I'm so cross

[Yolandafarthing]

Just need somewhere to vent. My local parent's Facebook group had a post from a woman complaining she has hardly any help from her husband WRT housework/childcare and asking if others struggle too. Cue loads of other women commiserating.

Then the bloody admin shuts the comments on the thread down, because "it feels pretty negative to men, and I know that many of us have fantastic, pro-active and supportive partners, many of whom go to work as well as parent, and some of us are two Dad or two Mum families. If you swap the word 'man' for other descriptors like ethnicity or religion, it becomes clear that sweeping statements are unfair and inaccurate....I don't want [group name] to be a place where we perpetuate sexist stereotypes."

I'm fuming. This is a woman speaking. A woman silencing other women, because poor men.

Thoughts?

"I'm not really sure what a man can do to be ok."

It's easy. Show that they are feminists by actions, not words. Nobody's asking them to do anything difficult. For example -take
an equal share in domestic work/child care. Do not use sexist language/jokes and call out other men who do. If they use porn or buy sex, stop doing it. Do not condone or excuse male violence. Call out other men who do. Stop judging women by their appearance. Think about how they interact with women in the workplace. Acknowlege their privilege. I think that would be a good start, don't you?

I'm not anti-man, and I'm more than happy for men to be feminist allies.

I would be equally suspicious of a white person who insisted on centring themselves in black activism. As a white person I can be an ally, but I can have no experience of what it is to be black. Why do you think men can say they can about women?

coddiwomple responded to "Women are oppressed. That is fact. Not stereotype."
by writing "Where are you based? If you are in Saudi Arabia, then yes, possibly."

Only possibly? !

Only possibly? !

what do you think I meant...

I love that "we have it better than women in Saudi Arabia" is seen as a valid argument that feminism is obsolete

Only possibly?!

Eh, well, if one considers the UK a feminist utopia, where men are the poor oppressed ones, then logically, Saudi Arabia can only be considered to possibly oppress women a tiiiiny little bit.

If one acknowledged that Saudi Arabia and similar countries are misogynist hellholes, then the UK would not look so very perfect, either.

In Islamic countries, daughters don't inherit, or inherit only a tiny percentage of what sons inherit, and in the UK ... you have those nice laws where sons inherit estates and all, and daughters don't.

So, clearly, unfair inheritance laws cannot be oppressive. That would make the UK look not so perfect, so ... men getting more inheritance must be okay, because men are inherently better than women, you know?

Women not having the right to have abortions? Well, that's a fact in Ireland, and Ireland is part of the feminist utopia in "the West", I suppose, so women not having bodily autonomy must be totally fine, too!

Et cetera.

What remains is "Oh, well, I guess women not being allowed to drive cars is possibly oppression. But only possibly, because I don't like driving at all, wouldn't it be so much better to not have to?"

I love that "we have it better than women in Saudi Arabia" is seen as a valid argument that feminism is obsolete

Yeah.

If some country in Africa or so were taken over by women and they'd start to actually oppress men - take away men's human rights and all - would those "but Saudi Arabia!" criers then suddenly changed their opinions?

Seeing as what constitutes oppression to them is measured not by actual fairness but by how things are elsewhere ...

I wonder why people still complain about the NHS on mumsnet. I mean, surely there's quite some countries where healthcare is much worse! Which means that, hey presto, UK healthcare is perfect!

... not really, obviously, but the people who argue that we don't need feminism because Saudi Arabia should really be more consistent in their opinions.

The prostitution point is stupid.

Course it is. Because people pointing out men do dangerous jobs, that's them being oppressed. But when women do dangerous jobs that's just stupid.

Or is that particular job fine because it's for the benefit of men?

I think one reason we need feminism is because there are (an increasingly?) significant number people not happy with the gender perceptions of the sex they were born with. Gender perceptions are clearly not inclusive enough when people have to go to the lengths of having gender reassignment. By all accounts, this is not an easy process and not particularly easy to accommodate, since there is also a need for safe single sex spaces. If gender were far more inclusive, with much less division between the sexes, I think gender dissatisfaction would not be such an issue.

No, it's not an argument that feminism is obsolete. It's an argument that many feminists priorities sometimes seem skewed. Really, problems both here and abroad should be considered but the ones abroad often aren't by many self proclaimed feminists.

And BertrandRussell my point is that even when individual men do those things, they are still individually held responsible for the men that don't. My partner does everything you listed but I'm pretty sure he's still be seen as part of the patriarchy and therefore part of an oppressive system against women? Or nay?
Comments like this just from this thread suggest otherwise:

I'm willing to bet that even your husband/son/brother/father has got misogynistic tendencies on some level. It's insiduous. I say that as a heterosexual female, with a son, a male partner and a brother, all of whom I love very much.

• even nice men are insidiously misogynist.

Yolandafarthing are you sure it's not either or? Men are oppressive no matter what they do individually from this thread.

The pay gap thing is a bit of a myth. The data for the percentage commonly used was basically taken from total earnings for men vs total earnings for women - more women work part time and this wasn't taken into account. It evens out when it is as though men tend to earn the top amounts they also tend to earn the bottom amounts. Many will argue the fact women work part time is proof of the patriarchy but when did equality for women mean being more like a man? I choose to work part time because I like being with my children. Not because I feel it should be my role but because I want it to be. My OH would love to work part time. Am I letting the side down? Instead my OH works full time in a male dominated, dangerous job. He actually injured himself yesterday! It would be hard for me to injure myself at work. In Sweden where they have bent over backwards to make a more equal society, including generous shared parental leave, excellent childcare, gender quotas in top jobs etc, women still tend to be more likely to work part time and are going into traditional female jobs (teaching, nursing, social work, publishing) at a rate greater than ever before. They are finding that as they reduce structural barriers, the difference between the genders actually widens. Using bad data to make an ideological point annoys me as it just weakens the whole cause when there is plenty to talk about without made up numbers. And it just gives the hard line anti-women MRA types ammo.

No one has mentioned by point about girls out performing boys across education. I'd be really interested to hear people's thoughts on this issue.

Prostitution is a job only when feminists want to abolish it. Then it is a choosey choice and empowerfulizing and "sex work".

But when it is quoted in debates about dangerous jobs, then it is just stupid. (and not to be counted as job. Because that would mean one would have to acknowledge that men do not work in the highest risk "job")

I love that "we have it better than women in Saudi Arabia" is seen as a valid argument that feminism is obsolete

completely misreading my comment, and running a mile with endless nonsense that I did not say and did not mean. Nothing else expected on a "feminist" forum to be fair.

To clarify as if you were 5: I did not say we have it better than in Saudi Arabia, I am saying that we are not oppressed, victims or inferior in the UK (or most of Europe). Full stop.

I did not want to write that women are not oppressed in the world, because it's not true (hence the reference to Saudi Arabia, but the list is long). I do stand by everything, women here are not oppressed, have the same rights and privileges than men. Again, I am not saying that abuse does not exist, but it's not encouraged, accepted, or even remotely legal and one abuser doesn't mean all men are a brutal enemy.

If it makes you feel better to imagine that you are failing because of our society, go for it. I just hope you are not raising your daughters that way, they are allowed to know from the start that they have exactly the same rights and opportunities than their brothers and can achieve everything just as well - if their own mother doesn't stop them.

If gender were far more inclusive, with much less division between the sexes, I think gender dissatisfaction would not be such an issue.

Or, you know, we could just abolish gender, seeing as it is a social construct, invented to oppress women.

we could just abolish gender

errr no, thank you!

A woman posting online that she is struggling to cope, and asking how others manage is not claiming victim hood.
No one on this thread is claiming victim hood. People have said there are inequalities built into the system and to peoples expectations. What can we do about it.

Or, you know, we could just abolish gender, seeing as it is a social construct, invented to oppress women.

Vestal, is it though?

I fully accept culture has a huge influence upon gender perceptions - differences in gender perceptions across different societies is testimony to this. However I don't know of a society which is completely gender neutral. Added to this biological differences can lead to differences in behaviour, the link between different levels of testosterone and aggression for example. Although marked patterns in behaviour are also linked with marked physiological differences and Epigenetics shows how environment can affect gene expression.

So, for these, albeit somewhat hyperthetical, reasons, I prefer to aim for gender inclusivity not an abolishment of gender.

'I'm not really sure what a man can do to be ok. Wear a hair shirt 24/7, self flagellate, endlessly confess the sins of their fathers and promise repent and atone (except they can never atone as no matter how they behave their inbuilt, subconscious misogyny remains)....'

They can shut the fuck up and listen to women. They can hear what women are saying and really take it in. They can address their own thinking and behaviour that comes from underlying misogynist beliefs. They can challenge misogynist beliefs and behaviours in their fellow men. They can support women's causes both practically and with money. They can give women the space and support to express themselves. In short they can be allies - people who aren't front and centre, people who support other people, the way women have supported people for the whole of history.

Because that would mean one would have to acknowledge that men do not work in the highest risk "job"

Men do work in prostitution.

If it makes you feel better to imagine that you are failing because of our society, go for it. I just hope you are not raising your daughters that way, they are allowed to know from the start that they have exactly the same rights and opportunities than their brothers and can achieve everything just as well - if their own mother doesn't stop them.

Where did I say I was failing?

I haven't got daughters. Thank god, with people like you who genuinely think women in this country have exactly the same rights and opportunities as men.

It's a shitty world in which to be a girl or a woman. Yes, in the UK too.

why do you not want to abolish gender, coddi?

I presume you realise it is not the same thing as sex, right?

Added to this biological differences can lead to differences in behaviour, the link between different levels of testosterone and aggression for example.

That is sex, not gender. Which is why I don't want males in women's spaces regardless of the "gender" as which those males identify.

Gender, on the other hand, is telling people what they ought to do, either because of their actual sex, or, nowadays, because of their actual sex AND because they have failed to identify as the other sex. We do not need that. We do not need to make it more inclusive, we can just do away with it.

No decisions are made taking into consideration male aggression, and never have been, so while that might be beneficial, it is not what is done today. (Remember that thread about the article where a woman said she wouldn't let a male babysit her children, based on statistics about males committing sexual assault much more often than women? Remember the outrage of mumsnet posters about people basing decisions on observable differences between the sexes?)

Sex segregation in bathrooms and prisons is, officially, not because of male aggression but because people don't want to be naked in the presence of the other sex.
Again, nothing to do with gender.

Behavioural differences between the sexes (not genders) may or may not be inherent, but while there is a need to acknowledge them, there is no need to enforce them.

In short, women need safe spaces where men don't have access, because male aggression exists (whether it is nature or nurture doesn't matter, the fact is it exists) but there is no need to socialize boys into being aggressive. It is utterly bonkers that society is currently doing exactly that.

That - socializing boys to be aggressive and entitled - is gender. Why would anyone want to keep that?

(The only other meaning of gender there is is grammatical gender. I think we could do without it, many languages do, but it would be a pain in the ass to change, so not high on my agenda to abolish that)

'Men do work in prostitution.'

In far smaller numbers that women. And their clients are men, not women, for the most part. So the common denominator there is men buying sex from people who have very few other choices but to rent out their bodies. But oh we can't really talk about that can we because that's not fair on the poor men.

The saddest statement it's possible for a woman to make IMO is that we are 'lucky.' How fucking little do you have to expect to consider yourself lucky to have basic human rights? How fucking little do you have to expect to consider yourself lucky to live in a society where 85,000 women are raped every year, and where your chance of being sexually assaulted over your lifetime is absolutely enormous?

Men don't consider themselves lucky to be able to go through life without ever being sexually assaulted. They just expect that. It's their entitlement. They can see that women are sexually assaulted all the time and what do they do about it. NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.
So the women out there asking why we aren't campaigning for men's rights, my answer is I'll campaign for men's right just as much as they campaign for mine, which means I will do precisely ZILCH.

*The prostitution point is stupid.

Course it is. Because people pointing out men do dangerous jobs, that's them being oppressed. But when women do dangerous jobs that's just stupid.

Or is that particular job fine because it's for the benefit of men?*

Are posts wilfully interpreted in the worse possible ways?

Datun I didn't say prostitution was stupid, that women are stupid when they are prostitutes, or that women don't also work dangerous jobs.
I said the point made was stupid because the argument it was made in response to was that more men die and are injured at work than women. Which is a fact. That doesn't mean that women don't work dangerous jobs, don't die at work, don't get injured at work, or that one of the more dangerous ways women can earn money isn't prostitution. I am sure that reading my post would clarify that.

My point remains that more men die and are injured at work than women.

I don't think gender can be abolished, Yolanda, just made more inclusive. I say this because I don't know of a society which is completely gender neutral and also because of the complex interplay between differences in physiology and behaviour which exists. Physiology can affect behaviour and marked prolonged patterns in thought patterns and behaviour can affect physiology. Abolishing gender, IMO, is far too simplistic an aim.

As an example Datun, if it helps. My friend was sexually abused as a child by a woman. That doesn't change that the majority of sexual crime is perpetuated by men towards woman.

That more women are prostitutes and that this is dangerous doesn't change that the majority of deaths and injuries at work are suffered by men.