Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Brand Feminism.

45 replies

FloralBunting · 19/01/2020 21:45

I've been mulling over recently how it is that Feminism, as I have understood it, stopped being about women's rights, and became an indistinct 'kindness to all' movement.

It is obviously odd that women's lib turned into something which pushed women into ever more creative ways of serving the interests of men, but I'm so curious about how it happened.

I don't think feminism was ever going to be eagerly accepted in a world tilted in favour of the males of the species, so on one level, it isn't a surprise that we still find ourselves in a place where opprobrium is heaped on us.

What I find fascinating is that many of the people ripping into feminists these days would call themselves feminists, like it's a brand. They know enough to see it as a useful term, but it has been gutted of any of the power to improve the lot of women - and bizarrely seems to focus on things which keep women as the chattels and servants of men, via prostitution, porn, surrogacy etc. and uses very traditional methods of appealing to us to be 'kind' and 'inclusive' as leverage.

I mean, it looks like a men's movement to me. What has contributed to this state of affairs? Obviously it's going to be a combination of factors. What do you think they are?

OP posts:
Stopthisnow · 20/01/2020 10:04

I think to understand why feminism has been hollowed out we have to look at how males maintain their dominance in society. We know that males use their size and strength advantage to dominate females, but they also form coalitions, and agree between themselves what will benefit males as a group. For example, we know men historically agreed among themselves to exchange ‘their’ daughters with each other in marriage, and to exclude women from the workplace, so that women would be forced to be reliant on men for survival. That men also devised the strategy of socialising females from a young age into a submissive role, so that they would not have to use obvious force as often to get what they want.

I think many women forget that men also invented ideologies to justify their actions. For example, religions, so they could claim it wasn’t them oppressing females, and instead insisted a deity had simply allocated a submissive role to females. Later they said ‘nature’ allocated that role to females and claimed science confirmed it. They also created the ideology of sexual libertarianism, and claimed women would not be oppressed if they had more sexual freedom. Then there is neoliberalism which aims to dismantle all collective movements and put the focus on individuals. Postmodernism, queer theory and the genderism that has come from them incorporates all of these ideologies to some extent, and so obviously benefits males as a goup.

Feminists have noted that men develop these ideologies for their own benefit then embed them throughout the institutions they created and control e.g. places of worship, education, law, media etc, which creates the dominant narrative in society. This leads to many women themselves accepting male ideologies, due to being exposed to them, and those ideologies being widely accepted in society. This is why these ideologies have been so easily accepted into institutions, where as actual feminism never was widely accepted in male created institutions and society in general.

Not to mention that women know if they reject male ideologies and instead adopt actual feminist explanations, they will be demonised and ridiculed. For example, historically women were called witches or insane, and burnt or sent to asylums if they stepped out of the role men created for them. Indeed, women are currently ridiculed and demonised if they reject male ideologies such as gender ideology, and sexual libertarianism and adopt alternative feminists explanations, the only difference is T**F, swerf etc, has replaced the word witch. Under these conditions it is not difficult to see why many women themselves adopt male ideologies over feminist explanations.

Moreover, men often use feminist vocabulary when trying to pitch their ideologies to women, so it sounds like feminism on the surface, rather than just another attempt at oppressing women further. For example, they argue that brain sex studies are about addressing how women react differently to drugs etc, rather than trying to prove women are more suited to certain roles/occupations etc. Or that sexual liberation is about women having more agency, rather than men having more sexual access to women. That gender ideology is about breaking down stereotypes, rather than reinforcing them. By using feminist talking points and vocabulary they can more easily convince women that they are not just MRAs.

All of these elements come together and enable men to sell what is ultimately a men’s rights ideology to women, under the guise of feminism. I think this is why they have been successful in selling a fake version of ‘feminism’ to some women, particularly young women, who desperately don’t want to believe men hate women as much as they obviously do. There is also the idea that if women don’t criticise men and say they are for everybody’s liberation then men will get onboard and support women, obviously that will not happen, but many women want to believe it will, so it appeals to them.

The book ‘The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism’ is a very interesting read.
download1512.mediafire.com/z7tkclyrv0wg/iucffid0pwzvbs1/The+Sexual+Liberals+and+the+Attack+on+Feminism.pdf

Gail Dines has also given a great talk about how neoliberalism has defanged feminism.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcTt0emXhE

Grasspigeons · 20/01/2020 10:28

I am not educated in feminism and havent read any texts - but i think 'choice' is a big factor. I have seen more and more women say 'feminism was about giving women the choice to...' and people saying basically any choice a woman makes is feminist because a female chose it. My mum and aunt were very active feminists in the 60s and choice wasnt discussed much. It was liberation and equality of value of contribution. I think if you want to control women you need to encourage male friendly choices and applaud them. Social media can really support that.

FearlessSwiftie · 20/01/2020 12:12

True feminism had never stopped being about women's rights. Some people may understand it wrong why transmitting this idea but in fact feminist is still about women and women only. As far as I know radical feminism doesn't even care about transgenders who call themselves women. Radical feminism considers them men and doesn't deal with them.

3timeslucky · 20/01/2020 12:20

"Why can't a woman be more like a man?" I think that's where it has gone wrong. How do we get women to fit into patriarchal work structures? How do we get women to support porn? How do we get women to support prostitution? It is all about women trying to be like men, accepting their behaviours and wants as the gold standard. There's no challenge to patriarchy or male behaviours, just attempts to emulate, be inclusive of, get included. You see the same with trans-ideology. Perish the thought that you should challenge men claiming their right to enter women's spaces and erode protections: align yourself with men and male claims and lo and behold you're equal, you're just like them, one big happy human family. (hoping the sarcasm is apparent there).

HorseWithNoTimeForThis · 20/01/2020 12:47

How do we get women to fit into patriarchal work structures? How do we get women to support porn? How do we get women to support prostitution?

How? By advocating and promoting liberal feminism which supports the things above as choices women can make and describes those things as empowering ffs. This kind of feminism is endorsed by celebrities and the media, it is nice feminism, the kind of feminism that men can get behind because men like porn and prostitution.

Whereas

Radical feminism (the sort that is really only heard of these days in that dreadful acronym) identifies the things mentioned above as harmful to women and girls and wants to rid the world of them. Unlike the man-pleasing feminism described above rad feminism is despised by men whatever clothes they wear and however they may "identify" because this kind of feminism actually has the guts to say "NO" and men as a class don't like that do they.

I would describe myself as a radical feminist rather than the fun kind.

HorseWithNoTimeForThis · 20/01/2020 14:17

...but I do know how to have fun.

Goosefoot · 20/01/2020 14:29

It was explained to me a few years ago here that acknowledging biological differences could be used against women eg 'pregnancy brain' stereotypes could lead to women being quickly dropped in workplaces as soon as they're pregnant.

This isn't a direct response to this, more a jumping off point that also relates to NonnyMouse's point:

I think it is not only a surprise to many younger women that things like pregnancy can affect them more than they expected, in terms of things like health, or their work life. I think many women are also really quite surprised to find that parenthood reorients their interests and what they want in terms of career, what they envisage parenting to be like, etc. And I think this happens more so than with men, or maybe differently would be the better way to put it.

While feminism may become more meaningful in terms of the first realisation, it's less helpful in terms of the second. Not only do many find there is nothing there encouraging women in this thinking, they may find they are considered to be letting down women, or capitulating to conservative regressive types of biological essentialism.

I think it's really been a problem for feminism that it tells women who want to have the space to be mothers, rather than "workers" or income earners, that somehow they are biological essentialists and that is anti-feminist. You can't on the one hand ground your ideology in material reality and the biological meaning of being a woman, and wall off the actual emotions and behaviours and work that motherhood involves.

Michelleoftheresistance · 20/01/2020 14:31

Its been an attempt to re claim and sanitise feminism away from what was perceived as 'nasty'. Feminanzi, man-hating, all the other slurs that were attached to it, because females getting out of their box are not liked or popular with men or in a male dominated society, or with women who like approval and status awarded by men.

The main shift has been from 'feminism centres females' - (nasty. excluding. bigoted. selfish. gatekeeping. add negative words ad infinitum) to 'feminism works for equality of everyone and everything and definitely meets everyone elses needs before daring to think about female people'- awww bless, lovely, rainbows and glitter. It buys right into the traditional gender stereotypes of self sacrifice for women, mummy feeds everyone else before she eats her own dinner, women are the mummies of society and nicely equals female people = in right box.

Just take a look around the net at how often female people get shot down in flames for setting up anything for females without first providing for males, or making it clear that males can have it too. You can find plenty of moans straight away on 'Womans Hour' existing, and MN not having set up and run a dadsnet.

Goosefoot · 20/01/2020 14:37

For example, we know men historically agreed among themselves to exchange ‘their’ daughters with each other in marriage, and to exclude women from the workplace, so that women would be forced to be reliant on men for survival.

Is that really true though? I am not sure it is. Women have historically been reliant on men because of the biological constraints of reproduction. Men in turn have historically been reliant on women for the social necessity of reproduction (which women need as well, to be clear.)

Even before you overlay any kind of social accommodation of that, or attempts to control it for advantage, that's the situation, it's highly interdependent. But if you don't acknowledge that, any theories you build with explanatory power around social roles are likely to be flawed in their analysis.

Michelleoftheresistance · 20/01/2020 14:52

I don't think there was a Magna Carta where Men Sat Down and formally agreed all this, but the documentation goes back to the 7th-8th century at the very least off the top of my head to ensure that women couldn't inherit, arranged marriages for political stability and spreading of genes and relationships as a means of preserving status and lands which involved little girls being forcibly impregnated and giving birth - mother of Henry VII was eleven or twelve I think by the records, was nearly killed by the midwives trying to get a live baby out of her due to the importance of the father having an heir, and was so damaged she was never able to conceive again. Raping women to spread seed and dominance.

I don't think there's a minuted meeting as such but there's plenty of evidence.

stumbledin · 20/01/2020 15:01

The move away from saying women are oppressed by the common factor of their sex by the male class of sex is / was the basis for women's liberation. Which is why some Marxist support the gender critical stance ie they see the material reality.

The move away from that definition was partly from the "we can have it all mantra" much promoted by the media and consumerism which was ready to encourage women to be earners in their own right and so concumers. But was also part of the growth of queer culture and the concept of identity politics.

The main beneficiaries of this are not just those men who say because they identify as women they are women, but also men as a class that oppresses women. If there is no sex then it isn't possible that men are oppressing women. It must be something else and no doubt women's own fault they aren't doing better, even though choice feminism has just meant women are still doing the double shift of work in and out of the home. More importantly it has given men the message they dont have to change.

Women just need to learn to fit in with the world they have created to their benefit.

Fieldofgreycorn · 20/01/2020 15:01

Many of the things women’s Libbers were fighting for have been perceived as won by today’s generations of women.

Freedom from the patriarchy didn’t particularly resonate with most women back then, and it doesn’t now.

3timeslucky · 20/01/2020 15:37

@HorseWithNoTimeForThis ... exactly the point I was (possibly poorly) making. I think Liberal Feminism is hugely damaging and is part of what the OP is talking about, being nice, rowing in with the boys, being one of them, accepting their terms, norms, behaviours and structures as the things we should all aspire to.

HorseWithNoTimeForThis · 20/01/2020 16:14

* ..*because females getting out of their box are not liked or popular with men or in a male dominated society..

No! Course not! They should be getting out of their kit!

cf. prostitution and sex "work".

S'funny how women need to get naked for this alleged empowerment. No it isn't.

HorseWithNoTimeForThis · 20/01/2020 16:17

* ..*Feminanzi..

I know it's a typo but it's made my day.

Creepster · 20/01/2020 21:49

There is something to be said for the ways in which men's pop culture outlets use outlier examples of women's behavior to reinforce the traditional man made myths about women. Then men market them to the next generation as proof that they should continue to control all the elements needed for survival, food, water, shelter, clothing.

GirlDownUnder · 21/01/2020 05:10

...but there is a pervasive concept that men and women are actually identical in every way and it's only because of socialisation that we have differences and disparity, and if we socially engineer society then the disparity will disappear.

This and what 3timeslucky has posted for me was where ‘GirlPower’ and the laddette culture that sprang from it, came from.
Young women, suddenly being told it was ok to sleep with who you wanted, and you wouldn’t be slut shamed, that you could wear what you wanted, seemed to look to what was acceptable male behaviour and they emulated that because that was the gold standard.
In fact in some ways, they tried to out do their peers by being louder, drunker, etc.

But looking back, who else did they have as role models except the (male run) media, manufactured (by men) female pop groups, etc?
They were never going to look to feminism - the call of ‘freedom’ from the patriarchy was huge, and who wants to be a feminist like their mum.

They were sold a lie though, because women are still slut shamed, virtue is still generally a female only grace, and we still have disparity. I’m not sure parity was ever the goal though, as already mentioned by previous posters.

Thanks for all the informative posts here.

NeurotrashWarrior · 21/01/2020 11:44

I give you the latest brand of feminism:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-51113371/submitting-to-my-husband-like-it-s-1959-why-i-became-a-tradwife

Ffs.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 21/01/2020 11:56

Oh fuck! I turned the radio off the other day, when JV was discussing that!

Surrendered / Trad wives are as free as any of us to make the choices they have. But stop trying to sell it to me like it is a good, progressive or even financially viable choice for everyone!

I cook, I bake, I am doing so today - bread, biscuits and a beef stew. But Trad I am not. DH cooks as often as I do, bakes occasionally too!

I spoil him without submitting to him. Just as he spoils me without kowtowing the fuck out of a pleasant moment in married life!

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

DanaPhoenix · 21/01/2020 13:05

What a fascinating and informative thread. As someone with zero academic credentials, you have all given me much food for thought.
I do want to give a shout out to two particular posts/posters.

stumbledin your first post, wow, it's like you have reached into my brain and articulated my thoughts. Especially in regards to the "Media Feminists" particularly those in Australia. It's quite the clique, and was very interesting to observe their reactions (or lack thereof) regarding the outrage of victims information being inadvertently revealed on Tracey Spicer's documentary. WOC were calling them out, asking them to speak out in support of the victims...crickets.... although hey tweeps don't forget to buy my latest book, it's promoted in my pinned tweet.

GirlDownUnder Hey there (waves) what you've said about "ladette culture" really resonates too. As someone who went through her teens during the 80's I was quite the ladette (although I didn't even know it was a thing until I saw Ladette to Lady anyone remember that?). I'm a bad girl don't fuck with me. My Bestie and I were quite proud of our ability to drink guys under the table EDIT (in case that translates badly it means outdrink nothing sexual). But yes it was a consequence of being encouraged to feel empowered, boredom with bra burning oldies, and your basic teenage rebellion with some idiocy thrown in. Honestly I look back and just shudder WTF was I thinking.

Those trad wives come across as some weird hybrid of Stepford Wife and Doomsday Cult. That's from someone who was aSAHM.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread