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

thanks for the link scone, i think i might even vaguely remember lurking on there! i've bookmarked for later

Petula

I think I love you.
cognitive dissonance - I've been in need of that phrase for a long time now. Thank you!

(and why would that be patronising? anyone who thinks they are far too proud or smart to be taught something new just prove how stupid they really are. I'm just smart enough to recognise that! )

ah thanks, that's lovely!

i was trying to strike the balance between under-explaining and over-explaining a term, so good to know it was useful!

Ok, I have had a bash. Be interested to know what other atheist feminists think.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2226767-Will-Misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement

dreaming

the domination thing is important, because it's practical - as in somebody has to be in control of decisions as such. not being controlling just simply lead.
it's inevitable in any relationship.

BUT, if men forget that they are GIVEN a priority to lead and not deserving of it and forget that everything they do should be guided by LOVE and they choose to take advantage of their position/role and start being controlling, abusive etc they are not behaving as God intended!

That's the problem of having power of any kind. somebody has to have it but nobody is worthy of it.

Spero

thanks for links, I will read them later.

Buffy

I was not brought up as a Christian but what I know and think from what I've learnt so far I'm happy to share & discuss.

zing how do you then account for relationships happy relationships where there is joint leadership, where men and women share decisions and no one person is in the lead?

I am asking out of genuine curiosity btw not to be challenging

It just seems like if there is a practical justification for male dominance, based on the need for leadership, then relationships without male dominance /leadership should fail or not work.

But clearly lots of relationships work without male leadership, so why do you (or Christians) feel it is so necessary?

You don't have to answer btw, am just curious

I don't know if "no-one in the lead" truly exists.

one person or the other will always have more drive, interest, a better practical/ logical or emotional point even talent etc in any decision making. or they might just be louder
it's a power/control game and if it ends with a win-win that's brilliant.

but typical one person might need more convincing so in my eyes the other one is the true decision maker in that situation.
we can be both happy with the decision we both made, freely, but one of us must have wanted it more.

does that even make sense?

btw DH doesn't rule over me. we make decisions together that we both happy with or typically one of us wants and the other doesn't mind so much because the result doesn't bring unhappiness.
But if he, as head of our household, ever had to make a decision without my agreement he would not take that lightly. He would never excercise power over me just to show is the king of the castle.
that would be wrong. he would consider absolutely everything and I could trust him that doing anything against my will would be very difficult decision and a heavy burden to him. because he loves me and would never deliberately cause me upset or pain.
And it would have to be a very big thing too.

But we generally think the same about big things, if not initially then eventually, and make decisions together.

does this answer your question? if not, please ask again. sorry if I'm just rambling on. (I am very distracted by children)

I have a fairly thorough understanding of how the power between sexes is supposed to work in a christian marriage. Still thinking about ideal woman+man relationships, though, I disagree that there must be a leader. A well-balanced relationship is one in which both parties share leadership: some do this simply by taking turns; others by ceding power to the party with most knowledge/interest in each given area.

why is male leadership necessary?

male leadership in a marriage is God's design, so as a Christian I accept that as a principle.
it's only necessary as it is one of the roles of the husband.
it doesn't mean I'm his humble servant
I don't know how else to answer.

In my marriage what generally happens is that we both actively try to make the other one the decision maker, the leader. Because neither of us actually wants that responsibility. I feel that as the wage earner, I'd like a little slack. Plus there is stuff I just don't know about to do with - well, anything practical other than playing music. He feels that as the wage earner I deserve to make decisions about stuff but I suspect that secretly he doesn't want the faff of doing it. Whereas I openly don't want the faff of always being the decision maker. But we muddle along. Indecisively.

garlic

I think you've just contradicted yourself .
I agree with it's either taking turns or the better suited person makes the decision (said pretty much the same!) - but that is not "no one leads".

you can't not a steer a ship with nobody holding the wheel or both holding it. it just doesn't work that way. ultimately there's one person who decides in any given situation.
and it certainly doesn't have to be the man. but he is the captain, at least in theory. which makes me the best mate.
(and if he was a shit captain there would be a mutiny)

you know this joke?
"the man is the head"
"yes, but the woman is the neck. and the neck turns the head"

surely it's more like two horses pulling a cart, neither of you lead but are driven by some other force?

you have to go in the same direction and work equally hard but are partners

otherwise how would same sex partnerships work?

mitchy

I hate to be a stickler but the horses are not in charge.

Buffy

that's the million dollar question. I can not claim to know of mind of God.

but I know that a Christian marriage is modelled after the relationship between God and His Church (the people,not the institution).
God leads and he puts the husband in charge.
why? why He chose to do that? Why He created man first? I can not answer those questions.

In a partnership, decisions are made jointly. That's what makes it a partnership, rather than a leader/follower relationship.

Buffy

think in terms of power of attorney then.

yeah, neither are humans, they are subject to the will of God if they believe in Him and are serving Him

it's still not a very useful model for same sex relationships is it

Purely from a leadership perspective, there doesn't necessarily have to be hierarchy. Leadership can actually mean a consensual decision that x has responsible for y. Zing's DH, it might be said, has responsibility for leadership and he is accountable to Zing for that responsibility.

Zing hope you don't mind me adding into that.

Mitchy

I won't comment on that, sorry.