Did you know that feminism's battle has been won?

[Cerseirys]

Because it comes as news to me...
new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-decline-of-feminism/

I wonder if the writer has had dc yet? Not because they validate her as a woman but because I think that is the point a lot of women realise they are living in a man's world.

I think it's easy to pretend all the big battles have been when when you are carefree and in your 20's. I find the older I get the more feminist issues there are.
I happen to think there are more feminist issues for women in their 20's now to be dealing with than there was when I was that age. However I can see how easy it would be for someone that age to be sucked into the advertising ideal

Fuck, I read the comments

She's missed the point entirely on so many issues that I'm not sure where to begin.

Fuck, I read the comments

So did I. Sigh. My opinion on the human race has dropped substantially.

I read two comments and then gave up half way through a comment that seemed to think feminism was a marxist conspiracy with the aim of destroying white culture.

What a bollocks article. And I'm so sick of hearing that feminism is just a white middle class thing. I'm not middle class (although I am white).

This was my favourite bit:

'Last year, women constituted 55 per cent of those enrolling in courses in medicine and dentistry and 62 per cent of those enrolling in law. Business, banking and the professions may be dominated by men today but, judging by the rapidity of our ascent, this won’t last long.'

Sure it won't, sure it won't.... Because it's not like women are entering professions in large numbers that get eroded the higher up the ladder you get, is it?!

I read the comments, didnt get far

I am honestly concerned about the mental health of at least two of those posters (only read about 10 posts)

And I'm being serious, really concerned

I loved this:

"In April, an advert featuring a busty model appeared on the Tube, with the tagline: ‘Are you beach body ready?’ Within hours it had been defaced; within days 44,000 signatures had been appended to a petition demanding it be removed. Making sure women are covered up in public, so their bare flesh doesn’t offend anyone, is something you’d expect in Saudi Arabia, not here, where we should be free to dress as provocatively as we please."

I'm sorry darling, but you missed the point about a mile back. The whole thing had nothing to do with making women cover up.

Feminist icon Margaret Thatcher?

WTF?? The article says that the author was born in 83, she I guess she could only have been what, about 6 years old when Thatcher left Downing Street - perhaps understandable that she didn't at that point grasp that having a woman in power was not necessarily a killer blow for feminism. However, she's not six now and sorely needs to get a better grasp on both her history and her current affairs before she pens anything else as wilfully misrepresentative as this pile of drivel.

She seems to have got her portrait of a feminist straight from the pages of the Daily Mail. How nuanced.

I agree, as I have I realise there is a long way to go.

It's one of those articles that is SO ill-informed and badly argued that it tells us quite a lot about how keen they are to find a woman to express that political viewpoint. If they're so keen to run a front cover article doing down feminism that they are prepared to use that frankly terrible bit of writing, they must really really want to push that agenda. And clearly no decent women writers are willing to do it.

Never read the comments. Lewis's Law always comes true.

Probably best not to read articles that start out from utterly stupid positions as well.

Purely in the interests of saving your blood pressure.

Gosh. What a naive article. She's only four years younger than me but she writes like a teenager. I mean, that "lots are starting the courses" argument was already recognised as not panning out back in 2000 when i started work.

I must admit that my first thought here was, "I'd love to know if you still have the same PoV in 15 years time."

That line about more women entering law, medicine, dentistry etc. degree courses also elicited a mirthless laugh. Of course it follows that we will soon dominate the professions. Oh hang on.

That line about more women entering law, medicine, dentistry etc. degree courses also elicited a mirthless laugh. Of course it follows that we will soon dominate the professions. Oh hang on.

Why doesn't course entry correlate with professional entry?

having a woman in power was not necessarily a killer blow for feminism.

As mentioned in the article, it's nothing to do with Thatcher's politics or legacy (which is divisive, to put it politely), but the fact that it is achievable - moreso in a democratically-elected position than in an interviewed job (such as directorial roles), within the electoral process of our country, a woman got to the very top job.

It does initially but women have a higher drop out rate or stay at a lower rung of he ladder over time.

Why is this?

I would really like to explore this train of thought, because if the current 'solutions' aren't solving anything, it would be interesting to identify the points of failure and think of some real solutions.

Why?

A million reasons. Children is the biggest. Or rather childcare and societal norms and structures around children.

Caring responsibilities. Lack of mentors. Greater difficulties networking.

Lack of promotion - how women are viewed. How they are perceived.

So many things

WMittens Fri 23-Oct-15 12:23:29

having a woman in power was not necessarily a killer blow for feminism.

As mentioned in the article, it's nothing to do with Thatcher's politics or legacy (which is divisive, to put it politely), but the fact that it is achievable - moreso in a democratically-elected position than in an interviewed job (such as directorial roles), within the electoral process of our country, a woman got to the very top job.

I'm not sure I understand your point? Yes, she achieved it, and that was a good thing in terms of visibility, but my point was she did the square root of bugger all to advance the cause of women in general. Quite the opposite in fact, in terms of "there's no such thing as society". She very much viewed herself as an exception, and was quite content to be so.

but my point was she did the square root of bugger all to advance the cause of women in general.

I accept your point, however that isn't the point being made in the article.

I'm still unsure if that article actually contained any points at all, because all I got from it was a breathless whooshing sound made by all the points whizzing right over the author's head.

Arguably, Thatcher broke down some of the obstacles for women. Nobody seriously thinks anymore that women are INHERENTLY unsuited for leadership or decision making or being combative. That doesn't stop people thinking that women GENERALLY can't do these things as well as men.

This article demonstrates quite clearly how double edged the legacy is. Since women demonstrably can reach the top, it must surely be a matter of choice and preference that more women don't take leadership roles. It obviously isn't because there continue to be structural inequalities and social pressures holding women back.

I'm still unsure if that article actually contained any points at all, because all I got from it was a breathless whooshing sound made by all the points whizzing right over the author's head.

When in doubt, ad hominem.