Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

[thedankness]

From TWAW, pro "sex-work", "kinky sex" and porn, plastic surgery, accepting low standards in relationships with men, being anti-abortion to more trivial things such as wearing heels, and yes, shaving, and so much more, so many women will defend these things to the hilt. They refuse/are unable to see how these things are bad for themselves and/or women generally, even after presented with arguments. Obviously some people will disagree with points made in an argument, but I just don't see men subjugating themselves en masse like I do women.

I feel sad. Why can't we as women just love ourselves and look out for ourselves? I feel like we are groomed into self-hate. Is the notion of female self-acceptance and worth truly so radical that a significant number can't even fathom it as a possibility for themselves?

Why is it so common for women to act against their interest? And can or should we do anything about it?

This is a bit poorly-worded, have thoughts but am interested to hear others' opinions.

I love wearing makeup up and heels and shaving my legs! The only criticism I've ever had for these things are from other women - surely women should support women to be strong and make their own choices? FWIW I am the main wage earner in my home and can't think when I've ever had to ask anyone for relationship advice as I'm very confident in knowing who I am and what is acceptable to me.

Whilst I agree with you 100% about how girls are socialised, I don't think that telling women they are letting themselves down by doing things like wearing makeup etc is helpful or productive. As a woman, I have spent my life being told how I should be, what I should wear, how I should present myself etc by society and to be honest, yet another voice telling me what I should do, be, wear etc just makes me feel nothing but rage, frankly. I am utterly sick of being told what I should be doing.

I run my own business- started it from scratch, and have won diversity/inclusion awards for it. I also wear makeup because I like it. I do it for me, and I do it even if I'm not leaving the house because I like the way I look with it. Are those two things incompatible?- should I not do something I enjoy doing just for the sake of trying to promote female acceptance? Where does my "responsibility" for this start and end? I think we should be focusing on dismantling the patriarchal society we live in, rather than berating women for the things they do.

Ok but you did write 'or tell them that their choice is anti feminist or feminist that I will always say STFU'. I'm glad you don't think we should be responding by telling other women to STFU when we talk about this though, I completely agree with you.

In terms of disagreement that those things are facts, if you want to say that naming and title traditions impact on other people, that's the sort of claim that needs explanation. Because that is literally how they work, especially titles. They signify things, and for that to happen we're reliant on other people to play along.

We all know what eg Mrs or Reverend mean because a sufficiently critical mass of people use them to mean a thing. If all of a sudden Mrs started being used exclusively by unmarried women or, I dunno, people who work in retail or come from Yorkshire or something, it would soon take on another meaning. The actions of those people would impact on you, too, because people would start thinking if you used Mrs that you were in fact signifying something else (if you are in fact from Yorkshire and/or work in retail please substitute something that doesn't apply lol). Similarly, when you get married and you take on your husband's name, people also know what that means. It has a history and connotations that we don't get to opt out of as individuals, because the only way that changes is if enough people do it. If none of this were true, the names and titles people use would just be random meaningless syllables. They're not.

Also, patriarchal and patrilineal aren't two mutually exclusive terms. Something can be both, and Anglo surname traditions are. One of the definitions of patriarchy in the Cambridge dictionary is a society controlled by men, and obviously we wouldn't have evolved the patrilineal naming system we did without a patriarchal society.

Andrea Dworkin's writing is profound, but also extreme; and when you get into her work you end up full of rage, anger and even hatred; but it is not healthy to be permanently enraged. And when you view everything in terms of 'patriarchal oppression' you see it everywhere. Same with any other worldview which is based on perceptions of hierarchies of power and oppression. When it becomes this way, feminism can be just as bad as any other form of Intersectionalist grievance taken to extreme.

Relations between men/male and women/female have developed around the basic differences between the sexes - and have then hardened or become encoded into social practices and expectations of the sexes, depending on the period in time, or the culture.

In the animal kingdom the biggest and strongest tends to call the shots, or can certainly exert its power over others through sheer brute force. And in this way males seek to exert control.Human civilisation is about taming and channeling/controlling the animal instincts to a large degree, so that human/social values and ideas can be nurtured and even flourish, even though the more instinctive forces always lie beneath the surface.

The inherent differences between the sexes will always be there, and the best we can hope for is to ameliorate or eliminate any unnecessary hurdles on the path towards' equality' - but at the end of the day the fact of our biology; the fact that it is women who become pregnant and give birth and the subtle differences that arise from those facts are best accommodated in the most equitable ways possible.

At the most extreme you can end up advocating for some kind of separatism. -whether that is lesbian separatism or the kind of separatism espoused by men's rights activists - where they disavow any contact or relationship with women. But most people do seek relationship, or are in relationship with members of the opposite sex - so relationships do have to be managed in as reasonable and healthy was as possible.

@TrashedSofa first-born so inheriting everything simply increased the chances of family fortune remaining intact. Cruel, yes, but for all involved (except for first born sons, lucky *).

As for titles - they DO change meaning, this is why in some countries title that was previously associated with being married (all equivalents of Mrs) is now a neutral title used for all adult women. Language evolves to suit the needs of people using it.

For example, in Poland on forms you can only tick "Pan" or "Pani" (Mr or Mrs), there is no "Panna" on the form and an adult woman would be very offended if you called her that even if she was unmarried

@RebelliousCow I suppose it boils down to the idea that having equal value does not mean being the same.

The idea that sexes are somehow fighting against each other also omits the fact that we are all humans and humans can get along with other humans who happen to have some different characteristics. What extreme feminism forgets is that most women have at least few men in their lives that they simply like

Although with all that said, I am more than happy with "male activists" to stay in their basements

Yes, absolutely. These are good examples of my point. Language can evolve and meanings can change, but it needs a critical mass of people to buy in. As does language staying the same. It's about what's happening on a societal level, that's how naming systems and titles function.

@TrashedSofa and this is how title Ms also came to be in its current format, these things happen somewhat organically

some people are even choosing an entirely new name upon getting married - so that the family could have the same name, but neither partner takes on the other's name

also here is an interesting short video about title of Mrs

Yes, except when they come out and you encounter one it can be extremely unpleasant to be on the receiving end of their intense animosity.

They do indeed happen organically, or sometimes they don't happen at all. I actually know someone from uni who did the new name thing!

The Anglo-centric tradition of the woman taking the man’s surname upon marriage is Patrilineal not Patriarchal. These are often confused 🫤 as you have done.

They are not 'confused'. They are interchangeable.

The western naming tradition could not be deemed patriarachal were there a matrilineage running concurrently with it, in which, say, 50% of women used their own names on marriage and passed this down to their children.

But they don't. So it is.

An individual woman's family name ceases to be 'patriarchal' once she's availed herself of this option. But given these are still in the minority, the system overall remains patriarchal.

No, they are not interchangeable. 😂 Therein lies your confusion.

This should say:
“An individual woman's family name ceases to be 'patriarchal' patrilineal once she's availed herself of this option. But given these are still in the minority, the system overall remains patriarchal patrilineal”

and this
”The western naming tradition could not be deemed patriarachal were there a matrilineage running concurrently with it”

Yes it could. You absolutely can have a patriarchal matrilineal society. These aren’t even rare in today’s world. Most women, globally, keep their surname when they marry and in societies that are much more patriarchal than ours.

If a naming tradition were in any way part of or indicative of a patriarchy, then societies that are matrilineal would also be firmly matriarchal. But they aren’t, most matrilineal societies are also patriarchal.

The two, lineage and archy are fully independent of each other.
One is not dependent on the other.

This independence means that patrilineal or matrilineal naming traditions do not affect patriarchy. They have zero influence on the rights and status of women.

@SerafinasGoose
Be careful saying this western naming tradition when you are describing a tradition that isn’t representative of all, or even the majority of western cultures.

I’m not sure when and where you mean. I think the advantage of handing on the whole estate intact to the first born male was that there was enough wealth and status to secure a profession for younger sons. In the UK it was traditionally army, navy or church.
Younger sons from very wealthy families did also sometimes get an allowance eg Lord Randolph father of the more famous Winston. and all Bertie’s friends at the Drones Club
It’s nice that you are always here for a chat @PaintedEgg.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo chatting online is my main form of chat throughout the say...that maternity life is not very exciting :(

as for inheritance - it also mattered to when there was little wealth, I'd say it mattered even more because there wasn't much to share - a small business, a house, maybe some savings... I don't support that system, but I kind of understand where it came from

basically if you had some land and one cow you wouldn't split either in two

I did not think cow splitting was the turn this thread was going to take!

I don’t think you would split the cow to give your daughter a dowry either though.

didn't think my lighthearted comment about cow-splitting would prove to be controversial :P

basing this entirely on literary examples - I always thought dowry was mostly money, but you could get a cow for a daughter

although I feel like this crosses the boundary into another sad realm of treating one's children as future investment opportunities, something that unfortunately still takes place

(sons for financial support, daughters for practical care or both)

The different cultural conventions on dowry or bride price are very intriguing.

It's about owning the means of production, vs selling your labour. That is, working for yourself, and gaining the profit or result of your own work through the improvement of your asset, and someone else being the main beneficiary of your labour as you work to improve their asset, albeit while giving you a wage.

I've always found Dworkin's claim that other women don't "see" their oppression because they lack the internal fortitude to face it to be borderline offensive. I know there are people who do this kind of thing in many areas, such people exist. But there is something about claiming that those who disagree with you are just too mentally weak that seems like major cop-out to me. And you could turn a claim like that around as well, and say that someone like Dworkin sees things through a particular lens due to some kind of protective trauma response distorting perception. That might also be true of a particular person, but to say it's a significant reason why women turn to feminism would also be borderline offensive.

When you can use the same logic both ways typically I think it undermines the premise, or suggests maybe that these are just features of human psychology you find represented among all viewpoints - so not really telling us much about the ideas themselves.

I don't read Dworkin as meaning that women are mentally weak at all. She isn't dividing women into two groups: those who recognise oppression and those who don't. She is making the point about all women. All of us find it painful to contemplate the extent of our oppression. Dworkin is expressing compassion and empathy for this, not judging us.

Nrtt, any of it, so not sure how relevant this article is

https://thecritic.co.uk/feminism-has-a-women-problem/

But it seems to be saying some women aren't acting against their own interests.

I read it. Chuckled at her outrage as a feminist just now realising that the “sisterhood” is a myth. Feminism has historically had issues with ignoring the interests of non-white, non-gender conforming, non-heterosexual, lower class, older, disabled (long list) of women who have been excluded from the sisterhood she thought existed from the very beginning. 🤣

@MercanDede "when resources are limited..."

and this is why I think "choice feminism" works better despite not being perfect - wanting all women to the same thing leads to exclusion of...well...the majority of women