"ask what you think are silly Qs here and forkful will try to answer them in a polite helpful way by directing you to the resources she found useful and try to use persuasive arguments and

[forkful]

if anyone feels scared just shout" THREAD

Sparked from the 700+ post thread. Honestly where is that thread going now . The people who hate women will be loving that thread.

Lots of posters don't want to explain Feminist thinking all the time (fair enough - I don't always - but I try to provide useful links and book recommendations and write wordy posts trying to explain my point of view when I have the time/inclination).

So to all those who are scared/lurking - come and ask some questions!

btw-good morning everyone

Again, I don't think that the presence of sons in a seperatist community is a significant issue, purely because I don't think there are (m)any. I've googled and googled and can't find one bit of evidence for a real-life separatist community that operates under the terms that you describe - no men at all. I can find plenty of advocates of that way of life, but none that actually seem to practise it. Though they may in their own individual homes.

Isn't there a poster on this board who chooses not to live with men and may well have sons?

It's worth noting that 'patriarchy' is not 'men' - it is a system that disproportionately benefits men and which most men can't see because of these benefits. Seperatism doesn't (though some think it does) come about from fear of men - just a disinclination to engage with men-as-a-group, who benefit from the patriarchy and have never shown any signs of wanting to share the wealth. It is a bit of a stretch to then say that a women-only community couldn't raise boys without making them think that they were 'second best' or 'shunned'. Why not think that they could raise sons who see the patriarchy around them and choose not to partake?

Loving this thread thank you. Have bought one of the books recommended and am just lurking until now but popped into say (wrt DS experiencing same as DD over history) two wrongs do not make a right. I'm fairly non confrontational in life because usually (but not always) habits and cultures set up defences when threatened ..........but education brings down barriers.

I do find some parts of feminisn confrontational and that includes women against women. Surely we want more women and men to change. They won't if they can dismiss our ideas. They need to listen first.

Maybe I am lucky but I was brought up with brothers and I never had any negative vibes. Why should any child get negative vibes about their sex? It isn't my DS fault to say-you have to have negative vibes because girls have had them for centuries!

personnally-i feel its very difficult to disengage from men-
even our feminist groups have at least a space for men[this isnt a dig]
Good post Victor!
[its worth noting that....................................................................]
yep-i agree.
its also worth noting that if a woman [especially with kids]does try and disengage[even partially]its seen with great suspician!
rights across the board-including establishments like ss!

It's worth thinking about the sons of lesbian women, or the daughters of gay men - they might well be brought up in an environment in which they are the only example of their gender - even their sexuality! - and they're not damaged in the slightest. So no reason to believe that boys in a woman only space would be. I really do have to go to work, but I might start a seperatist thread where we can discuss this and not clog up forkful's thread any longer!

yep-agree Victor.
im finding this a really interesting thread-thankyou forkful.
sorry for starting to clog up youre thread though.
ive a lot to say on some subjects and this is one of them[seperatism]
so ill be quite for now and talk about it more on a seperate thread!

VG, thanks, this is really interesting.

Wow Stewie: i like your call for an end to gender roles. I also think you explain the question of equalism much better than me.
Ta.

ahem...hi.

I believe myself to be a feminist. However there is (at least) one piece of evidence to the contrary...

Every time i hear germaine greer she pisses me off.

The latest time was on r4 t'other day. Something about teaching daughters about how to behave in an adult relationship by telling them to "kiss daddy goodnight". Our adult relationships might be modeled on our parental ones but it doesn't mean the latter have to be some sort of indoctrination for the former...surely?

Aren't sons told to "kiss daddy goodnight"? Does no one advocate for a mothers right to be kissed?

So can i be in even though gg annoys the hell out of me...or is does that rule me out?

While i'm awaiting the verdict on my feminism or otherwise i'll give my penarth on the "equalist" issue...

Some of that stuff re male equality is still about female equality imo.

Eg, boys being teased for picking home ec. That's all about not valuing the work that has traditionaly been done by women and therefore thinking men above it.

Can't scroll back to the rest now cause i'm on my phone...

MoonFaceMamaaaaargh - don't base your opinion on all feminists/feminism one one feminist! I would however recommend that you take a look at The Female Eunach before you dismiss Greer.

I think that it can be difficult to put one off concepts/ideas into context without some type of background.

I am aware of that comment which I think originated on question time and I think she was making a point as to how society grooms girls to be "girly"/assume they are secondary to men/flatter men/flirt.

I totally agree that boys get asked to kiss their fathers/other relatives but I suspect that we all expect girls to act in a different way to men.

Seriously - please don't let that put you off feminism!

BTW - totally agree with your second post! This is why the mens right's activists have it all wrong .

In fact as the late Andrea Dworkin maintained, "we are not feminists because we hate men, we are feminists because we believe in men?s humanity, against all evidence to the contrary".

Moonface. I am a feminist to the bone but I cringed when I heard gg say that. I could see what she was getting at but her style is way too academic and freudian imo and doesn't do feminism any favours. I could practically hear the daily mail writers clicking their laptops open in glee and looking for words synonymous with witch (of which there are many!)

Having said that gg has contributed massively to the movement and her two main books are classics but my mum says she went a bit pear shaped after she went on big brother which is what reality shows will do to you!

Anyway my point is you can totally be a feminist and not love gg. I don't but if someone said I wasn't a feminist I'd bop them one.

Eh, there's really no rule that to be a feminist you have to agree with all other feminists forever. In fact, that would be pretty much impossible.

And it's funny, I never hear anyone saying "I thought I wasn't a feminist, but then I heard Pat Robertson saying [totally vile thing about women] and I thought well, if he's not a feminist, I can't identify as not a feminist".

Does that make sense? There's this sense that if a feminist speaks, she speaks for all, and anyone who disagrees must not be one. But if a non feminist speaks, and you don't agree, then...you just don't agree with that person. That's worth exploring, I think.

I think GG's 'kissing daddy goodnight' is an unfortunate example to give to a mass audience. As joaninha says, it presupposes a familiarity with certain theories that just aren't used in contemporary life. Freud, for example - who is really familiar with his work any more? Sure, he used to have a mass audience and was wildly popular - but that was getting on for a century ago!

Greer's an English lit professor, among other things, and that is one of the last places you'll find Freud given any prominence, not as a psychoanalyst but as a literary critic. Actually, even that is dying out as the years pass by.

Having said that, I could see what GG meant, but when she gave the example on Question Time, I was begging her (via the TV) to put her point with greater clarity. As it was, she just looked a bit bewildered that the audience didn't seem to get it.

Plus, I don't agree with everything she says but I went to hear her speak a while back and she was brilliant, passionate and uncompromising.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply.

My post was partly tongue in cheek. But i think highlights part of the image problem feminism faces.

To the general public greer is feminism and i agree with joaninha, her style is off putting. Even to me who hates the daily mail and wants to agree with greer.
I didn't know the comment was from QT. I head it on an r4 prog called "meeting myself coming back" which is essentially half an hour for someone to contextualise their work and talk about its outcomes. And she didn't take that opportunity to explore the idea (or it was edited out). If there is more to it than meets the eye, not explaining that at this opportunity seems deliberatly obtuse. I turned on at the end but wish i'd heard more.

Tortoise i agree completely. I think the thing is if if you don't place yourself in the "feminist" circle of lifes vann (sp?)diagram there is still plenty of space around it to put your self, while disassociating yourself from stuff you don't like. I don't think people perceive the same space "within" feminism.

Victor despite what i've said i would still love to hear her speak...but i'd need a good rant and a stiff drink afterwards.

Forkfull i promise i will read female eunach! and i'm going to look up andrea dworkin...i might love her!

One of my issues with the language around equality is that it seems to assume that men/patriarchy have got some thing i should want. The right to work long hours in a "high status" job...er, no thanks. But i'd like my decision to work with community groups and look after my family to be respected and valued.

Sorry...rushing off now...

Greer might be right up your street after all then, Moonface! When I heard her speak she was arguing for women to replace the capitalism (which she equated with 'male' practices) with a woman-centred version.

This isn't aimed at you, but I do feel Greer would be off-putting to most people even if she broke her ideas down into teeny-tiny little morsels and explained every source. Because she's a feminist, and feminist ideas are tremendously off-putting. Look at the pasting Harriet Harman's getting over on AIBU.

MoonFaceMamaaaaargh

One of my issues with the language around equality is that it seems to assume that men/patriarchy have got some thing i should want. The right to work long hours in a "high status" job...er, no thanks. But i'd like my decision to work with community groups and look after my family to be respected and valued.

Look up liberal feminism and radical feminism on wikipedia!

Some feminists are all about succeeding in a "man's world" others look at the benefit to society of caring and how it is undervalued and how the public sphere - business/politics can be made to include women and their point of view - not necessarily by emulating men etc.

I think you'd like the blog fertile feminism and the other blogs linked to it - feminism from a mother's perspective.

Also some interesting books I recommend (most American) pretty cheap second hand on Amazon Motherhood & Feminism, Remodelling Motherhood, The Mommy Myth, The Truth Behind the Mommy Wars, Hard Labour.

Moms Rising - campaigning collective from the USA, Kristin Maschka's blog, Equally Shared Parenting are all interesting.

I tend to see feminism as a stone dropped into a pond rippling out in different directions - eg the right for women to work in "a man's world" - the right for women's work to be valued £££ and socially - so support for SAHMs and WAHMs - making it easier to get back into a career after a career break (if that's what someone wants) - society to value those who don't "work" for £, attitudes towards women - remarks/generalisations and the impact they have. Loads of intersections actually so I think the analogy needs to be lots and lots of stones, making patterns...

god damn victor...maybe i would like her after all. I'd be happy to replace capitalism with just about anything!

I think you are right that there will always be people who find her views unpalatable. But i thought i was one of those...maybe i'm not. I'd like to agree with her but from my admittidly pitiful knowledge her public persona i really struggle. If she turns me off she must make other peoples blood boil. Nowt wrong with that but i bet she is the only feminist lots of people can name. Maybe that says more about what people recognise as feminism than it does about her.

Forkfull thank you for all the links. I look forward to delving in to them on sat (when dh is good and i can get on the computer) it looks like you have worked me out to a tee...they all look right up my street.

Forkfull...just to say thank you for the links, in particular the fertile female one which was fascinating.

I have no idea wether I am a radical or liberal feminist though... ...maybe tis too soon to tell.