Feminism, whats the goal?

[UglyGlassVase]

How can we ever be in a place were we aren't reliant on men?

We have the babies.

We are physically weaker.

How do we get around that? What's the goal?

I'm feeling very despondent, the more I think about it the more bleak it seems.

I think years ago feminism was a reaction to the idea that you had to stay home. They were saying, no, you have a choice. But somehow it got twisted into you have a choice so stop complaining!

@RadandMad

It wasn't always this way though. From what I've read about pre-history, in more primitive, pre-patriarchial societies, matriarchies were common and gods were often female. We were actually revered for our ability to birth life, not oppressed for it. As I understand it this shifted when we turned to farming, and abandoned hunter gathering, where women's contribution to the family diet, foraging for nuts, berries, etc, was equally as important as hunting.

That said, I've no idea how society might return to that kind of equality without an apocalypse that destroys civilisation. And even then women would still be worse off than men.

Unfortunately this is probably not the case. Although it’s believed that hunter gatherer society was much more egalitarian than agrarian and industrial, there’s no evidence that there has ever been a truly matriarchal power structure in human history.

Although hunter gatherers are more egalitarian (based on the ones that exist today), men still use the advantage of their strength and propensity towards violence to extract labour from women. The power imbalance is usually reinforced by keeping them out of politics, as is the case in all types of human society.

Men should do 50% of the child-related labour (and 50% of domestic labour more generally) past the stage where the child is weaned, earlier if the child is bottle-fed or the Mother can express.

@NonnyMouse1337

Women need to feel less guilty when their baby cries and the husband has to get up in the night.

Sorry for the derail... I agree with most of what you said in your post, but I've always found this aspect of childrearing in Western cultures a bit odd. I guess it is due to significant cultural differences. I don't have children, but I come from South Asian culture where the mother-child bond is considered to be very important. The mother tends to be the primary, if not exclusive, caregiver in the early years of a child's life. Babies always sleep with the mother i.e. usually in a cot right next to the bed that the couple shares so she can breastfeed as often as required, or the man might sleep in the main bedroom and the woman sleeps with the baby in another room. This arrangement can carry on for several years until the child is maybe 4 or 5, usually sleeping between parents as the child gets older. Eventually children move into their own beds or rooms, but the idea is that it is perfectly normal and natural for mothers and their children to have a very close physical relationship in the early years.

In theory if I were to have a baby, I would have deep reservations about the notion that this close mother-child bond should be superseded in an effort to force some sort of 'equality' between the sexes. If mums are feeling a lot of guilt when their baby cries and they are refraining from responding, surely this is because they are enforcing what seems to me to be an 'unnatural' state i.e. not engaging in what is a very instinctive process of mother-child closeness in terms of feeding and caring?

That doesn't mean a man should not help with childrearing. In fact, the need for mothers to be the primary caregiver means other members of the family, including the partner, should be doing other household tasks like cooking, cleaning, laundry, looking after any other children etc because most of her attention and focus is on the baby.

I think you can have equality between women and men, without forcing each side to behave in exactly the same manner or to engage in exactly the same activities. I feel there are genuine evolutionary and biological differences between the sexes that are most apparent in the mother and father roles during the early years of a child's life. They don't seem interchangeable to me.

It would be interesting to hear other women's perspectives, especially mothers, as I've read posts here before from some about how much they preferred to be at home with their baby rather than rush back to work (which seems like a perfectly unsurprising and natural response to me). But maybe that's best left for a different thread rather than derailing the conversations in this one. Anyway just felt like I had to comment on that point as I thought the cultural differences in the role of motherhood were interesting.

This would be absolutely fine if “women’s” work were valued and compensated at the same levels as “men’s” work, and if women were equally represented in positions of power.

The problem is that they are not, in any culture, and the physical necessity of giving birth as well as men’s strength advantage is used to extract labour and suppress women’s agency and power.

Whether women are better suited to nurturing is neither here nor there really.

It's what Sheryl Sandberg said in her book "Lean In". It's not luck that you get a 'supportive' partner, you have to choose him. As long as we marry and/or get pregnant by men whose attitudes are 100 years old, we're done for. Our daughters need to know what they want and what to look for and how to distinguish the genuine from the ones making the noises they think women want to hear.

@NonnyMouse1337 in your long discourse on the merits of a certain type of child rearing I found the key item to be I don't have children

I do have children, and now a grandchild and I agree with every word spoken by Nonny mouse. Biology is not oppression. It is our attitude towards it which is the issue.

Men should do 50% of the child-related labour (and 50% of domestic labour more generally) past the stage where the child is weaned, earlier if the child is bottle-fed or the Mother can express

This is pure ideology, divorced from reality and from human nature.

This is pure ideology, divorced from reality and from human nature

Yeah. Whatever. Why not also assume that men, higamous hogamous and all that, will fuck around, that women will be left for younger models, that porn and prostitution are here to stay and everything else that is 'against nature'? Because all those things have been defended as being natural too. So has rape.

Care is not just about child rearing though because at the other end of live women also do more of the caring for older people both paid & unpaid

There is no biological reason for that to be the case. Older people can be equally well cared for by men or women and yet somehow it’s the women who do it.

Successive Governments entire approach To care for older people is that family - by which they mean primarily wives, daughters & DIL - will step in & do most of it

I think women tend to look at it from the perspective of the weaker class. So much is out of our control.

A major question is ‘Given that men as a class have a physical advantage over women as a class and control the wealth, power and sex in a patriarchal society, how can we move towards a society where men simply don’t take what they want from women?’

Totally agree Kit19, although currently mourning a male member of my family who bucked this trend and who was a magnificant human being.

I genuinely think the sort of feminism which has sought to position biology and the roles which have arisen from it, as due always to 'patriarchal oppression' is in part what has led us to transgenderism as an ideology.If you are really arguing in favour of a form of transhumanism - of detaching yourself from biology and the natural world, then you might well find yourself in a similar place.

Once equal legal and civil rights are in place, then differences between people and groups become more evident. From asserting sameness, equality and similarity, we come full circle to recognising individual differences once again.

In a contemporary, pluralistic society we have the security of a equal rights framework as a safety net. It assures us that we could make different choices if we so wished. That's why Denmark has witnessed, perhaps, a marked difference in career, and other choices, between the sexes. the sexes have not become identical in choice or preference at all. Generally speaking.

Yeah. Whatever. Why not also assume that men, higamous hogamous and all that, will fuck around, that women will be left for younger models, that porn and prostitution are here to stay and everything else that is 'against nature'? Because all those things have been defended as being natural too. So has rape

Yes, much of pornography and prostitution is inherently exploitative of women - because it is predicated on a male model of sexual response and behaviour. That model has its origins in the male sexual drive, which I think operates differently in males and females.

I think we're getting there! 100 years ago we couldn't vote or engage in public life. Fifty years ago we couldn't get a mortgage or a car loan. Nowadays we have almost equal rights under the law. We still have some areas of inequality but we should feel joyous about how far we've come!

I think the massive and vicious backlash we're going through now is actually a good indication of how powerful women are becoming. Right now the fight is to hold on to the rights we have achieved. I think one part of that is acknowledging how far we have come in a short time.

As far as biological differences go, we can certainly build a society that respects mothers and grandmothers and the generative power of women. Why not? And women are free in this country to choose to be mothers or not, to work in whatever career they choose, to live and live how they please. I think it's wrong to be despondent and pessimistic. We are making amazing progress. One day every girl born in any part of the world will be able to look forward to a free and fulfilling life. That's the aim and we are getting there.

genuinely think the sort of feminism which has sought to position biology and the roles which have arisen from it, as due always to 'patriarchal oppression' is in part what has led us to transgenderism as an ideology.If you are really arguing in favour of a form of transhumanism - of detaching yourself from biology and the natural world, then you might well find yourself in a similar place

So embrace that so-called difference. Accept that men are what they are because of 'nature'. Accept that male-violence, prostitution, and porn will always exist because of 'nature'. Because this is where you position leads you.

I don't believe it because I've seen enough social difference and variation and I've seen enough social conditioning to know it is a product of social and not biological conditioning. That's not 'transhumanism' because gender roles are social and not biological.

One day every girl born in any part of the world will be able to look forward to a free and fulfilling life. That's the aim and we are getting there

That's the key goal now, as far as I can see. Creating the same equality laws in other countries and cultures. some may call that cultural imperialism, but if 'a movement' means anything it means moving towards a goal.

Agree with Nonny that choice is key.
Agree with Winter that legislation is essential- so eg we need to decriminalise abortion, repeal the GRA and have statutory regulation of invasive ‘transition’ treatments for children and vulnerable adults. Bearing in mind brain immaturity until 25.

Agree with Tork it will be the work of all of our lifetimes to campaign for. It’s shit but it’s also a comfort to be able to post on here

@Justhadathought

You’re missing the point. It isn’t to deny female biology, it’s to work towards women not being oppressed and exploited because of that biology.

Proper respect for the childbearing and rearing. Not the 'what a lovely little mum you are' but proper respect in terms of comparison to other jobs including financial respect. Also it includes it being more acceptable for men to work part time etc to share the burden. I think lockdown highlighted this issue. My DH had a row with work when they scheduled a team meeting when he needed to pick up DD2. They asked if his wife could do it! I was at work 30 miles away. He gets this all the time from them. I've never been asked if my husband can do the childcare by my boss. ( we share the responsibilities as best as poss). These issues are not just a female issue.

That's not 'transhumanism' because gender roles are social and not biological

You are working from an assumption that all gender roles are social in origin. I don't believe they are. You only have to look at the natural world and other creatures to see how it works.

Obviously as human beings societies, civilisations and so on have evolved which reflected the fact that females became pregnant, gave birth and nested, and males went further afield in pursuit of food and resources. That males were stronger in certain ways, and could defend the tribe from outside attacks and so on.

It is only when gendered roles become absolutely imposed, in spite of individual difference or preference, that they are an issue, surely?

You are working from an assumption that all gender roles are social in origin. I don't believe they are. You only have to look at the natural world and other creatures to see how it works

Is the clownfish argument in another guise?

You’re missing the point. It isn’t to deny female biology, it’s to work towards women not being oppressed and exploited because of that biology

Obviously the goal should be to minimise unnecessary and avoidable exploitation, but i think we also have to accept that some degree of personal restriction and limitation are an inherent fact of life. All of our choices involve compromises and restrictions on certain other aspects of our life. This is human life. I'm all for a humanism which realises this.

Sometimes acceptance can be liberating, choosing not to spend a life time full of anger, rage and resentment.

I think lockdown highlighted this issue. My DH had a row with work when they scheduled a team meeting when he needed to pick up DD2. They asked if his wife could do it! I was at work 30 miles away. He gets this all the time from them. I've never been asked if my husband can do the childcare by my boss. ( we share the responsibilities as best as poss). These issues are not just a female issue

Exactly. Then some say 'ooh nature' ...

Is the clownfish argument in another guise? grin

I'm not sure what the clownfish argument is?

Of course biology is important. It is what makes women different from men. And hormones are powerful substances which shape our moods, our thought patterns, our drives , our instinctual responses.

That is not to say there is not a spectrum of possible expression within each sex. Of course there is. We know that. But the underlying 'program' is also there. Whether we choose to over-ride it or go with it has become more of a possibility now. But many women. for example, simply don't want to overcome their maternal instinct and urge to be around their young baby/small child as much as possible. And find they don't want to return to work until the children are older. And many women who return to work do feel conflicted about it.

Obviously for some, staying at home is not a choice they have the luxury of making, as many households now require two incomes to function, and if you are a single parent then life can be a struggle just to survive.

You can research the Clownfish argument yourself. It's out there. If you knew anything about modern feminism and the trans debate you'd instantly get it.