Oh dear. A split.

[Redlake]

Kellie Jay ranting against feminists.

1. Feminism. Loads of branches. Some totally opposite views on some things.

There is no one set of views, do an exam, get feminist card. Loads of women who are feminist in word and deed do not consider themselves feminists. Loads of women consider themselves feminists but would totally disagree with another who also did. Word and deed is what matters. Labels? Can be used if want? Meaningless.

1. Sex > gender is not a feminist only thing.

I'm sure everyone has seen lots of feminists who are outraged by sex> gender. See? Labels. Irrelevant. That women with label feminist were first to really start challenging when this came to public attention. Women who were the type of feminist who have most fundamental opinion that women/girl oppression global far back as know, is due to our sex. Initially women with solid feminist credentials often in academia in the area. Women who have been/are, the worst sort of women. The sort that are ridiculed, insulted, inspire anger, real dislike. That sort. Doesn't mean that all women (and men) who think males in women's stuff is totally shitty. Are feminists. Obviously. Really really Obviously.

In the end it's easy as making a tit of yourself on a chat site,

To decide.
There are baddies. Who are they?
Feminists. Awful feminists who have short hair and probably no makeup and hate men and are usually lesbians. Yuck.
Pretty much everyone hates them, always have.

How do they operate? In secret. Probably outside in the countryside. Cloaks and hats for warmth. Black to be hard to spot.
Get together at night and plot how to be horrible to men.
Probably big book with important stuff to refer to.
Older women like soup, get cold. Big fire with pot of soup cooking.

Yep. Evil network of vengeful, only half sane, bitter women.

Yep that's what's going on...

think Posie upsets some feminists because she demonstrates that feminism is not central to the fight for women's rights.

Now THAT is an interesting thought! I'd have thought there was no difference between these two things - what do you see the difference is?

It needed posting because it is just as relevant as any other post on here. I am of independent mind and not easily persuaded by anyone telling me what I should think

Then why headline it as a ‘split’ rather than another perspective? A contribution to a diversity of views?

Disingenuous.

@titchy

I hate to break it to you OP, but women are not one hive mind. They are individual people with, careful now, their own opinions and everything

I know right.

This.

Then why headline it as a ‘split’ rather than another perspective? A contribution to a diversity of views?

Disingenuous.

Disingenuous? No. This particular poster has form for drive by shaming posts aimed at women discussing the potential conflicts on their rights from other groups.

I believe the intention was as mocking as the OP came across.

The OP doesn’t believe anyone disagreeing with them could be disagreeing from a positioned developed ‘independently’ and through active research. Values they supposedly have over each and every one else. Hence they plopped and added a little extra plopper and that will be it til next thread.

There was no intention to engage outside sneering if I remember rightly from interactions in the past.

The surprise at the notion that people might not agree on everything but still join together for a common cause is interesting. One of the things I most appreciate is seeing women across the political spectrum who are standing up for women’s rights. That in itself shows the diversity of thought.

So much for the echo chamber

@Clymene

So much for the echo chamber

Haha

I feel a bit sad for OP. They wanted this to be a gloating session. Maybe a few nice screenshots for The Bird and what they got was an interesting and lively discussion and respectable disagreement.

@KimikosNightmare

What's sad about it? I wanted to work ; if women don't want to, that's their decision but I don't see why tax payers should be expected to subsidise stay at home mothers.

Then you must resent paying tax for the sick , the elderly, the unemployed. When I was single and working away I never gave a moment's thought to such things. Sometimes you would hear someone whining about ' bums' or single parents as they inspected their wage packets. I'd be thinking ' get a fucking life mate , I don't envy them.' And I'm a man.

@KimikosNightmare

What's sad about it? I wanted to work ; if women don't want to, that's their decision but I don't see why tax payers should be expected to subsidise stay at home mothers.

Is the socialising of the next generation not work?

Do you agree with tax funding for child minding and education outside the home (that includes schools)?

Split? Let us know when you've resolved the tucute/truscum war.

Is the socialising of the next generation not work?

Do you agree with tax funding for child minding and education outside the home (that includes schools)?

So my son wasn't "socialised" because I worked? But the stay at home mother's was? What nonsense- if women don't want to work- that's their decision.

I see it as hinging around whether we view raising children as an individual lifestyle decision - in which case I guess I'd have to agree it's legitimate to not expect the taxpayer to fund it - or whether we believe there are benefits for all society in supporting greater choice for mothers and parents.

I'm in the second camp and yet I'm also more hesitant these days about giving the state a greater role in how children are raised. There was a time when I'd have had no qualms about it and even welcomed it, but I'm less of that mindset lately, which leaves me stuck on a very spiky fence.

But this, I think, is why we need to talk about it more, even if it does get heated, in fact especially if it gets heated.

@KimikosNightmare

Is the socialising of the next generation not work?

Do you agree with tax funding for child minding and education outside the home (that includes schools)?

So my son wasn't "socialised" because I worked? But the stay at home mother's was? What nonsense- if women don't want to work- that's their decision.

Was your son with you in work?

Or did you need to use a substitute to look after your child while you were working?

I'm in the second camp and yet I'm also more hesitant these days about giving the state a greater role in how children are raised.

Interested in this Floisme - could you say a bit more?

@KimikosNightmare I hope you’ve never used subsidised childcare just so you can go and work!
Actually, subsidised childcare has two key goals- developmental support for children who need it, and economic support for women to work, which net benefits the economy and I have zero issues with people who qualify using it, but it would be pretty hypocritical of kimikos to use it.

It is like what did the Romans ever do for us!
What did feminists ever do for mothers?
A hell of a lot if you know anything about feminism.

Parenting should never come down to a war between mums who work outside the house or inside the house. That is a complicated decision and we don't always have a choice either way.

I don't think feminism has got its head round supporting women who believe that early years care is best done at home and is currently pushing for all women to be back out earning and working just like men as soon as possible.

I think feminism should be focussing on how to support women to move between both these states as required and encouraging women to recognise that fulfilment isn't only found in the workplace (to balance the current stance).

At the moment we can't even discuss the downsides of working and the downsides of being a SAHM because there is always someone ready to attack either choice, sneer at the other party or tell them they are not a proper feminist for the choice they made. If we could shift the discussion to how to support women's choices and fix the problems we could maybe get somewhere.

@Sillydoggy

Parenting should never come down to a war between mums who work outside the house or inside the house. That is a complicated decision and we don't always have a choice either way.

I don't think feminism has got its head round supporting women who believe that early years care is best done at home and is currently pushing for all women to be back out earning and working just like men as soon as possible.

I think feminism should be focussing on how to support women to move between both these states as required and encouraging women to recognise that fulfilment isn't only found in the workplace (to balance the current stance).

At the moment we can't even discuss the downsides of working and the downsides of being a SAHM because there is always someone ready to attack either choice, sneer at the other party or tell them they are not a proper feminist for the choice they made. If we could shift the discussion to how to support women's choices and fix the problems we could maybe get somewhere.

As a working mum, I’m grateful for the non working and part time mums. They organise the basketball team, volunteer at the school disco, run the tuckshop, come in to do reading in my child’s class, etc etc. this unmarked labour is so relied on.

And I am grateful to the working mums who contribute to the economy and provide excellent role models to show my girls that there are other choices for them if they become mothers.

@prudencepuffin

I'm in the second camp and yet I'm also more hesitant these days about giving the state a greater role in how children are raised.

Interested in this Floisme - could you say a bit more?

I'm just more aware now that there is always a price attached to state support, be it in taxation or in greater state control. In this case I believe that, regardless of what choices we make for ourselves, we all benefit when children thrive, so I wouldn't have an issue with taxation. However if it were to mean greater state control of how we raise our families then I would want to know first know what form it would take. And no I am not advocating no state control - Lord knows it can be necessary. I'm just more wary than I used to be and conscious that the state is not always benign.

I don't see this as an issue to be resolved by government but an evolution required within our personal relationships with men, and how we make choices together which benefit children.

To me this would be more around a modern review of marriage, what it is and how it works.

Where it's now understood women have choices and opportunities, but as only women carry the burden of preganancy and birth, and as more women than men are likely to choose not to work or not prioritise work after children, women have a financial risk which requires protection.

I'd advise no young women to have a child without being married first, and to not get married without a clear understanding with a man that whichever role each parent takes, finances are fully shared for the interests of the family unit.

I'd advise young women to get much more rational, ruthless, and in control of the expectations of relationships, before they have children, and to use the legal protection of marriage for this.

This would protect women and benefit children. Men who wanted families with desirable women would have to step up to the expectations to get this.

I don't think it's a SAHM vs a WOHM issue, women will always vary in their choices on this, isn't that what feminism was for? And there's more than one way to successfully bring up children.

It's a women and men issue, we need the next evolution in these relationships, away from the 'every adult has the right to follow their dreams' culture which is disastrous for children, and more to a 'we commit to a partnership which we contribute to equally, if at times differently, for the benefit of the family' culture.
Which would protect women and benefit children.

I know this sounds like just a return to some traditional template, but it's not, because now young women have education, careers, and the power to make choices about when to have children and the type of mother they choose to be. It's just a recognition that some of the previous protection and leverage was thrown out with the bathwater.

Thanks for coming back Floisme - that makes it clearer for me. I wasnt sure if you were talking about state control in schools, for example making the curriculum more prescriptive or perhaps financial incentives or disincentives, which influence whether mothers can choose whether or not to work; or something else entirely. I agree that taxation is a common good and I also agree that the state may not always be benign. I was incredibly lucky to be able to share part-time childcare with a partner as both of us in reasonably well paid and flexible public service jobs. I wonder how many have that option now.

I'd advise young women to get much more rational, ruthless, and in control of the expectations of relationships, before they have children, and to use the legal protection of marriage for this.

Female Dating Strategy are a feminist group giving young women similar advice with their forums, podcasts and Handbook.