at all.

I don't disagree with this statement.

But the issue is there isn't a practical way to "reward" mothers financially for the role they play in raising children which doesn't end up inadvertently disadvantaging them. The only ways to effect what you're talking about are a) for the state to pay for them to remain at home with their children or b) for their husband or partner to wholly support them.

a) is clearly unaffordable. It would bankrupt western welfare systems which are already nearly bankrupt if the state supported all women in perpetuity with the upkeep of their children. IWelfare costs have already nearly brought down successive governments in this country: what makes you think people would wear a system where all childcare costs for all mothers were shouldered by the state? It would also create a moral value system where a woman who had children was "valued" more highly than a woman without children and hugely disincentivize women who did want to work from working. I don't want to live in a world where it is frowned upon for women to work, thank you very much.

b) is a solution many people still adopt and it works for some families. But it makes the woman pretty vulnerable to be wholly dependent on one other adult for financial security (and by association, the children). Marriage provides a degree of protection but its not a guarantee. It's also, in my view, pretty problematic to live in a society where only men work and only women look after children. It creates a huge divide between the sexes socially and disempowers women politically. Again, the dangers of this outweigh the benefits (for me).

Oh dear… you must be a) a man or b) very privileged or c) deluded.

You keep telling me that raising a child is not work.

How is that a femnist idea?

None of those is mutually exclusive.