'Pushing presents'

[MarionCole]

Sorry, a thread caused by another thread. I just didn't want to spoil their party with my negativity.

So - presents from DH/DP for giving birth - am I the only one who feels uncomfortable about them? They strike me as deeply patronising.

I definitely think it's creepy and paternalistic. It seems a throwback to a different time which is where the debate around women's economic context is important.

I also know only one woman who is receiving this type of gift and in this case her husband is buying her 'new boobs'. And there's another 14 reasons why I think it's creepy :(

I think I started off the previous thread that you spoke of.

I originally saw the antiques roadshow and a woman brought in a beautiful neckalce that her husband had bought her many years ago as a gift for the birth of their third baby.

Up until this point, I'd never even considered that a gift was appropriate to give a woman after she had a baby, I didn't even know that it had a name, I didn't receive anything after the birth of my first.

I'm now expecting DS2 and this will be the last! I don't expect a gift this time after baby born but that's not to say it wouldn't be nice. I wouldn't see it as a "payment in kind" for services rendered. It would be because my husband wanted to give it.

I thought that a gift given would be a really nice legacy to give my sons, I have nothing to pass onto them later in life. I of course could buy it myself!

I'd be interested in a thread about the nature of feminism (if that's not too grandiose a way of putting it), hope.

tbh, Snap there is no rule book for feminism, there is no party line; there are people who identify as feminists but who are actually spouting anti feminist ideas. There are other people who say that anyone who wants to be identified as a feminist should be allowed to be, which is fair enough, there is not "special" enlightened group of people who qualify for the name.
You also have to take political slants into consideration. Then there is liberal feminism and radical feminism.

IN a nutshell, you could say that feminism is a movement to liberate women from gender based oppression

It's also a fairly standard anti-feminist stance to try to say that some issues are not gender issues, therefore not feminist issues (prostitution is a good example. it was feminists who first identified prostitution as a human rights issue, where the women should be protected and the men prosecuted. Until feminists did this, prostitution was swept under the carpet and seen as something that "certain" types of women did. Now we have people saying it's not a feminist issue because the odd man is a prostitute as well)

But I see that as a positive example of how gender equality has moved on - originally there was a problem, it was identified by women as affecting women, over time as more of the problem came to light public knowledge and perception has shifted to embrace the fact there are men in the equation as well. To say that it overwhelmingly affects women and therefore it's just an issue for feminists, although there are a few rent boys so we'll throw the gay activist groups a bone is detracting from it being a human rights issue. It's definitely something feminists can get up in arms about, campaign on, raise awreness of etc but that should always be within the context of the whole problem. Just because feminists raised an issue doesn't make it one exclusively for them. Acknowledging that men are involved or affected is important. Something can be an issue for feminists without being a(n exclusively) feminist issue and it's definitely not anti-feminist to recognise that.

The nature of feminism has changed significantly and, yes, there are loads of different strands of it and different political affiliations but that can make it difficult to identify, or not, as a feminist. Some would say feminism has not yet gone far enough, others that it's now associated too much with being anti-men today to be effective, others see feminism as equivalent to believing in gender equality (which personally I don't, I think women still need a gender interest group sadly).

Just might be interesting to discuss that on a separate thread.

They tend to be offshoots of other discussions though, no? And usually with a specific slant defined by the original question which has degenerated into a more general discussion.

Slightly aside - Rhadegunde as in foundress of the Holy Cross at Poitiers?

anti-feminists i.e the patriarchy and their collaborators created the concept that feminists are anti-men.
I like a quote I heard recently: "We are feminists because we believe in the humanity of men, despite all evidence to the contrary"

I think she was talking about genocides, war, mass rape, casual violence against women, spouse murder (two women are murdered ever week by their spouse), etc.

I mean, if you are a woman, and you think the status quo of woman-hating is natural, as opposed to socially constructed, then you have a very low opinion of men. A different kind of society can be created.. well that's the hope that feminists hold out.

Anti-feminists may have created the concept that feminists are anti-men but it's still a perception people have (which some feminists don't help) and therefore a valid view of feminism.

It's not just about self-definition. To be effective feminism as a movement should be working with the way others see it as well as trying to explain why feminism isn't intrinsically anti-men, otherwise feminists get labelled and marginalised. Doesn't matter who came up with the term in the first place - if the shoe seems to fit, it will be worn.

I like that quote about believing in the humanity of men.

feminism emphatically does not have to "work with the way others see it"

any more than black people have an obligation to ingratiate themselves with white people

They can educate the dominant class (whites, men) , but either you are a person who believes blacks have equal value to whites, and women have equal value to men, or you don't.

Rhadegunde, I think feminists are supposed to be brow-beaten into changing their theories in order to placate people who might be upset by them

which isn't the point of feminism and tbh we'd have got nowhere if we'd done that

as for women who support the patriarchy and don't like feminists? Every system of domination and subordination has required collaborators from the subordinate group to keep the status quo running smoothly

Feminists don't have to change their theories but some might just have to accept that not everything is entirely femino-centric although almost everything can have a feminist perspective. Popular criticism and perception does count for something, especially when it's getting out to other women who should be supporting feminism not being afraid to be labelled a feminist.

Soz not been on for a few days, but to answer that question from a while back, yes I think everything can be looked at through a feminist lens. I don't think there is anything that can't be. But I also think everything can be looked at though a class lens. (and other lenses) And I also think everything is political. I understand the world through big macro stuctures, that are many, and changing and fluid. But nothing sits outside them.

I'm not sure that means every situation is lacking though. It would depend on the individual situation, and I can envisage situations where there isn't something lacking.

I also don't think there's a neutral lens as opposed to the feminist lens. They are all contestable ways of seeing the world.

snap you have to ask yourself why a woman would be afraid to be labelled a feminist

I'll tell you the answer: it has nothing to do with feminists and everything to do with the way the movement has been systematically ridiculed by the media

In the past, feminists were called "libbers" from liberation, and it was a derogatory term, of course

SO it was dropped in favour of feminist

Now it seems that feminist has negative connotations too

It's the movement itself that upsets the patriarchal status quo; they have always done everything they can to tarnish it

Popular criticism and perception = patriarchal criticism and perception