Is my understanding of feminism wrong??

[SilverHoney]

I find the statement "I'm not a feminist" very confusing...

My understanding of feminism is social equality for men and women (wages, laws, education, opportunities). So for someone to say they are not a feminist would mean they DON'T think men and women should be equal?

Am I confused? To me, openly admitting you're not a feminist is like admitting you're homophobic or racist. Would be interesting to hear from people with differing points of view!

Sorry I thought I was on a different thread and that lass's post was on that one so my response may not make any sense in context I will read back and find out!

I didn't say that. At the stage the OP is talking about being kind can be achieved by every child. The other 3 are accidents which may or may not be developed further but apparently being strong or clever deserves praise whilst being pretty doesn't.

You are on the right thread. I just derailed it. As you were.

Which feminists have described a woman as "wank fodder"? Was it on here?

On the beautiful thing, I agree with Silver, I find the words pretty and beautiful come all too easily and I also make an effort to substitute other words as well (whether they are attributes that are down to luck, or not).

I do not wish to give my female children the impression that what is most commentable / commendable / desirable for them to be is to do with their looks. They get enough of that from other sources, for a start.

Additionally I would baulk at continuously praising a female child for being kind, again this is a gender role enforced in girls very strongly and I would not want to make that the be-all and end-all because I know if not handled carefully it comes at the expense of other important personality traits.

The expression was given the OK on the thread about misogynistic words.

I didn't say continuously praise for being kind nor make it the be all and end all. And boys can be praised for being kind and considerate too.

Thread's moved on a bit, but just wanted to say that people who aren't feminists are - by definition - people who don't believe men and women deserve equal rights. They are in the same broad category as racists or homophobes.

People who are feminists but either don't understand or just don't like the word - well, it doesn't work like that. You can't start making up your own definitions! It's like me refusing to use the word atheist to describe myself even though I don't believe in god. That's the word. Deal with it.

Really? Not read that thread. how bizarre.

I wouldn't consider describing a woman or girl as "wank fodder" AOK from a feminist perspective, I mean how weird. It's reducing her to literally nothing more than an object to give a man a hard on/orgasm. So not "sisterly" at all.

Might go look at that thread!

Could you link the thread, lass? The one I have found with that term in it doesn't have everyone saying it's sisterly at all. It has most people saying it's a vile objectifying phrase, and one person saying something that I can't quite follow but may be saying it's simply descriptive () and people taking issue with that.

I can't see another thread about misogynist words but maybe there is another - the one I looked at was about affairs?

There is nothing wrong with saying pretty, and any of those words of praise you wouldn't use randomly out of context. It's not that you are promoting those qualities, but remembering to use them when appropriate.

For example, if my toddler son picked up something proportionately heavy, there would be a chorus of clever boy isn't he strong, look how well he's carrying that. My daughter could do the same thing and it would be look how sweet she looks carrying that, bless her trying to lift it etc etc.

They are not terms for the child to aspire to, just a range of terms that reflect what they are doing and achieving at the time. Putting the focus on what they do as much as what they look like doing it.

I use pretty (well, beautiful) randomly and out of context all the time, unfortunately. It's terribly ingrained.

eg get in from work "there's my beautiful girls!!!!"

So I need to work on that. It is a go-to default for me, where from though I don't know, everywhere probably!

There are a couple of posters on the thread here who whilst not using it themselves the thread here have justified its use.

Yes, I suppose I meant clever, kind, strong, you would use them in the context of them doing something - in reference to lass saying not every child would be capable of achieving 'strength' or 'cleverness'. You just make sure your girls are encouraged and given confidence in 'doing' in the same way boys are, obviously within whatever limits apply to them.

'Beautiful' I dispense as liberally as hugs, to both boy and girl and don't suppose I can change now

I didn't have any girls, but I called my boys beautiful. Still do. They're bigger than me and some of them have beards, but under all the hair they're ever so beautiful.

You just make sure your girls are encouraged and given confidence in 'doing' in the same way boys are, obviously within whatever limits apply to them.

And why do I need to proclaim I'm a feminist to do that?

and why do I need to proclaim I'm a feminist to do that?

Erm that's rather a non-sequitur. You can proclaim yourself whatever you like, or not. The discussion was about being aware of the use of subtly sexist language and the potential impact of it. Sexism and inequality happens to be a concern of feminism.

Feminist is only the term which represents the pursuit of equal opportunities for women, and the advocacy of equal rights. It is nothing to be afraid of.

It's not a question of being afraid of it. I don't disagree with the basic principles but there are considerable parts of the minutiae I disagree with deeply. And find irritating and irrelevant.

The discussion is about why women don't call themselves feminists. According to the OP "openly admitting you're not a feminist is like admitting you're homophobic or racist"

If being a feminist was simply believing in equal opportunities, then fine but it is more than that.I have already listed the things which alienate me so am not going to repeat them. The OP asked for differing views. I'm giving mine.

There are 2 posters who thought the language was justified.

Each to the their own you " recognise and name sexism and misogyny when you see it," and see it as being positive. I don't.

Yes the main discussion of the thread was about why people don't like to identify as feminist but within that discussion was another one which arose about the impact and relative social acceptability of sexist language and ways in which one might counterbalance this and be mindful of it, and examples of this.

There is no need to be a feminist to use positive language and instil confidence in your children, but from a feminist perspective you are thoughtful about language in order to address an inequality, and have an awareness that it has wider social ramifications and the fact it is influenced by wider social influences than just those within the family.

There is a distinction to be made I think between 'academic feminism' and feminism as the term for the advocacy of the equality of the sexes. One is theoretical and explores ideas and concepts, and one is the on the ground demand for equal treatment and opportunities, you can have feminist principles and not agree with everything that has been written in exploration of the theory.

If you think calling out sexism and misogyny is negative, do you think sexism and misogyny are not negative things, or that they don't exist?

I know it's moved on a bit, but I don't think that kindness is the only thing that a small child can be achieved by any child - we're not talking about objectively strong, clever or beautiful, we're talking about strong, clever or beautiful for them

So if DS gets himself dressed, and it's mainly all on the right bits and in the right directions then he's clever, if he puts on a necklace or a hat or sticks a flower in his hair then that's pretty, if he lifts up something from the shopping and hands it to me then he's strong and helpful - it's an encouraging and relative thing, not an absolute one, and any child can do something that would garner that kind of praise.

I wouldn't consider describing a woman or girl as "wank fodder" AOK from a feminist perspective, I mean how weird. It's reducing her to literally nothing more than an object to give a man a hard on/orgasm. So not "sisterly" at all

Ok, as a woman's thread from Relationships is now being discussed on two different Feminist Chat threads… It was not described as AOK from a feminist perspective. Someone sent pictures of themselves to a married person with the purpose of providing them with material to wank over (and then received photos in return of the evidence that the material had successfully served its purpose). The wanker then described this person as originally being "wank fodder" to their betrayed spouse but now as someone perfect, ideal, someone whom the betrayed spouse should aspire to be like, and this is why loyal spouse is now being dumped.

The person sending the photos to serve as wank fodder was a woman. The vast majority of anger was directed at the horrendous male spouse and not the OW. However, some posters referred to the OW as WF instead, and I personally did not feel inclined to say, "hang on, you can't call a woman that" for a few reasons, one of which being that the person had quite literally sent (faceless) photos of themselves to someone for the purpose of serving as wank fodder. I would feel the same if it were a man.

And yes, men do also serve as "wank fodder" and I do also hear men being referred to as such. Some women also use the term, even the "feminist" book/blog Vagenda: "If you're a randy women perusing the internet for wank fodder…" (goes on to lament poor quality wank fodder for randy women).

Personally it's not a term I have used in RL about anyone or anything. I didn't really expect to be using it again on MN but as it's now made its way onto two threads in Feminist Chat and is being portrayed as something that was being defended from a feminist, sisterly perspective, clarification seems to be required. If it makes me an anti-feminist misogynist in some people's eyes, then so be it.