A few questions about modern feminism (Q3 might trigger, I don't know if it will)

[Burke1]

Hi Mumsnet I'm a man in my early 20's and I was hoping to ask you a couple of questions about feminism and gender equality.

1. Do you feel that men and women are equal in terms of opportunity, and legal/social rights in society today?

1. What is your opinion on quotas such as "This company aims to increase female recruitment by 10% over the next 2 years", or all-women shortlists?

1. I've noticed on mumsnet that some women view all men as potential attackers because something bad has happened to them in the past. Why is this?

I personally wouldn't describe myself as feminist, because to me the "fem" part suggests it's a one-way thing that only covers female rights and not male rights. Personally I just believe in "people" having rights because that's who we are, the fact that some of us have a dick and some of us have a vagina shouldn't factor into what rights we get. I know some people will consider that what I've just described is feminism, and while it's fine for you to have that opinion, my equally valid opinion is that it's not feminism. I'm not interested in an argument over who thinks what is defined as what, but I would quite like to see some answers to my questions because I am interested in this topic. Thank you to anyone who decides to talk

uh oh, you've been moved to FWR

Why was this moved?

MrsKCastle I like what you say

I don't really understand why the OP has been given such a hard time. I don't find anything dreadfully offensive in his post.

Otherwise there have been a lot of good points on here.

Women have always been more vulnerable because of our children, but the English-speaking world really put women in a dreadful position for many centuries and when we take our eyes off the ball we start sliding back there.

Whether or not somebody has a penis or vagina does factor into how their rights are dealt with. This is completely mainstream and supported by the UN and most governments globally, including our own.

The main document dealing with women's rights is CEDAW - the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. A good starting point for you, OP, in understanding women's rights would be to read the rights we are supposed to have:

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

Your second step should be to read the UK's report to the UN on what it is doing to support women's rights both in the UK and through international work.

It is completely ridiculous to start a thread saying you don't think being female should factor into rights - an extreme opinion contrary to both UK and international law, and then say you're not interested in people discussing that.

Wow a lot of replies thank you everyone, more than I was expecting but I'm happy to get as much replies as possible. I'm not sure if I can reply to everyone so I'll pick out the things I noticed after giving this a quick read. The point about not arguing re the definition of feminism was simply because I didn't want this to become an argument of "You're a feminist - No I'm not - Yes you are".

TondelayoSchwarzkopf equality (to me) doesn't mean that 50% of SAH parents are male and 50% are female. It means that 100% of male and female people have the same right to be stay at home parents or the right to go out and be the breadwinner. Equality in government for me means that women and men have the same right to run for a constituency seat, but that neither has the "right" to hold that seat unless they are voted for. That could mean a 60-40 female-male split in parliament which I still think is equality as long as both sexes had the same right and ability to try and achieve a position in parliament.

Shelby2010 it's not a research project or homework of any kind these are honestly just some questions I have as a man who sometimes browses mumsnet and wants to hear about feminism from the female perspective. When I was in school we covered a lot of feminism in the past which was very interesting but I'm more interested in hearing about feminism in the modern era. Do you feel that there is still more change to be done, or has the past movements achieved equality in your eyes, that kind of thing.

pinkyredrose you'll have to forgive me but I don't see how saying "If I wanted to offend you I would have already done it " makes me a misogynist. Someone pointed out that my OP came across as a bit hostile and I apologized if I had giving them that impression. I was just wanting to let the person know that I'm very direct in what I say, and as a result of that if I wanted to offend them or say something bad about them I would come out and say it directly and clearly. I don't, I can only apologize if my OP came across as hostile to that person and wanted to reiterate that was not my intention.

So read the feminist board at the very least then!!

You are being lazy and expecting women other people to do your research whist you sit quietly detached deciding with whom you will agree.

No one really gives a shit what you think.

People may give a bit more of a shit if you have a point of view you want to discuss that you come at with the advantage of knowledge.

It is very telling that even if the topic were not about feminism it is clear it is a man posting.

Ah OP by your definition of equality, we already have it in the UK.

However, if you look into it you will find countries where men and women are not equal in law, even in this day and age. There are many organisations working to change that - maybe you could consider making a contribution if it's important to you.

Men and women do have the same right to stand for election. What they don't have the same right to is to be selected by a political party. The right of a political party to have female only short lists has been extended until 2030 and has been reported to the UN as part of the UK meeting its commitment to article seven of CEDAW.

Nobody is suggesting that men should not be able to stand for election in a constituency. If you don't like political parties that use female only short lists, it is your democratic right to vote for a man from a different party.

That could mean a 60-40 female-male split in parliament which I still think is equality as long as both sexes had the same right and ability to try and achieve a position in parliament.
Legally, we've already got that (apart from it not yet being as good as a 60-40 split). It's not just about legal rights, though - we've had equal pay legislation for over 40 years, and there's still a gender gap. There are far fewer women in STEM occupations than men, and it's not because they're less capable or less qualified or that there are legal restrictions. It's got more to do with unconscious bias, stereotype threat, working cultures which aren't female-friendly, and a host of other things.

As well as Kat Banyard mentioned upthread, the Everyday Sexism book is good, and Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender.

FYI OP - MPs have no entitlement to maternity leave. So yeah, nothing to see here about the gender balance .

Another man who thinks that all female selections for candidacies is bad, but sees zero problem in the all male selections we've had for years.

Yup sounds like you're all over equality there, old chap.

Personally I just believe in "people" having rights because that's who we are, the fact that some of us have a dick and some of us have a vagina shouldn't factor into what rights we get.

Both sexes have a bum. Until very recently if a man stuck his penis or an object in to someone's bum without consent, was charged with a crime and found guilty in court the maximum sentence was 2 years if the bum was attached to someone with a vagina and 10 if it was attached to a person with a dick.

Both sexes had and continue to have the right not to be assaulted, so this meets your definition of equality. Do you see any problem with that situation?

1. No
2. Haven't decided yet
3. If somebody had been attacked by a dog, I wouldn't be surprised if they were wary of all dogs, including mine, who is very gentle.

Ditto to the poster who mentioned the ways in which society teaches women to be scared for their safety. The pictures on the posters are always of women holding drinks or acting drunk and in skirts, never jeans. The potential rapist is almost never shown, except sometimes as a shadowy figure lurking nearby the the alley. So we are taught what a rape victim looks like (drinks alcohol, wears a skirt and high heels) but not what a rapist looks like (difficult to depict as in reality they probably just look like normal smiley chatty blokes and that isn't going to project the right image of threat and doom hanging over the drunk beskirted one in the poster).

I could write a lot more about answer 1 and 2, but I have various things to get on with today, and -having been made wary by previous threads started by people who just want to wind up the wind-up toy to see how far it will run then walk away- I can't really be bothered putting in the time and effort for someone who might not give much of a stuff.

Btw sashh.....is it really true that the sentences for anal rape used to be heavier for raping a man than a woman??? !!!!! ??? That's terrible. I had a boyfriend once who thought rape was worse if the victim was male. I asked him whether, if a rapist burst in and attacked us and we couldn't fight him off and one of us was going to get anally raped, he would take one for the team rather than let it be me, and he mumbled and wouldn't answer. Granted, not a very likely scenario, but his response was quite telling. He was also quite homophobic and felt the need to express disgust at any male gayness on telly etc at every opportunity. Reader, I dumped him.

Well, I googled "anal rape sentencing male female disparity" and came across an interesting paper from a legal journal which suggests otherwise. Though it did include a weird quote from some Lordy in a parlimentary debate in 1994: He thought that on the scale of trauma caused by coercive buggery (as it was called then):
it would be traumatic for a homosexual male victim
it would be worse for a heterosexual male victim
it would be worst of all for a woman, because, "Not only is she being violated, but her total femininity is being destroyed at the same time as she would not be used in a natural manner that one might expect".

The difference in sentencing was due I assume to the fact that homosexuality was illegal, so homophobia, and nothing to do with considerations of the impact on the victim.

I don't know when this law was changed (it might have been in force for some time after homosexual acts were legalised) but that will be what it stems from.

OP if you are genuinely intrested in feminism why don't you ask women you know what they think, ask your mother, grandmother, sisters, cousins, friends, colleagues, girlfriend, wife, whatever how they think being a women has affected their opportunities in life. I'm sure some may not self identify as feminists but you might learn something.

Heterosexual anal sex was only legalised in the 1990s, I think, so that might also have had some effect on the differences in sentencing.

I always feel like saying you don't support feminism because it doesn't focus on men's rights to be a bit like saying you don't believe in discussions on class because it doesn't focus on the rights of the rich.

Perhaps that will help you understand why it's a silly thing to say.

OP, you say you don't support feminism because it only covers female rights, not male. You sound almost surprised at that. Not sure why.

The clue is in the name.

"I've noticed on mumsnet that some women view all men as potential attackers because something bad has happened to them in the past."

"Question 3 is from a comment I saw on here quite recently where a woman who was either raped or assaulted by a man said that she views all men as potential attackers and that men should understand this."

So what? I mean really? How is she expressing her anxiety/views? Is she killing men? Is she going out raping/sexually assaulting men? Is she sexually harassing them on the street? Is she verbally abusing them? Is she responding with abuse when a man offers an opinion on-line? Is she actively spreading fear and hatred of men amongst other women? Is she preventing men from being promoted or paying them less?

Or is she just trying to avoid being in situations where men might potentially attack her? (And society upholds her in this thinking).

Because the former is what men do when they view a woman has wronged them. The latter is what women tend to do.

And way to go for minimising what happened to her and dismissing her feelings as irrational. Women never get told that. Ever.

Scallops.