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

Damsili

well put. and I don't mind at all. he has to do right by me. poor man

"least that is how some atheist men seem to explain themselves: can't you take a joke/can't you debate properly without getting all feminist and upset"

But a lot of men explain themselves like that- why should atheist men be any different?

There are no moral or behavioural codes connected to being an atheist. No reason why an atheist shouldn't be a misogynist bastard. There is no reason to expect better behaviour from an atheist than anyone else.

I find it very uncomfortable when I hear women talking about the idea of men being the head of the household as a strong and safe position for woman. I accept that the people speaking feels that it works for them, but the scope for abuse is so huge. And to depend so much on somebody else not being abusive when, frankly, he has complete licence to be seems to me to be a hideously insecure position to be.

Gosh! This is an interesting tangent!

I am a Christian too, and I struggle with this concept. I have to say, DH is NOT the head of this household. In many regards he takes the lead, but that's because of situational reasons.

He earns more, so we live somewhere he can commute to London. But I decide on the area.

Etc.

Woe betide him if he makes a decision that affects our family that I haven't agreed with though.

Even in religious life, he is very high church Anglican, and has even toyed with the idea of becoming Catholic - I told him to have fun, but the DSs and I would NOT be joining him, he has a snow flake's chance in hell of getting me to join a catholic church - he's still CofE.

I was brought up in an Evangelical Christian church, very much 'every word of the bible is the truth', 'woman know your place', etc. The hatred I felt towards that church still affects me today. Massive chip on my shoulder.... High schooling was catholic, with a few very sweet nuns from the attached convent involved, but again, the tenets of their teaching was like sandpaper on the soul....

• (remember me from the hockey thread? Twas mine, but I've NCed since then.)

Hak

my husband does not have a licence to be abusive. terrible association there and exactly the type of prejudice that will now stop me from posting further.

You have no idea what kind of a man and father he is. to assume the worst is very hurtful to me.

What you describe is btw is the complete opposite of reality. He is obliged by his own promise to God and to me to love and cherish me.
And he does.

bye

I

I don't think Hak said he was abusive just that he could be. We've been discussing the Christian fundamentalist and how some of them believe in corporal punishment for their wives, there are a lot of websites devoted to it. It's beyond fucked up. I'm not saying that's what your relationship is like (it doesn't sound that way at all). Just that one person has the final say over another person that position can be abused. It's the same in a lot of relationships and situations.

Parent/child
Employee/boss

teacher/child
police officer/ someone they've arrested

makes me think of donuts

oh balls. wrong thread. sorry

Nice. Well done.

Zing, lots of people appreciated you posting a personal and problematic topic. Thank you.

lol petula! I'm now fascinated by the conversation you thought you were in.

"my husband does not have a licence to be abusive. terrible association there and exactly the type of prejudice that will now stop me from posting further.

You have no idea what kind of a man and father he is. to assume the worst is very hurtful to me."

Zing- I really didn't say anything about your situation. If you read my post carefully you will see that. I am sorry if you took offence, but no offence was intended or implied. Please read my post again.

how can anyone complain about prejudice but not be prepared to comment on how a male leadership model could apply to same sex relationships - it's reasonable to infer some prejudice against any other-than-hetero partnerships

I am Christian, brought up Catholic, and I too struggle with the absolute discretion apparently given to men as to whether they choose to treat their women / families well or not (I am not Catholic now; all branches of Christianith are different wrt gender politics).

The example I would offer is: if you offer to count the money at church, there are strict protocols as to how this is done, two people at least in the room at any time etc, how it is noted and signed for and then banked, etc. This is not to suggest that most people who volunteer are fraudulent, it is just how it is done, another barrier against accusations or temptation. Nobody takes offence, actually it is a very companiable process.

Why do some churches (eg RC, the one I know best) bristle so profoundly at similar safeguards being placed in terms of mens' behaviour wrt women and chidren? If you are an abuser, it is an abuser's charter. Not that men necessarily are. But we know that power corrupts with money, and we care; why don't we care about women and children?

I am sorry Zing has gone but it was a legitimate comment that didn't accuse her dh of anything.
Thanks for the great contributions, Zing. I appreciate them very much

Yes, it was a legitimate comment but equally its very, very close to the bone to hear someone make those comments directly referencing YOUR marriage, your household.

It was an abstract comment, but made in the middle of a personal "story" so I can see why it was hard for Zing.

I am very sorry Zing was upset. But no, I did not reference her, or her marriage, or her household.

Haklyt, I am afraid I find that a disingenuous comment. You responded to her description of her relationship and made a very negative comment.

Can you not try to put yourself in her shoes even for a moment and see how that might feel?

This is the very point I have been banging on about for what seems like hundreds of years now. There is a judgmental tone in some of the posting that puts people off. Because the choices people make for their lives are being held up to judgment and found wanting.

Hak! You can't say it was just an abstract comment directly after a personal account and not expect it to be taken personally! You may not have referenced her, but you followed so closely after her, and her story was the only one told at the point you posted. Please tell me you're not that naïve! These are topics very close to people's hearts.

Spero- of course I can understand. But I don't see why I should accept without question what she said. Yes of course it works brilliantly for her. But the same model would be very different with different individuals.and blind acceptance is how abuse happens.

As I said, i am very sorry that she is upset. But I really don't think it's my fault.

Hak, I think there was no segue from the personal to the general. It's not that you were uncomfortable with the concept - I'm sure zing gets that a lot. It's just that your post seemed to follow her post so directly.

So maybe a "wow, I couldn't live like that. Don't you think, in some cases, it might give rise to a risk of..." and then make the more abstract point?

Ok- I'm off. Zing- feel free to come back. I won't post on this thread again.

I'm sorry that Zing was so upset. I didn't interpret Hak's post as in any way personal to her, though, except by association - the association being that Mr Zing's status could make it easier to abuse his wife, were he so inclined. I've had this very discussion, at huge length, with christian women & men. They recognised the enhanced risk for abuse of trust, and there was much sharing of the protective systems in place with their various churches.

I was a little shocked at Zing's reaction. I hope she will come back.

Zing opened up, and answered lots of questions as honestly as she could. I wasn't at all surprised that she took it personally. I would have to, and it would be a toss up as to whether I went off or went for the jugular, to be honest.....

Given the chip on my shoulder re the church is so vastly different to Zing's desire to follow even difficult teachings of the church, I can see why she chose the option of leaving.