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

@AnSolas

You keep telling me that raising a child is not work.
How is that a femnist idea?

You're not listening to what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying its not work, it palatably is work.

I'm saying there is no practical way to financially reward women for raising a child which doesn't actually serve to entrench discrimination against women by making it harder for them to find other ways to support themselves.

Why?

If Western society accepts that its work why is picking Job A and not Job B a problem if another woman wants Job C and never wanted Job A or B to begin with?

@AnSolas

Why?
If Western society accepts that its work why is picking Job A and not Job B a problem if another woman wants Job C and never wanted Job A or B to begin with?

I feel like I've explained this multiple times already but...here goes.

It's not a problem. Women can pick whatever "job" they want if they can fund it. I have no moral or ethical problem with which route women take in life. Where you get into difficulties is in deciding how to fund this.

It's a lovely idea that any woman who wants to have a child should be "supported" in doing so, we can all get behind this, but what does that look like in practice? You can't raise children on fresh air and good will. For better or worse, in most societies, it requires money.

If I've read your comments correctly you're suggesting that "someone" (and I notice you haven't specified who) should support all women who want to have children in doing so, presumably for the duration of their child-rearing time because you think that's their most important job. But you're refusing to engage with the question of who pays.

If a woman is not able or willing to support herself while she has children, and unless she has a private income, the answer boils down to

a) the state
b) the woman's partner or other family

As I've explained, the state simply can't afford to pay for unlimited child support for all women who want to have children. It can barely afford the current safety net and its politically impossible. So the other alternative is the woman's partner.

This is a solution that works for some women but it brings certain societal risks including: a) removing that woman's ability to support herself if the relationship breaks down and b) diminishing the role of women in society more broadly because it takes them out of the public, decision making realm and identifies their value is deriving solely from their ability to produce and raise children.

If I've read your comments correctly you're suggesting that "someone" (and I notice you haven't specified who) should support all women who want to have children in doing so, presumably for the duration of their child-rearing time because you think that's their most important job.

Hummm...

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

Is having a baby an important job or even a job at all?

You say well educated wealthy women will choose not to have babies.

The UK needs replacement workers.

There are 2 choices Import or Homegrow.

Is it ethical to expect women in poor countries to pay to produce plus to loose their investment to the Uk?

Does the UK need to work out how social change incorporates recognising the work involved in raising a child?

Should feminism in the UK work on that?

In England, feminism is intimately bound up with class.

You are unreasonable, NOT because you're a feminist or because you and I hold different theories of what feminism is, but because you're trying to force your opinion of what feminist is onto others.

Just because other feminists don't share your opinion, doesn't mean we're wrong and it doesn't mean we are equal feminists to you.

@AnSolas

Is having a baby an important job or even a job at all?

Having a baby is very important. I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a "job". It's a socially important role but a job implies that you are paid a wage or a salary for it. I don't think women should be paid to have babies, as I've said many times.

You say well educated wealthy women will choose not to have babies.

I didn't say all well educated women will choose not to have babies. Clearly many do. I said that in wealthier and more affluent societies the trend is for women on average to have fewer babies than in poorer societies, which is undeniably true. Why is this a bad thing? Societies with large numbers of births per woman are generally poorer with poorer health outcomes both for women and children so its clearly not a net benefit to society. Plus I don't want to live in a society where having babies is all that's expected of a woman.

The UK needs replacement workers.

I think that's overstated. The planet needs fewer people, not more. And no one is talking about stopping having babies altogether. Just having them at a sustainable level which doesn't require women to stop doing everything else.

There are 2 choices Import or Homegrow.
Is it ethical to expect women in poor countries to pay to produce plus to loose their investment to the Uk?

I'm not sure I follow this.

Does the UK need to work out how social change incorporates recognising the work involved in raising a child?

Yes, probably it does and I would certainly support anything which supports women in raising children. I'm not denying that raising a child is a hugely important societal role. I'm questioning your assertion that its the only societal role a woman can play and that the state should support it.

@SerendipityJane

In England, feminism is intimately bound up with class.

Someone always comes up with that as if its meant to be some sort of "gotcha" but its a facile argument.

Feminism benefits all women. Like most other progressive movements it has tended to be led by women with more money and more time. It's very much the same with socialism. You have to have a certain threshold of money, freedom and education at your disposal to enact any kind of social change - many people are too busy surviving to do anything else.

Does that mean that feminism is irrelevant to working class women? I don't think so. Do you think that women shouldn't have got the vote in England, purely because the Suffragettes were (largely) wealthy? The contraceptive pill was invented by men. Does that make it irrelevant to women?

Just because something is led by people with more means, status and education doesn't mean it has no relevance to people with less.

So then I would argue many feminists want equity.

Would you agree that ending sexual violence is something all feminists want?

@Thepeopleversuswork

I'm questioning your assertion that its the only societal role a woman can play and that the state should support it.

Can you quote the post where I stated that?

How do you fund it?

I think that feminism is a conclusion of humanism.

Do you think all people should be afforded the same respect, opportunities, freedoms, rights?

Yes.

Are women people?

Yes.

...QED...

I completely agree that many people do not understand what feminism encompasses and there are some strange notions of feminism out there.

However, anyone who has studied feminism as a movement will also appreciate there are multiple strands and new feminist ideas can and do arise over time. There isn’t really a sole definition that captures all of these strands except that they promote equity for women.

I do object to those who tell me what can and can’t be feminist and, for me personally, having freedom to chose my life in the context of having the right to equal pay, the right to equivalent appropriate healthcare, etc, is essential. For me, this includes having a choice to raise children and having a male breadwinner support the family financially. I disagree with posters who judge that choice.

@AnSolas

I'm questioning your assertion that its the only societal role a woman can play and that the state should support it.

Can you quote the post where I stated that?

You have posted a lot of stuff suggesting you feel women should be being paid to produce more children and seem to take a dim view of women either choosing to have fewer children or of them paying other women to care for children while they work and going on about how important motherhood is for society (which no one has disputed).

I've no idea what your views are on the matter because you've just posted a long line of questions and slightly random statements as opposed to a coherent argument. But your posts give the general impression that you want women to have more babies and work less. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's where it's leading for me!

@StarlightRobot Isn't that a case of "feminism but only when it suits me" though? If we say feminism is all about making decisions then could I say, for example, "I like to be subservient to my husband but that's my choice because I'm a feminist"? (Btw I definitely don't like to be subservient to my husband but then he'd never want me to be either).

I can assure I am not someone. Which you already knew because unlike someone I didn't go "gotcha!".

Although surely it doesn't matter who advances a correct point - someone or not ?

You also forgot to quote the bit where I stated that feminism does not benefit all women.

My point - clearly too obtuse - was that "feminism" means different things to different people. And those differences - in England - are (in my humble opinion) related to class. There are other factors too. Wealth (sometimes used as a proxy for class) and religion.

@SerendipityJane

You also forgot to quote the bit where I stated that feminism does not benefit all women.

My point - clearly too obtuse - was that "feminism" means different things to different people. And those differences - in England - are (in my humble opinion) related to class. There are other factors too. Wealth (sometimes used as a proxy for class) and religion.

I agree that feminism means different things to different people. And certainly some women feel the benefits of feminism more than others. But if you look at what feminism has achieved for women I think its hard to argue that it hasn't benefited women overall.

Thats a lot of words to avoid saying "I cant"

So how about try reading the text without your personal bias with one question in your mind

"Why do I think growing a baby and then raising a baby to 18 is not work?"

@everychildmatters

I don’t think feminism is entirely about choice but I suppose having equity first and then the freedom to choose to live how we want to live is, for me, the ultimate goal. I fully appreciate that the world we live in means free choice is rarely available. I also do not consider a woman who decides to stay at home and care for children while her husband works to be subservient. That is simply how they have decided to divide labour in that family.

I felt that you were conflating stay at home mum with tradwife. It came across as judgmental and patronising. Childcare is almost always outsourced to poorly paid women.

@Thepeopleversuswork
so much of the work women do is still so poorly paid which makes it very difficult for mothers to have a meaningful career.
Shop work, child care, hospitality etc are the reality of employment for many women.
As my friend used to say “ working class women have always had the right to work”

@Valeriekat Many women have both careers and families. I have had three kids and (apart from mat leaves) have always worked. I am not unusual in this.

The work of women employed in retail, hospitality and childcare may well be meaningful to them. And it's certainly meaningful to the rest of us, as our lives would be poorer without their contribution. All of those sectors require skills and professionalism and offer opportunities to make a difference and to advance. It's incredibly patronising to dismiss the work of working class women as not being 'meaningful' just because it doesn't carry a high salary. No one ever suggests a male in a blue coller job shouldnt bother working because he doesn't have a meaningful career, do they?

You are welcome to make a statement about my opinion but I'm not getting yanked into trans debates.