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

Not sure why the trans issue is being brought up here. Feminism is about women - about centring the interests of women - about not suffering discrimination because of our sex, lower pay for doing the same job because of our sex, and about protecting women from those who oppress, rape and murder us because of our sex.

It’s about striving for equal citizenship in which we are recognised as fully sentient, autonomous beings rather than support vessels for the needs of others. Different feminists have different aims, some of them bitterly contested, but all have in common that they centre the interests of women. It’s about not being materially or socially disadvantaged because of our sex.

. @Valeriekat

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.

I didn't mean to conflate SAHMs with tradwives. Clearly they aren't the same.

I take issue with the idea that its "difficult for mothers to have a meaningful career". A career doesn't have to mean working for Goldman Sachs or running your own business. The fact that a job is poorly paid doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

A lot of people keep popping up to point out that childcare is often "outsourced" to poorly paid women as if that was automatically a bad thing. I agree that childcare is underpaid but I don't honestly see why a mutually beneficial commercial agreement where one woman is paying another woman for a service she needs and the other woman is receiving money is a bad thing?

@AnSolas

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?"

I've answered this so many times I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying. Here goes again: I don't think having and raising a baby is not work. I've done it myself so I know it's hard work.

What I've said is there isn't (to my knowledge) a sensible economic model that allows women to be remunerated for birthing and raising children which doesn't also either a) cost the state an unsustainable amount of money in taxes or b) put women at risk of dangerous over-dependence on one other person.

This isn't particularly a question of bias, it's just economics.

This is how I think of it.

It's missing a frame ...

Actually I've seen it with four frames, but I was only thinking of the difference between equality and equity.

I take issue with the idea that its "difficult for mothers to have a meaningful career". A career doesn't have to mean working for Goldman Sachs or running your own business. The fact that a job is poorly paid doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

Except when it comes to raising a child?

A lot of people keep popping up to point out that childcare is often "outsourced" to poorly paid women as if that was automatically a bad thing. I agree that childcare is underpaid but I don't honestly see why a mutually beneficial commercial agreement where one woman is paying another woman for a service she needs and the other woman is receiving money is a bad thing?

Here your class is showing.

Show me the economics this works

A woman on minimum pay leaving her child with another woman employed as a childminder at 8:30
She travels to work on public transport
She starts work at 9:00
She ends work at 5:00
She travels back on public transport.
She collects her child at 5:30

All correctly taxed and legal.

Which parties have has a mutually beneficial commercial agreement?

The problem here is that minimum wage won't cover the cost of childcare. So women in low paid jobs are effectively forced out of the workforce when they have children.

Lets see what @Thepeopleversuswork has to say about the parties involved and how the economic work?

Well where I live how much you pay for childcare is directly linked to your household income, so people on low incomes pay very little.

It's not unsustainable, it's just a question of government priorities.

@Thepeopleversuswork on principle* *objects to the idea of paying for women to raise children.

Its a dilema but lets see how the economics playout.

Trans debates? Did you respond the wrong person?

@AnSolas

@Thepeopleversuswork on principle* *objects to the idea of paying for women to raise children.

I don't object object "on principle", you're mischaracterizing what I've said. I've said its unaffordable for each woman in the country who wants to have a child to have the entire upkeep of that child paid for by the state.

I'm not denying that childcare is poorly paid. It absolutely is and it shouldn't be.

But you haven't once engaged with the question of how this is to be funded. How would you pay for this utopian end-to-end solution where each and every woman has unlimited budget to raise her child? It's not workable.

Show me the economics this works
A woman on minimum pay leaving her child with another woman employed as a childminder at 8:30
She travels to work on public transport
She starts work at 9:00
She ends work at 5:00
She travels back on public transport.
She collects her child at 5:30
All correctly taxed and legal.
Which parties have has a mutually beneficial commercial agreement?

@AnSolas

Which parties have has a mutually beneficial commercial agreement?

It's a commercial agreement in which one woman gains money and the other woman pays for the right to work. It's obviously a highly unequal relationship, I'm not denying that. But it's an agreement which millions of women participate in, it generates employment for one woman and allows another woman to participate in employment. As someone pointed out upthread, its very difficult for women on minimum wage to justify doing this which is why so many women stop working, so it's far from ideal. But you haven't posited a credible alternative.

I don't really understand what you want from me: you keep coming back over and over like a stuck record to the idea that I don't value the work which goes into raising a child. I haven't said that and I don't believe that but on you go with it.

What I've said is that I don't see a way to fund the idea that each and every woman who wants a child should have that entire journey funded by the government, from cradle to the point of leaving home. It simply isn't affordable. If you have a credible idea for how this could be financed, I'm all ears, you haven't articulated this yet.

To be honest I think you're just having a go for the sake of it so unless you can engage with this point in hand I'm not going to keep going back around and around on this.

So you are a Laissez-faire capitalist.
Ok Robber Baron Capitalism.

The Childminder gains and can buy stuff.

The womans employer gains and can buy stuff.

The State gains and can buy stuff.

And the woman for the right to work fall into debt ( participate in employment ) starves on the street (along side her child).

And as children are not starving to death on the streets of the UK the cost involved in raising a child are being incurred yet the idea of a social change involving the fair distrubution of the cost involved in producing a worker is such a problem.

So far
Women will have babies anyway
Women should incure the cost because raising babies to workers have no economic value
Women in other countries can produce workers too
Women should not be paid because it would cost society too much
Women should suck it up and pay to work at anything else.

Why is the same activity which is carried out by the two women give two distinctly different social and economic status?

Can I just say "trickle down economics" ?

Apropos of the fact that no one else has said it yet.