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?

@merrymouse

Yes SmokedDuck.

Apart from anything else, any labour intensive enterprise depends on women reproducing the labour…

Yeah, I mean we are in a position to look at this as a justice issue.

But if you were part of a society where women had to go to war against the next tribe over, maybe your society went the way of the dodo as a result, so it's not like your going to be spreading around your ideas about the rational argument that women should be sent to war just like men.

This idea that the there was some kind of sexism inherent in seeing the Soviet inclusion of women in the combat arms as uncivilized requires some examination, I think.

While the communists presented themselves as unshackling women from their oppression, it's worth remembering that this was in the context of a regime which, to many westerners, quite clearly subverted human autonomy and even personhood itself to the advancement of the regime.

One of the things that struck me reading Wild Swans, about the revolution in China, was the expectation that the author's mother should almost completely put her role of a mother (and wife) in second place. At certain points she was able to spend one night a week with her husband, but later, when she had children, she was rarely there in the early years, because of the demands of her job. Boarding nuseries existed so that parents could both work without the demands of family life getting in the way. One of the children was raised by an aunt because of the demands of the revolution. Even when pregnant, it was expected that women should work in dangerous environments if it was the need.

Maybe we could say that is recognizing that women should be seen as the same as men, one type of feminism might say that.

But it could be just as much a feminist argument to say that they simply recognize, beyond the bare minimum, that there are different needs and even life-courses that are likely to be manifest for men and women. And that to treat and think about women identically to men in all ways is in fact to fail to recognize them as women, qua women.

This difference is representative of a split among women in the west even now. And it's arguable that if you take the former view, that reproduction is not deeply intertwined with what it is to be a women, it's much easier for something like modern gender ideology to take hold.

@CrazyNeighbour

Why historically are women not part of front line conflict?

Why historically did one third of women die giving birth?
Why last year was it safer to be an American soldier in Afghanistan than an American Black woman over 35 giving birth?

Women were doing the really dangerous activity which you have been oblivious to.

There have been no American Soldier deaths in Afghanistan since 8/2 2020 when two lost their lives.

And i would suggest that the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives had nothing to do with men's dominance over them.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is

Is it really the case that there are many women who are stated feminists, who claim or argue that women and men are identical - that they should be seen that way?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is

I think you brought up fighting on the front line. What was your point?

And i would suggest that the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives had nothing to do with men's dominance over them.

And there we have it. No knowledge and no willing to listen either!

Here, have a book recommendation

www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Women-Exposing-World-Designed/dp/1784706280/ref=asc_df_1784706280/?hvlocphy=9045570&linkCode=df0&hvptwo&psc=1&psc=1&hvnetw=g&hvadid=256266022931&hvpone&hvlocint&th=1&hvpos&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl&hvqmt&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&hvtargid=pla-886826816787&hvrand=14330645456425784243

@AssassinatedBeauty

Is it really the case that there are many women who are stated feminists, who claim or argue that women and men are identical - that they should be seen that way?

Identical other than actual sex organs and actually giving birth?

There are quite a few who think for example that it is clear that for women to be "equal" it's important to make sure that women and men equally split parenting and workplace roles. Or that the only reason women are more often the primary caregiver in the early years is socialisation.

Feminism has tended to be highly constructivist, and the policy approaches that feminist thinkers tend to support reflect that. If the breadth of opinion in feminism reflected what we see in disciplines like anthropology and the behavioral sciences, it would be less weighted in that direction, so I think it's fair to say that it picks and chooses the research that supports it's ideological position to some extent.

This is why it has had such a problem dealing with motherhood, And for every women who, by becoming a mother starts to see what feminism is about, there is another who becomes a mother and feels alienated by it.

Sorry - I'm not trying to be awkward - maybe its me and i have missed the point - and don't feel as though you need to argue back and forth. I think throughout history men & women have both done really heroic and dangerous stuff in order to further society

But, I'm still struggling with the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives. This would be a medical issue and i don't think you can equate it to male dominance.

I know giving birth is an horrendous thing for women to endure and deaths caused by it are awful. But men die from male only afflictions too. Mental health issues in men are currently very high and the male suicide rate reflects this.

The actual labour women have been doing, is more dangerous than being in a war zone - will depend on which war zone. But both men and women have being doing dangerous labour activities through history (mining, ship building etc) and it was never used to exclude them from the vote. When the 4th amendment came in and gave women the vote it also gave voting rights to loads of men that didn't previously have them either.

Like i stated before I wasn't going to post any further - and a few posters on here have instructed you to "...don't waste their time and energy with patient explanations..." - which i thought was a bit of a nasty comment for a discussion forum - but there you go.

And i would suggest that the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives had nothing to do with men's dominance over them.

What do you think it is to do with? Also, I thought you were done annoying the women here?

@Felix125 report my post if you think it goes against talk guidelines. If you think my polite piece of advice to other posters was "nasty" then you are very naive and sheltered. Not to mention demonstrating once again that men often view polite non-compliant women as "nasty". 🙄

@SmokedDuck, I'm not up to speed with feminist theory and research, apologies. Are there any well known feminists who argue for this strict 50/50 in all areas approach to equality? It's just not something I'm familiar with, having always seen feminism as about liberation from patriarchy and recognising women as having some inevitable differences (and consequent needs) but still as valuable/important/equal/human as men.

OK. I'll bite

Sorry - I'm not trying to be awkward - maybe its me and i have missed the point - and don't feel as though you need to argue back and forth. I think throughout history men & women have both done really heroic and dangerous stuff in order to further society Don't apologise. Stay and engage, with a really open mind. Because yes, you have missed something.

The Invisible Women book recommendation was a serious one!

But, I'm still struggling with the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives. This would be a medical issue and i don't think you can equate it to male dominance. Who are the original medical pioneers? The people who control training, publishing etc. For centuries that has been men. Who have their own idea about the weaker sex... and that leads to socialisation that reinforces that image.

You know, like the idea that women shouldn't play sport as it would jiggle their womb free of their body.

More recent? When did women get event parity in the World Championships? 1995! Over 100 years of lobbying from women. Men and the Olmpics... well, they may well be in the remnaining 'female' sports by the next event... not as transwomen but as men in synchronised swimming etc. Because it's just not fair to The Mens! Something that has been acknowledged within 20 years of it first being seriously lobbied for!

Maybe women will be only too glad to leave the gendered sports to the men who take them up... maybe ALL sports, as things are going!

Back to medecine... A recent study showed that female pain is perceived to be less than that of a man. Even when the words they use are identical and the perosn reporting is the same person, just changing their name from Jane to John. Male and female doctors made the same value judgement

theconversation.com/womens-pain-is-routinely-underestimated-and-gender-stereotypes-are-to-blame-new-research-158599

I know giving birth is an horrendous thing for women to endure and deaths caused by it are awful. But men die from male only afflictions too. Mental health issues in men are currently very high and the male suicide rate reflects this. Giving birth isn't an 'affliction'. We can know and support the inequities in other areas of health without having to dismiss the inbuilt inequity of porvision in childbirth, especially in BAME mothers. We need to recognise each for what it is and deal with it.

Have a rethink!

The actual labour women have been doing, is more dangerous than being in a war zone - will depend on which war zone. But both men and women have being doing dangerous labour activities through history (mining, ship building etc) and it was never used to exclude them from the vote. When the 4th amendment came in and gave women the vote it also gave voting rights to loads of men that didn't previously have them either. 4th amendment?

I am not sure what your point is here? Grooming tigers is more dangerous that grooming tabbie cats!

Like i stated before I wasn't going to post any further - and a few posters on here have instructed you to "...don't waste their time and energy with patient explanations..." - which i thought was a bit of a nasty comment for a discussion forum - but there you go. That would have been based in your having been quite dismissive of other people's repsonses.

And unfortunately your posts read very much like many others, where those posters are here purely to irritate, gather quotes for Twatter and otherwise piss around with The Wimmins of Mumsnet!

So there you go. Some food for thought, perhaps!

I went on a date the other week and the bloke (a child psychologist) said he thought that the whole trans thing was “rubbish” but “all these moaning feminists won’t get anywhere as they’re just annoying everyone“.

Looking back I’m surprised I didn’t kick him in the goolies

But, I'm still struggling with the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives. This would be a medical issue and i don't think you can equate it to male dominance.

Studies show that for various reasons women’s health concerns are taken less seriously than men’s, and this particularly affects black women.

If you are struggling to understand this please read ‘Invisible Women’ by Caroline Criado Perez.

Sorry, didn’t see IW already recommended.

It can't be recommended too often

it was never used to exclude them from the vote.

This is literally why Swiss women were excluded from voting until the 70s.

In the U.K., women couldn’t vote on equal terms with men until 1924.

it was never used to exclude them from the vote. I missed that bit.

And not having the vote was a reason for women not to own property, as ownership conferred social standing, which would have suggested the ability to vote! A circular argument but it lasted well!

which i thought was a bit of a nasty comment for a discussion forum - but there you go

Poster A ….girl guides don’t admit males

Poster B….yes they do

Poster A…..well everyone obviously agreed to it

Poster B….no, in fact parents haven’t been advised of this change

Poster A …..…..

You aren’t discussing anything

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

which i thought was a bit of a nasty comment for a discussion forum - but there you go

Poster A ….girl guides don’t admit males

Poster B….yes they do

Poster A…..well everyone obviously agreed to it

Poster B….no, in fact parents haven’t been advised of this change

Poster A …..…..

You aren’t discussing anything

So changes to the GG constitution are done by what means?

The management must have a structure in which proposals are voted on and changed if voted in. Unless the GG are ran by one person who makes changes regardless of others opinions.

In any event i would suggest that the number of 'males' in the GG are relatively small as a percentage. In that I would be hard pressed to find any 'males' in the local GG's in our area

So changes to the GG constitution are done by what means? By edict!

The management must have a structure in which proposals are voted on and changed if voted in. Unless the GG are ran by one person who makes changes regardless of others opinions. Not sure you quite understand how such organisations work! Happily there are a few GG Leaders posting who might decide to come and give you their fiirst hand experience.

Meanwhile you could Search for older threads about GGs and the shoddy way they made this decision.. and its ramifications. They all have Girl Guides in teh title!

In any event i would suggest that the number of 'males' in the GG are relatively small as a percentage. In that I would be hard pressed to find any 'males' in the local GG's in our area That's nice. I'll be sure to tell the female GG leaders who were ousted for protesting the sneaky way GGs decided to allow male bodies in sleeping areas whilst keeping the parents were unaware- TWAW after all - and TGTGs!

Of course, you could just ask about it, it being something you are unaware of. Rather than simply denying it, effectively calling posters liars!

MN Poster: GGs didn't tell parents that they were allowing boys to sleep in tents with girls, if those boys said they were transgirls, because they were all girls together, Inclusivity etc.

You: No, they didn't, or if they did it would have been consensual

Normal response: Did they? No! How can I read up on that?

Who are the original medical pioneers? The people who control training, publishing etc. For centuries that has been men. Who have their own idea about the weaker sex... and that leads to socialisation that reinforces that image.

So, the American Black woman over 35 giving birth who lost their lives last year didn't die from medical issues that the Drs & nurses battled to avoid. There will be a decision made by medical staff not to try too hard to save her life because she was a woman? Well I stand corrected. I certainly wont risk taken my wife or daughters to any hospital if they fall ill if that practice still continues.

And i agree with you with the Olympics - should be sport for all and should have been for men and women equally right from the start. All events have a male and female section.

I am not sure what your point is here? Grooming tigers is more dangerous that grooming tabbie cats!

The original post alluded to the fact that labour has been more deadlier than war zones. My point was that it depends what zone you pick. D Day for example had a death rate of about 1-2 soldiers per minute for a sustained period of time. I can't imagine any labour activity matching this. The original poster also referred to American Soldier death rate in Afghanistan the previous year. Well that happened to be 2 which is very low for a war zone.

And I'm not here to irritate - just putting points across. You post has told me to 'stay and engage'. And I don't use Twitter or anything similar and would not re-quote peoples views in here anywhere else. I hoped this was a closed discussion type room to share and engage with ideas & thoughts