Have feminists brought this upon themselves?

[Lessthanaballpark]

I’ve heard this opinion so much lately, mostly amongst men who seem to be enjoying the struggle between feminism and trans-activism and the threat to women’s rights.

The opinion is that feminists have been attacking male spaces for years and now are getting their comeuppance.

Or that we’ve created the language of inclusion and gender that has led to this.

It’s a mean spirited attitude for sure. But is there any truth to it? Has feminism hoisted itself with its own petard?

The clothing thing IMO is complicated, because there are in reality a variety of reasons people might decide to dress outside the conventions associated with their sex.

For women it's often been an attempt to avoid associations with femininity that they find objectionable. Sometimes there can even be a kind of internalized misogyny involved. Other times it's just a fashion statement. It could be an attempt to actually pass as a man, too. I've never really heard of it being a sexual thing.

For men it can be trying to play with femininity vs masculinity, it could be fashion though IMO that's rare, it could be trying to pass as a woman, it could be part of a sexual fetish or thrill.

It may also in many cases, and I'd count Harry Styles/Bowie/Cobain in this, an attempt to be counter-cultural, and as such it's not actually about subverting gendered customs about clothing at all, because they depend on those for the perception of stepping outside the boundaries.

Our response to the action is going to depend on the purpose of it, and they aren't all benign.

And also, there's a massive difference between (for example) a man who likes to wear dresses because he likes to wear dresses, and a man who believes that these trappings of 'femininity' are an expression of him actually changing sex.

@Waitwhat23

And also, there's a massive difference between (for example) a man who likes to wear dresses because he likes to wear dresses, and a man who believes that these trappings of 'femininity' are an expression of him actually changing sex.

I think the former of those is actually a lot rarer than we sometimes like to admit. I don't see this as anything wrong with dresses as such, but I do think that we sometimes over-hype the attraction that people somehow innately have toward particular styles of clothes.

Dresses are just not that much better, in terms of practicality or comfort, than trousers. So there isn't usually a big practical advantage. They don't typically strike us as flattering on men because the tailoring isn't generally suited to their body shape.

By the same token, we don't in the west typically see many men who decide to wear robes, or women who decide to wear saris - even before the days when someone might have accused them of appropriation. Most people are happy and can find practical comfortable clothes within the normal bounds of cultural convention and there is no advantage to seeking out other types of clothing. Even if they admire them aesthetically.

Trousers are now as much women's clothing as men's, which was probably in part a status thing but also because they can be practical. But they are no longer exclusively male.

Sometimes we kind of speak as if people, especially kids, have some sort of inherent attraction to certain clothes that needs to be indulged to make them feel fulfilled. I'm not convinced this is really true, and I wonder if the emphasis didn't to some extent contribute to the easy acceptance many people have had for the existence of innate gender identity.

Sometimes we kind of speak as if people, especially kids, have some sort of inherent attraction to certain clothes that needs to be indulged to make them feel fulfilled. I'm not convinced this is really true, and I wonder if the emphasis didn't to some extent contribute to the easy acceptance many people have had for the existence of innate gender identity.

I think the issue that this highlights is that children use clothes in more ways than adults. Whilst adults use them for practical and social reasons children use clothes to roleplay, stretch their imaginations, sensory experience.

So a little boy dressing up as Elsa is healthy and normal because the shiny material has good sensory feedback and he roleplays a superhero. When Frozen was big it really highlighted that it's a lack of female superheroes, as both girls and boys ran with it. Until a certain age that is when they are socialised out of it.

Adults of course do do cosplay and must have a certain amount of sensory stuff going on, but I think the shift is more geared towards comfort as we age(soft pyjamas versus silk nighty)

And little kids just love sequins and sparkle. All little kids.
Then there are some things like most humans are found to like the colour blue from an evolution point of view, but if little boys like it it's used as 'proof' of boyness, yet in girls this is put down to personal preference.

I think the issue that this highlights is that children use clothes in more ways than adults. Whilst adults use them for practical and social reasons children use clothes to roleplay, stretch their imaginations, sensory experience.

The sensory aspect isn't something I'd considered - that's an interesting point.

@SmokedDuck

The clothing thing IMO is complicated, because there are in reality a variety of reasons people might decide to dress outside the conventions associated with their sex.

For women it's often been an attempt to avoid associations with femininity that they find objectionable. Sometimes there can even be a kind of internalized misogyny involved. Other times it's just a fashion statement. It could be an attempt to actually pass as a man, too. I've never really heard of it being a sexual thing.

For men it can be trying to play with femininity vs masculinity, it could be fashion though IMO that's rare, it could be trying to pass as a woman, it could be part of a sexual fetish or thrill.

It may also in many cases, and I'd count Harry Styles/Bowie/Cobain in this, an attempt to be counter-cultural, and as such it's not actually about subverting gendered customs about clothing at all, because they depend on those for the perception of stepping outside the boundaries.

Our response to the action is going to depend on the purpose of it, and they aren't all benign.

Our response to the action is going to depend on the purpose of it, and they aren't all benign.

But that's the impossible thing to discern isn't it, given that feminists, just like everyone else, are not mind readers.

You can't establish from looking at someone what their intent is. At what length is the skirt long enough? How subtle should the lipstick be? To be an acceptable attempt at being 'feminine' without offending? Is there a rule book?

@Waitwhat23
What many feminists do object to is the wearing of clothes in order to mock the sex who 'usually' wears them, usually combined with hugely sexualised clothing, 'comically' large fake boobs and jokes about how disgusting women are (the term fishy, commonly used by drag Queens, being an example). They are devaluing women. Not 'GC' feminists.

If it is ever an attempt to offend or mock well what is the best cure for this? I think actually it is to not be offended or to feel mocked. If there is some sort of untoward thrill from it that depends on that public reaction for its existence, then with a lack of public reaction it should dissipate but with disapproval and censure it will increase.

A lack of reaction to atypical gendered clothing choices for men and women, in my opinion, achieves several things; it normalises complete freedom of expression for all, it refuses to enter into any understanding or validation that there are masculine and feminine clothes, thereby allowing escape from these connotations, it refuses reaction to any who intend to parody, mock others or derive some inappropriate thrill from the response of others thereby decreasing their motivation.

But that's the impossible thing to discern isn't it, given that feminists, just like everyone else, are not mind readers.

You can't establish from looking at someone what their intent is. At what length is the skirt long enough? How subtle should the lipstick be? To be an acceptable attempt at being 'feminine' without offending? Is there a rule book?

I don't know what lipstick and skirt length have to do with what I said.

I am now sure that Dr Ray Blanchard is reading this forum.

twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1427726228123963404?s=19

You can't establish from looking at someone what their intent is.

You can be certain that a man who is wearing fake breasts along with his dress, heels and make up that he's not just wearing clothes he likes, he's trying to impersonate a woman.

@suggestionsplease1 given the constant promotion of drag shows on TV (on various different platforms) along with the open misogny which is seemingly acceptable as part of that form of entertainment (I became aware of the term fishy after it was talked about and laughed at as humorous on 'The Big Fat Show of the Year'), how can the mockery be ignored so that it dissipates?

It's completely ubiquitous.

@OldCrone

You can't establish from looking at someone what their intent is.

You can be certain that a man who is wearing fake breasts along with his dress, heels and make up that he's not just wearing clothes he likes, he's trying to impersonate a woman.

And then there's also context. If he's wearing these things on a stage or in front of a camera, we might think he's an actor, whereas if he's wearing them for his diver's licence photo, that's not the most likely interpretation.

Clothes send signals about how you want to be seen by others. A bald, goateed, heavily tattooed man in a wife-beater is infinitely more scary than a man in a dress, whether his legs are muscly or scrawny (or tattooed).

Maybe the tattooed guy is actually a nice harmless chap. (Most punks I knew back in the day looked scary but turned out to be really sweet, unusual people.) In an ideal world, sometime in the distant future, a woman will draw no conclusions one way or the other about the wife-beater guy. But that is then and this is now. So why does he choose these clothes that have that stereotypical information attached to it? At what point does the information become communication? Maybe, if he wants to re-assure women (and others) about his character when he's out and about (at home he can wear what he likes... unless his wife/girlfriend doesn't like it), he'd be better with a an ordinary T-shirt or even a tailored shirt.

So, guy in a long dress at an awards ceremony: no problem. That's a very specific, limited social situation. Guy in the chemist's or supermarket in a dress: bound to draw attention too... but we don't know what message he is trying to send; all we have is the information that is stereotypically associated with a man in a dress in a public place, which leaves women, in particular (because it is their dress he chose to adopt), wondering what his purpose is in wearing the dress.

So yes, suggestionsplease, we aren't mindreaders. Which is precisely the point. If a man is concerned to respect women, their dignity, their boundaries, he will not dress in public places in a way that carries either the information "Likes physical violence, including against women" even if he isn't a violent person who abuses women. If he does wear these clothes, then he must take the consequences, including women avoiding him.

Analogously, the public dress-wearer has crossed a boundary. What other boundaries is he going to cross, or try to? He would need to actively present himself as harmless, respecting of women, etc., in other ways, in his talk and demeanour (think Quentin Crisp: he didn't wear dresses but no-one could feel intimidated by him) for women not to think, 'Eyup, thas somat not reet 'ere', and to react accordingly—retreating, being evasive, trying not to draw attention to themselves looking at him, disappearing quietly from the scene, etc. And he should know that we will respond this way. It's up to him to correct anything about the information we get that he doesn't intend to communicate. It's not up to us to accommodate him.

Sorry, rogue 'either' in par.4 l. 3.

I know it’s a common argument that feminists devalue women’s traditional work and it’s easy to see what their reasons might have been. Men’s professions were seen as aspirational and so to prove themselves worthy of entry into them, feminists felt they had to prove that women had the skills associated with them: logic, reason, competition etc. Men really have only ever pretended to value women’s stereotypical traits when they have been scared that women are about to abandon home and hearth.

But did feminists actually in reality denigrate women’s work? Gloria Steinem was one of the first to put a monetary value on women’s unpaid labour and I’ve only ever seen women on these boards encourage SAHMs to value the work they do and to see it as important in its contribution to the running of the home.

I think it’s a version of feminism that is peddled by those who wish to divide women.

I was once supporting an online female friend of mine in exiting an abusive situation. She had precious little money at all, and we did some back of the envelope calculations on cost of childcare (halved to represent she was doing all of it, so essentially freeing up time for hubby to work/hobby etc), half the cost of having a house maid, and then the full cost of elder care (she was also sorting out hubby’s elderly parents). I forget the exact amount but it was colossal, and it shocked her to look at it in that way.

Well, I found The Feminine Mystique was pretty condescending at times. No doubt Friedan would say not.

But no, I don't think that's an imaginary charge, that feminism has had issues with motherhood, and women who see reproductive roles as valuable.

I think it’s a version of feminism that is peddled by those who wish to divide women.
I agree

feminism has had issues with motherhood, and women who see reproductive roles as valuable.
Not true at all. Feminism has issues with how society treats motherhood ie exploiting unpaid labour. But its feminism that's got us the good maternity leave women here have, the shared parental leave, tax breaks for couples where the woman stays at home. Now we are seeing campaigns for better treatment of women with birth injuries, better childbirth practices that are woman centred rather than medicalised etc. All led by feminist professionals.
You present this strawman argument about motherhood on this board all the time with no evidence at all and it's really annoying.

@QuentinBunbury

I think it’s a version of feminism that is peddled by those who wish to divide women. I agree

feminism has had issues with motherhood, and women who see reproductive roles as valuable.
Not true at all. Feminism has issues with how society treats motherhood ie exploiting unpaid labour. But its feminism that's got us the good maternity leave women here have, the shared parental leave, tax breaks for couples where the woman stays at home. Now we are seeing campaigns for better treatment of women with birth injuries, better childbirth practices that are woman centred rather than medicalised etc. All led by feminist professionals.
You present this strawman argument about motherhood on this board all the time with no evidence at all and it's really annoying.

And plenty of women make the point regularly here that they, personally, have been poorly treated by feminists when they themselves choose a role outside the paid workforce. But, when they say so, you always tell them they are imagining it.

It's not "plenty of women", it's a very small number of posters and one in particular as I recall that mentions it a lot. People question it to understand the context and usually express their surprise and disappointment as it's not something they've ever come across before. It is very peculiar to insist on chiding other women, repeatedly, for the actions of some other women, once, in the past. Who women here don't know, and who haven't ever done the same thing.

To hold it up as some kind of proof that feminists have brought the ire of men, and disapproving women, down upon themselves is just, well, daft.

Well yes, given that there are a lot of posters that post regularly, it makes sense that it's typically the same ones who continue to say the same things.

But the fact that second wave feminism has an issue with motherhood is not exactly unexplored territory, including within feminism, so I'm always surprised when I hear people deny it like it's just made up.

But there are a certain number of posters who generally seem to think that any criticism of feminism is out of order. Amazingly, it seems to be the one political/ideological/social movement that never had any really bad ideas. Except of course liberal feminism which isn't real feminism at all so it doesn't count.

No, I think that this specific criticism of feminism isn't well evidenced.

I think that the work done on getting statutory maternity leave, improvements in childcare provision, the introduction of child benefit paid to women, legal employment protection for pregnant women/women on maternity leave, etc etc demonstrate that feminists value motherhood.

It's just too easy for those with a vested interest in pitting feminists against each other to twist the knife into this. Feminists rightly fought to allow women to have full opportunities outside of being a mother, if that was their choice. To not face discrimination on the assumption that they would want to stop work and be a mother and housewife. It's a simple step from there to insinuate that feminism doesn't value motherhood as a result of objecting to it being the expectation for all women.

But, I'm interested. If it's accepted that feminism does have an issue with motherhood and there's a persistent attitude of denigrating women that choose it, or who choose other unapproved-of choices, what should we all do to address this? What is the way forward to improve this and to stop feminists from continuing to damage their own cause?

I expect people know this book but I'm going to recommend it anyway:

bookshop.org/books/mother-nature-maternal-instincts-and-how-they-shape-the-human-species/9780345408938

I found it impossible to put down, like a really good novel. Hrdy brings in her own experiences as a mother because she found they shed light on anthropology and animal ethology; she discusses the history of these sciences, and what they tell us about our construction and understanding of motherhood. I'm not a mother and never wanted to be, but she really made me think about the relationship between a woman and being a mother, as well as about how we study ourselves and other animals.

I think that the work done on getting statutory maternity leave, improvements in childcare provision, the introduction of child benefit paid to women, legal employment protection for pregnant women/women on maternity leave, etc etc demonstrate that feminists value motherhood.

No, that shows that people value working mothers, which is something slightly different. It is notable to the degree that these and other such measures benefit women working in middle-class professions, whilst doing little to benefit other groups, such as stay-at-home parents.

I agree you can’t argue their is no difference between men and women and then be up set when men say yeah I agree so I gonna be a women it’s all just based on social contucts

Nobody has ever seriously argued that there is no difference. Hyperbole has been used to show how stupid the gender construct can be if we (society) implicitly or explicitly restrain people by these.

Agree with pp above: Harry Styles is a really good example of wearing what you please without denigrating anyone by doing it. I have fought my whole life not to be constrained by society's idea of how girls/women should behave, and do the things that i want to do. Hence pretty dresses, and liking to shoot things like AK 47s, dressmaking and metalwork. No cooking, but i do like to tinker with my car. And all the while i like my hair to look nice and wear make up. and i have zero objections to anyone else doing the same. Just don't make a song and dance about "giggle giggle we're SOOOOO girly" etc.

No, that shows that people value working mothers, which is something slightly different.

I disagree. At first it was about getting women who wanted to be in the workplace a relatively equal footing, acknowledging that having a baby needs time and space and that women shouldn't be penalised for that. And then when that was established it has shifted to getting men to take parental leave of the same amount or more or whatever suits that particular family. It is a marathon, not a sprint and maternity leave was the urgent starting point which has now naturally developed into parental leave (including adoption etc).

The next big thing i can see will be about older workers (men and women) having something similar to care for older family members, or temporary care for other family members as needed.