The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

I've seen a few things today on social media which got me thinking: How do "liberal" feminists square up the argument that being a women is a feeling vs the experience we all know?

1. The awful disappearance of Sarah Everard has led to an outpouring on twitter of women highlighting how they are essentially bound by a curfew all the time (and not just when the police "helpfully suggest" it) and feel the fear of being followed/harassed/assaulted by men in public constantly.

2. Kamala Harris posted a video on Instagram about the 2.5million women how have left the workforce in the US (similar stats on Guardian about the UK) and it's driven by women being in lower paid work and not having access to childcare when schools close.

3. This scene from Fleabag appeared on my Facebook feed where Kristin Scott Thomas gives a powerful speech about how women are constantly affected by their bodies through the start of menstruation to menopause. Lots of positive articles from the time it aired:
   www.refinery29.com/en-gb/fleabag-season-2-episode-3

And yet these same women would call others bigots for saying biology matters and instead that feelings are more important to being a woman than anything else?
That to dislike finding myself in an enclosed public space with someone visibly male is phobic, and that our reproductively system has a huge impact in our lives and why women are still discriminated against?

Argh. I'm just sick of being the only one in my friends group that seems to see the hypocrisy.
They say JKR is a nasty transphobe but equally complain about the patriarchy and how childcare costs put women put of work

@DialSquare

I'm only going by your previous posts Rooty. And you are putting one group before another. Do you not agree that transwomen should be able to use women's single sex spaces? That's putting them before women and girls. Particularly ones that won't be able to use those spaces any more .

No. I have said repeatedly I am fine with a third space.

All I have done is raised some of the issues this would cause and considered the feelings of transwomen and transmen.

Because it's possible to do both, despite how these threads go.

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The problem with making any of that legal is the unintended consequences.

We're already seeing the unintended consequences, as recorded in Hansard in 2003/2004, that were handwaved away because the GRA was only supposed to apply to a few thousand people.

Yes! And if you do want to include the SM versions you'll see that one group of people suffer from the uninintended consequence of having their wishes brooked; the other set get threatened with and/or caused actual phsyical harm.

Wonder if you can guess who those 2 groups are? No, no peeking!

You've got it the wrong way round - ask them "why is it necessary to never have a word to exclusively denote 'human females'"? And "why is it necessary to never have anything specifically for females without including any male who wants in?"

Yes, this. Why exactly do we need to detach "woman" from female just because some males think in stereotypes? Some of them already think they can appropriate "female" too.

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

There are so many examples of this! Including Nigella herself I think.

No. I have said repeatedly I am fine with a third space. Which is great, seeing as TRAs are not. You are so transphobic!

All I have done is raised some of the issues this would cause and considered the feelings of transwomen and transmen. All you have really done is repeated "But what about the men?" and told women they must expand their bandwidth or stay nasty!

Because it's possible to do both, despite how these threads go. MMmm! Despite how these threads go... on to evidence the harm that acquiescing has done, in law, in real life.

You don't stop to wonder why? Never to answer a question simply. You just bat those away, ignore them, or answer with some sort of glib phrase.

Go on, nail your colours to the mast... look back at the questions you have been asked and answer them wholly and honestly!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You've got it the wrong way round - ask them "why is it necessary to never have a word to exclusively denote 'human females'"? And "why is it necessary to never have anything specifically for females without including any male who wants in?"

Yes, this. Why exactly do we need to detach "woman" from female just because some males think in stereotypes? Some of them already think they can appropriate "female" too.

Yes this is the danger. We're passed trying to protect the word "woman" as many transwomen and TRAs have already moved on to claim the word "female" to. Just look at what's happening with the census.

There’s also the “not my Nigella” crowd who are steadfastly basing all their knowledge and experience and requirements around the one person that they know and like. The cognitive dissonance gets short circuited by the needs of close friend.

THAT! That is what made it hard for me initially.

Then I had a chat with My Nigellas, both male and female, and realised they had the same fear as I did, couldn't raise the topic, discuss it candidly. We disagree on some points but all agree that biology is!

@CuriousaboutSamphire

No. I have said repeatedly I am fine with a third space. Which is great, seeing as TRAs are not. You are so transphobic!

All I have done is raised some of the issues this would cause and considered the feelings of transwomen and transmen. All you have really done is repeated "But what about the men?" and told women they must expand their bandwidth or stay nasty!

Because it's possible to do both, despite how these threads go. MMmm! Despite how these threads go... on to evidence the harm that acquiescing has done, in law, in real life.

You don't stop to wonder why? Never to answer a question simply. You just bat those away, ignore them, or answer with some sort of glib phrase.

Go on, nail your colours to the mast... look back at the questions you have been asked and answer them wholly and honestly!

I'm not a TRA, so I'm not sure whyce you said that.

Your belief that the us or them aggression has done any good whatsoever is interesting.

I don't have to nail my colours to any mast. That's my right.

You know, I'm far from being a great expert on feminism, or someone who can demonstrate an impressive life-long commitment to the cause. But the one thing I thought I knew about feminism was that it said women's minds, hearts, behaviour and achievements should not be constrained, or made subject to assumptions, due to their sex. I think that's a really basic principle that most women can understand and aspire to. I'm not saying that's all there is to it and it's as simple as that, but I'm just amazed at the topsy-turvy logic masquerading as feminism that basically says the complete opposite. I think it really must be the brain short-circuiting itself with a big shock of "BE KIND!".

@bourbonne

You know, I'm far from being a great expert on feminism, or someone who can demonstrate an impressive life-long commitment to the cause. But the one thing I thought I knew about feminism was that it said women's minds, hearts, behaviour and achievements should not be constrained, or made subject to assumptions, due to their sex. I think that's a really basic principle that most women can understand and aspire to. I'm not saying that's all there is to it and it's as simple as that, but I'm just amazed at the topsy-turvy logic masquerading as feminism that basically says the complete opposite. I think it really must be the brain short-circuiting itself with a big shock of "BE KIND!".

Yeah, all of that is fine.

But this campaign which is now wanting to give men curfews and change their behaviour is.......all of what you said, just for males.

And that's OK?

I think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern, addressing that problem is quite different to saying "women can be doctors and wear trousers if they want", which is the sort of thing I was talking about.

But the one thing I thought I knew about feminism was that it said women's minds, hearts, behaviour and achievements should not be constrained, or made subject to assumptions, due to their sex. I think that's a really basic principle that most women can understand and aspire to. I'm not saying that's all there is to it and it's as simple as that, but I'm just amazed at the topsy-turvy logic masquerading as feminism that basically says the complete opposite.

I know, how is a belief system based on sexist stereotypes supposed to be progressive. I find it boggling.

@bourbonne

I think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern, addressing that problem is quite different to saying "women can be doctors and wear trousers if they want", which is the sort of thing I was talking about.

No I get that.

But it's the same as some of the other arguments.

By deciding that men can't leave the house after 6, or have to completely change their behaviour, you are not only being sexist but just replacing one problem with another.

And it's all very well to say well we don't care because we only care about women, but back to my point about the majority of people and the way they think, most people see both sides.

Also, given that we know a great deal of rapes and assaults happen in people's own houses by someone they know, that isn't solving the problem.

It's just assuming that those rapists who pull women off the street will say ah the government says I'm not allowed out after 6 now.

All its actually doing is penalising decent men.

think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern

This is the key here. It is the raison d'être of feminism. The systemic oppression of females.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

think when there is a pattern of criminality that is virtually exclusive to one sex, and occurs as part of a sex-based dynamic manifesting itself physically against the opposite sex in a systematic pattern

This is the key here. It is the raison d'être of feminism. The systemic oppression of females.

But what's the solution?

I don't think anyone is pushing in earnest for all men to have a permanent 6pm curfew, are they? Certainly, there are the practical issues you raise Rooty, like keeping domestic abusers at home with their victims, plus the fact that street rapists tend not to obey rules anyway.

I think the point is that it's a very powerful thought experiment, to imagine the freedom and safety that women would have without the threat of male violence.

And to make us think - well, can decent men be a bit more proactive here? Instead of being blissfully oblivious, as many are?

"But what's the solution?"

A good start would be to look for solutions. We've acknowledged the problem, we've established the root cause... So why stop there and throw our hands up and accept that, hey, men will rape us and there's no point trying to stop it, because hopefully it won't happen to me, and anyway bad things happen to men too?

There are already several threads about the curfew comment. Apart from the lamentable state of the Greens when it comes to actual women's rights, it is a bit of a derail here. But it would be interesting to think about as an example of the cognitive dissonance involved. Why can't men just self ID as women according to Green Party thinking such as at their recent conference when various anti women policies were passed? Do the Greens think they wouldn't, or do they not care?

I'm not a TRA, so I'm not sure whyce you said that. I didn't say you were a TRA. I did sy that in your happy support for thord spaces TRAs would deem you transphobic!

Your belief that the us or them aggression has done any good whatsoever is interesting. And I didn't say that either, quite the opposite in many other posts, but nothing on the subject at all in that one! What are you referring to? Something I have never said! But you know that...

I don't have to nail my colours to any mast. That's my right. I would have been surprised had you said anything else!

Why has @RootyT00t derailed this thread to discuss something there is already a thread on?

The curfew thread is NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANS ISSUES. Yey on that thread and this @Rooty is doing her(?) best to conflate the two. Why is that?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Why has *@Rooty*T00t derailed this thread to discuss something there is already a thread on?

The curfew thread is NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANS ISSUES. Yey on that thread and this @Rooty is doing her(?) best to conflate the two. Why is that?

I don't know, why don't you ask rooty, instead of just being antagonising?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There are already several threads about the curfew comment. Apart from the lamentable state of the Greens when it comes to actual women's rights, it is a bit of a derail here. But it would be interesting to think about as an example of the cognitive dissonance involved. Why can't men just self ID as women according to Green Party thinking such as at their recent conference when various anti women policies were passed? Do the Greens think they wouldn't, or do they not care?

I see what you mean there. I think we would see many organisations backtracking, fast.

In answer to your question Curious, it was an example of how we don't always nail our colours.

You are obviously anti women violence but you don't agree with the curfew.

I am obviously against many of the trans issues but see issues with some of the arguments.

It's allowed.

Because despite your foot stamping and demanding, the world is not black and white.