anyone feel uncomfortable about Military Wives Choir?

[Bennifer]

That?s it really. Although I like the idea that the wives are raising money for charity ~(and that we won't have an X factor number 1), there?s something a little unsettling about the military wives angle I can?t quite put my finger on. Am I overthinking this?

I find it offensive. They are using a retrogressive dismissive sexual stereotype to define themselves (bit like a woman referring to herself as 'I'm such a blonde' or a 'fishwife') the media love this 'worthy excuse' to demean.

Of course you are offended, FU. I would have fallen off my chair if you weren't.

This is a ghost thread.

namechange, don't be so daft. Not everyone likes being defined by the man they married - that's not remotely 'new', and you must be remarkably naive to think so.

Here's a tiny newsflash for you - women aren't necessarily all destined to be 'wives'.

I don't think it matters that this is an old thread. The situation and context has changed somewhat, with the longevity and expansion of military wives choirs, and also Gareth Malone's other projects.

I will admit I didn't realise that this was old, or that it had 11 pages. I am sure my points will have been raised on previous pages. And LRD, re your newsflash - come on, you are better than that. All this thread proves is that some people will be offended by anything. I am out though.

Oops, pressed too early. I also meant to say re your comment 'Not everyone likes being defined by the man they married' - if these women choose to be identified as a choir by this collective name, all it defines is the choir, not the individuals.

No, it doesnt' prove some people will be offended by anything.

We are discussing how a group of women identify themselves, and how we feel about it.

It may not interest you, but that's no reason to be rude about other people's perfectly legitimate concerns.

Women being identified primarily as wives is a fundamental and very basic concern of feminism - how can you possibly not notice that?

LRD - it is a concern of some feminists. A quick read through here would prove that some feminists think it is an over-reaction. You would be the first to agree that not all feminists agree on every issue, so to assume that yours is the default position is incorrect.

I suppose they could have called themselves Military Spouses. Would that please everyone?

Women being defined as wives is a concern of all feminists.

Not everyone on this thread agrees that this particular situation is a concern, because it is - like most human situations - a bit more complicated than that.

But the underlying question, how we might feel about women being defined as wives, is a core feminist question and it was perfectly sensible to have a debate about it.

Obviously, 'military spouses' would prompt a very similar debate, since it would tend to suggest the women are defined by the men they married.

I like discussion; I don't assume my opinion on this topic is default at all, but you simply dismissed a whole section of feminism, so I am explaining what is going on. By default, if you want everyone to shut up, and I want room to debate, I am not the one who is pushing her opinion over other people's.

Doesn't the wife/spouse thing merely reflect their relationship to the cause they are raising money for, i.e. wounded soldiers? Therefore in the public conciousness there is an additional reason for people to put their hands in their pockets. It seems like a marketing ploy to me.

I understand the concerns about the roles of women in society, but this seems to be missing the point of this particular exercise - 'my husband and his colleagues are being wounded and frankly the government gives them f* all, so please buy our record.' FWIW I am happy that in our house we refer to ourselves as husband and wife - but then I guess I would be from my lofty position . I believe my wife likes it too.

There's a variety of opinions on that, and most of them got discussed last year on this thread. Enjoy reading!