Why a lot of women don't come on the feminism threads...

[Scarletohello]

So I posted this question earlier, why don't more women come on these threads ( considering how many women are on MN)

The replies saddened me. Are we doing something wrong? I remember a thread some time ago asking how many women lurk on the feminism threads but never post. I was shocked by how many women read these threads but didn't feel able to join in. I don't think feminism has to be particularly intellectual and I would like to be able to educate more women about feminism, how it affects women in many different areas of their lives, offer support and talk about what we as women can do about it.

Please have a read of this thread and tell me what your thoughts are. I want us to be as inclusive as possible as it affects us all...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2222959-To-be-a-bit-dismayed-if-4-million-women-visit-this-site-why-are-there-so-few-posts-on-the-feminism-threads

When you posted, Arsenic had already started a TAAT in chat mocking the original thread. I don't know why she did that. But it made others pretty defensive, I think.

It wasn't mocking Yonic. It was attempting to illustrate the point that Dreaming has just made much more eloquently about bilingualism. ( I attribute my ability to decode much of what FWR stuff that does pop up in Active Convos to my Social Science background, most people don't have that)

(Hi Dreaming how's the househunting plans?)

Very convenient to misrepresent it now it's gone.

thanks Spero

It wasn't supposed to be sniping at a non-regular by me - I had just been on another thread were someone (non regular) had posted something goady and man hating and another newbie had said "oh, I see what FWR is like then, I'm off"

I really don't know what to do. I can see that if a poster doesn't like FWR, now is a good time to post like that and disrupt any flow of newbies, I hope it was just a coincidence though.

Yonic this casting of aspersions isn't really on.You've already (wrongly) accused me of posting 'in bad faith'. I'm not a troll as MNHQ will confirm. So do you think you could drop the snide implications please?

As for 'knowing what to do'. You could critique what I actually said. The loaded remarks aren't very illuminating.

AS, the post of mine you've just quoted was addressing my earlier post on this thread about DS, not you.

Great post NotCitrus -- great examples of how experience can expose the shortcomings of theory.

I feel like intersectionality looking at how different kinds of oppression interact doesn't get much time here, and I wonder why that is. For myself, coming from a working class background, and having lived in places with a lot of racist people, I find it very difficult to look at sexism in isolation. I find the exclusion of trans people awful. I think sometimes an over-reliance on theory promotes narrower viewpoints, because it's difficult to get so many variables into theory. But in everyday life, thinking about gender, class and race all together is not quite so difficult, and even seems necessary.

(Hi Arsenic thanks again for all the advice! We decided to stay put until next year at least, but have filed away all your great tips I didn't see your other thread, did it get zapped?)

But you did say my Chat thread was 'mocking' the original OP.

And that I was not posting in good faith.

Both wholly untrue.

I had researcher's guilt about not having read the source material, so came to R this FT to understand better what has been going on. I didn't expect to limp towards the end to find myself being deliberately misrepresented here too.

yackity I also wanted to say, if you do nothing else, try to stop feeling guilty! I wish actually I could start a whole feminist campaign against guilt. Women are constantly made to feel this way and it keeps us down so often. I'm sure you are doing a terrific job raising your kids and living life and being a lovely person, and if you want to do something else at some point it will happen.

I really sympathise with your position re child care, it makes life so difficult doesn't it.

(The weather's horrible here Dreaming. I don't blame you. It was quite rightly and expectedly zapped. It was a TAAT. An illustrative, experimental, interesting one, I thought - I just wanted to see if anyone asked for definitions of terms. Quite happy to be told it was a rubbish idea, but not that it was malign )

This isn't a board to faff around on though, is it?! You certainly can't skim the thread without looking like a right idiot, its not one of those where just reading the op's posts will fill you in, you actually have to WORK on these threads.

yackity

This is also part of what I'm trying to say. I would never have seriously attempted to engage with an FWR thread without revising and rolling a few 'disputed hegemonies', 'threatened masculinities' and suchlike round my mouth first for warm-up. It shouldn't be necessary.

I almost posted something about 'hypothecated tax' on a chat thread this morning, in the event I got distracted, but had paused long enough to realise I needed an alternative. I might go back later with 'ring-fenced'. It's the same thing. Not unique to FWR.

I think for instance, that upthread, Outs was clear (not using complicated language) and calm as well (not shouty or aggressive) when she said "that was not a feminist choice"

In some ways, this illustrates one of the issues. Who is to say what is and is not a feminist choice? Outs was responding to a poster who had outlined how she reached her decision through a prism that included feminist considerations. There are other feminists who would argue that the only feminist choice regarding naming is to adopt a new name outwith family names which are the product of a patriarchal naming tradition that denotes male ownership. Yet Outs ' assertion (and a few of the posters who followed and agreed with her) seemed to be claiming that they knew what was a feminist choice and the PP hadn't made it.

Out I'm sorry to use you as an example. Again, I can see the context you applied and why in that context you think as you do. The problem is that any firm statements on feminism do seem to imply there is only one approach and actually the history of feminism and feminist theory do not support such certainty.

That's how it read to me.

GarlicNovember wrote - "If you're discussing something that isn't immediately intuitive to the layperson, in language that's inaccessible to the layperson, you've chosen to exclude 'laypeople' from your discussion.
When you fully understand an idea or theory, it's not hard to explain it in everyday English. In order to do so in 'teaching' mode, you have to go back to first principles and it takes longer; sometimes a lot longer. The real question is whether you want to do this, at the given moment. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to. There is, however, a great deal wrong with choosing not to and then criticising your listeners for not understanding or engaging - and a whole world of wrong in assuming that your ideas are so delicate, they can't even be expressed in everyday English.
The first is arrogant; the second elitist; both are exclusionary."

I think that's all fair enough and makes a lot of sense.

As you were writing that post, did you pause to consider what the impact of your use of the word "layperson" may be on readers who do not know its meaning? Did you consciously police your use of that word and decide that it's a common enough word and so everyone will understand it?

In one of my previous posts on this very thread I used the word "job". I meant it in the sense of "9-to-5 paid employment". You, of all people, gave me the impression that you had misunderstood this word as vocation, calling, task. Perhaps deliberately as a joke? I don't know, but it doesn't matter to my point - you did not go along with the meaning I had intended. As the word "job" was actually linked to one of the more serious points that I was trying to make in my post, I was disappointed for a few seconds that the meaning for you was not the meaning I hoped you would receive and accept. If a simple word like "job" can lead to this, is it any wonder that bigger, rarer words are such a minefield for both writer and reader? I think it shows that it can be quite a challenge for posters to anticipate which words can be a problem for readers. Even if the writer pays attention to the obvious jargon, surprising misunderstandings of supposedly safe, simple words can still surprise even the most careful posters on FWR.

Back to other posts...

"I wish actually I could start a whole feminist campaign against guilt. "

Sounds good!

That's how it read to me.

That says more about your determination to misunderstand it than it does about my intent, in all fairness.

rosdearg I'm not Spero, but to me if someone replied to me "that was not a feminist choice", my response (if I bothered to make one on such a thread) would be "who died and made you god of feminism?" It's exactly that type of assertion from some posters that puts me off.

If they said "I don't think that choice is compatible with feminism, because..." then I'd be interested in what they said. Though in many cases if their reasoning is purely based in ideology rather than the real world I will disagree - I'm very much a pragmatist.

I was sorry that thread about abolishing gender got diverted - I can see how the first few posters ended up at cross-purposes, but after that, it wasn't a fight worth having. XKCD386, people.

[for reference: XKCD is an excellent geeky online comic. #386 is the classic one that finishes "but I can't come to bed yet - someone is WRONG on the Internet!" There is always someone wrong on the internet, but we still need to sleep.]

dreaming Yes, I'd like to see a lot more on intersectionality. The queer groups I work with have also been trying to move that way in the last couple years, to improve disability and parent access further, get rid of the worst racefail (managed to track down some good training on inclusion for events), and talking about class and academic/non-academic backgrounds and how people feel excluded. Lots of complexities, given structures were set up by people excluded from 'normal' society and 30 years later resulting in those 'normal' people being an excluded minority.

XKCD386, people.

"Gender abolition" has a lot more posts now if you want to check it out again, notcitrus.

Does anyone think there is a way we can still have the feminist theory/academic stuff but without alienating users who do not like it?

It seems it'd be a shame to stop it entirely, or have people feel guilty if they do enjoy it. But at the same time I can see the need for making it more accessible?

Well my question/suggestion genuinely was why not have links and/or quick explanations of truly exotic concepts like "Gender Abolition" Bella.

(The link suggestion being chiefly because the OP made reference to a, then mysterious, previous thread, admittedly.)

But I honestly think it would help bridge both 'camps'.

When I have lurked on FWR I have to interrupt myself to google things, even things I once knew.

arsenic i'm sorry, i also interpreted your posts as unhelpful and trying to inflame, and i reacted to them on that basis. i can see now that that isn't what you intended, but my initial reaction was the same as yonic's

interesting that you say you feel the need to limber up linguistically before posting here. i honestly have never felt like that and i would need to look up the meaning of "disputed hegemonies" out of your examples at least. there was a thread about judith butler that was completely inexplicable to me, but i would never want to stand in the way of those who could follow that discussion - i posted on other threads instead. i do think one needs to read carefully to understand how some of the discussions are developing, which often requires more time and energy than posters have. and many of those who clearly have an understanding of many aspects fo feminism (and i don't count myself among them, i'm not actually all that far along in my feminist "journey" ) - i see them frequently saying "i didn't know that", "i'm not sure i understand please could you explain more", "i've never thought of it that way"

but the fact that i'm confident enough to post even without fully understanding some concepts and language i'm sure reflects my own privileges and personality. so perhaps the discussion is not so much about everyone listing their acronyms or linking to thesauruses (i don't think that's not what you're suggesting necessarily, but that's a possible solution), but how do regular posters in this section make it clear to those who are less confident that it's fine to jump in and post if you don't understand everything? i think it's natural to be cautious in a section you don't usually post in - i would be in e.g. the doghouse, i've got no idea of the terminology and i would worry about referring to some out of date ideas that have been discredited. but no one is expected to understand everything

wow spent ages writing that and cross-posted with lots

the other thing of course is that not all threads are like that (NATALT?). i see plenty of threads that echo those in other sections of MN, where people are saying "wow that is shit. i'm so sorry you had that experience" for exampel

NotCitrus,

It wasn't Spero upthread who made a choice that Outs said was not feminist.

Also:
" if someone replied to me "that was not a feminist choice", my response (if I bothered to make one on such a thread) would be "who died and made you god of feminism?" It's exactly that type of assertion from some posters that puts me off.

If they said "I don't think that choice is compatible with feminism, because..." then I'd be interested in what they said. Though in many cases if their reasoning is purely based in ideology rather than the real world I will disagree - I'm very much a pragmatist."

This is really important. The above completely sums up what is going wrong here.

Making a choice that is not feminist is NOT the same as making a choice that is incompatible with feminism.

If we can grasp that, perhaps we have less need for the "who died and made you god of feminism?" responses. (I am not saying it solves the problem of assertions as if there was a single feminism, and who is the one who knows what it does; but it really does take some of the heat out of the issue.)

Feminism doesn't work on the "vegan model".

If you are a vegan, or say you are, or want to be, and one day someone tells you "honey isn't vegan" or "peanuts aren't vegan", then this REALLY MATTERS if you have just had a peanut butter and honey sandwich. OMG! Then I am not vegan! (they might be right, or wrong, or maybe it isn't settled who decides - but either way they challenge your identity when they talk about what is or isn't vegan)

This is not what Outs meant by "that is not a feminist choice".

It doesn't mean that it is a choice incompatible with feminism.

And people who say things like that are not setting themselves up as arbiters of who is or is not a feminist.

Painting your sitting room green is not a feminist choice either. I think that is the case, but by saying that, I am not accusing every woman who is painting the sitting room green of bolstering the patriarchy.

arsenic i'm sorry, i also interpreted your posts as unhelpful and trying to inflame, and i reacted to them on that basis. i can see now that that isn't what you intended, but my initial reaction was the same as yonic's

Fair enough. I can see I was insufficiently awake and probably too bald but I thought I was pleasant.

i would need to look up the meaning of "disputed hegemonies"

I wouldn't

but the fact that i'm confident enough to post even without fully understanding some concepts and language i'm sure reflects my own privileges and personality.

I'm not sure it's about confidence, it's about wanting to keep up with the flow of the conversation, without extra tabs to check definitions or constantly tugging on sleeves saying 'ahem can you explain that?'

Maybe i'll try again in a few months