# Feminism - where are the threads?



## JudithB (Apr 20, 2019)

Hey I'm Jude and I came across your boards because I'm looking for somewhere that seems to have an active philosophy section. 
I can't find a thread about feminism, except one asking about the third wave, which most feminists if worth their salt would disregard these days. 
Are there any feminists on here?
If so I look forward to meeting you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 20, 2019)

Hey, Jude. Don't be afraid, to start your own thread.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 20, 2019)

Isn't that what I've just done Saul


----------



## JudithB (Apr 20, 2019)

So let's 
make it better


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 20, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Isn't that what I've just done Saul


You just said you can't find a thread about feminism. There's one right here.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 20, 2019)

And there was me thinking you were doing the old Beatles thing on me...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 20, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> And there was me thinking you were doing the old Beatles thing on me...


I was


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Are there any feminists on here?


None at all I'm afraid. It's mainly a healthy mix of football fans, knackered parents, and a sprinkling of crusty ex ravers.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Feminism isn't seen as healthy? I'm a knackered parent too and an ex raver (more fluff than crust), and no what the offside rule is. But unless it's men only round these parts, feminism is a healthy pursuit

One could say we wont save the planet without the deconstruction of patriarchal capitalism, but it's only my fourth of fifth post, so one wont


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Feminism isn't seen as healthy? I'm a knackered parent too and an ex raver (more fluff than crust), and no what the offside rule is. But unless it's men only round these parts, feminism is a healthy pursuit
> 
> One could say we wont save the planet without the deconstruction of patriarchal capitalism, but it's only my fourth of fifth post, so one wont


There’s a growth of feminism here over the last decade... though some unreconstructed attitudes too.  

What there isn’t, is specific threads about feminist theory.  Feminist input here is embedded into relevant threads.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Hello spanglechick  
Thank you for coming here and talking to me. 
Do you think a thread about feminism, rather than one that is embedded elsewhere, that discusses theory would be of interest? 
I do hope so


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

PS I love dressing up too but have not had the chance for a long long time


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

Hi Jude, I'm always trying to start feminist discussion but sadly Urban75 is mainly misogynistic.


----------



## joustmaster (Apr 21, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Hi Jude, I'm always trying to start feminist discussion but sadly Urban75 is mainly misogynistic.


Post of the year.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Hi Jude, I'm always trying to start feminist discussion but sadly Urban75 is mainly misogynistic.


Oh no!
Perhaps the misogynists do not actually hate women, but do not actually realise what feminism is?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Oh no!
> Perhaps the misogynists do not actually hate women, but do not actually realise what feminism is?


Gromit posts regularly to try and expose hypocrisy from feminists.  He’s not very clever though, and it never works,  so he’s probably the most derided poster on urban.  He’s pretty much the closest thing we have to an incel.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Thanks for the warning

And Gromit - sorry you are alone and blaming women for your misfortunes


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Hi Jude, I'm always trying to start feminist discussion but sadly Urban75 is mainly misogynistic.



My troll-dar just overloaded and caught fire.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Apr 21, 2019)

Hiya Jude


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Thanks for the warning
> 
> And Gromit - sorry you are alone and blaming women for your misfortunes


I believe in equality. In my opinion both feminists and men's rights activists don't. They are fueled by self interest and wish to impose their own behaviours and values on others. The MRAs don't even tend to pretend they are interested in equality whereas them feminists want to appear to be coming from the higher moral ground by claiming equality as a platform. (Please note I'm not claim that women aren't victims of long standing inequality, they are).

You rarely get MRAs on here and their bullshit is overwhelmingly attacked by the majority on here when they do (and so doesn't need my input). 
Hardly anyone else challenges the feminists here and invariably if you aren't with them then it's assumed you must be with the enemy.

Feminists love to throw incel around as an insult even when they have past evidence that I'm far from celebate involuntary or otherwise. 

p.s. Are you firky?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> My troll-dar just overloaded and caught fire.


You don't believe that they're new either?


----------



## N_igma (Apr 21, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Feminists love to throw incel around as an insult even when they have past evidence that I'm far from celebate involuntary or otherwise.





I also think this newbie is a troll. Firky though they are not.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2019)

Gromit said:


> You don't believe that they're new either?



I plan to install loops of copper wire in my eyeballs and place magnets in a helmet then I can solve the world energy crisis by reading your posts all day.
The only problem is currently I have to keep my eyes submerged in a water cooled system to combat the friction heat from the eye rolling.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I plan to install loops of copper wire in my eyeballs and place magnets in a helmet then I can solve the world energy crisis by reading your posts all day.
> The only problem is currently I have to keep my eyes submerged in a water cooled system to combat the friction heat from the eye rolling.


So you're saying I need to post more for the sake of the planet?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2019)

While all activity contributes to the eventual heat death of the universe  it's only your posting that make me feel like it's happening before my eyes.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2019)

_Pas besoin de gril, l'enfer, c'est le oeillet. _


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

I'd welcome a thread on feminism. I'm often confused by what it seems to be. I'd happily read discussions about it to improve my understanding.

I hope it happens.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 21, 2019)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> _Pas besoin de gril, l'enfer, c'est le oeillet. _


carnations?


----------



## Edie (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Hey I'm Jude and I came across your boards because I'm looking for somewhere that seems to have an active philosophy section.
> I can't find a thread about feminism, except one asking about the third wave, which most feminists if worth their salt would disregard these days.
> Are there any feminists on here?
> If so I look forward to meeting you.


Like spanglechick says there isn’t *a* thread on feminism, but feminism is discussed in a lot of other threads. The place I see most feminism here is the sofa thread for parents, but there’s also been a lot on the Terf thread, and more rarely in other Politics forum threads.

Starting one thread would be pretty broad eh. Sexism is part of the background structure of how everything is run, so you could have a ‘feminist’ perspective on almost everything. What’s a ‘feminist issue’ in that context, cos yeh stuff like period poverty is a feminist issue for sure, but so is austerity, so is the criminal justice system, so is sport etc.

For me personally the biggest feminist issue is unpaid labour. We need to solve the fact that women do the vast amount of unpaid labour- caring for children, the elderly, neighbours, doing the housework- shouldering the lions share of the responsibility and organisation and obviously actually DOING it too.

To me that very basic economic inequality underpins everything. Even, or even _especially_, domestic abuse. Because economic/financial dependence on men skews the power dynamic so fucking permanently it essentially creates the conditions for male violence (and consequently the murder of women) to flourish. 

This needs sorting. Everything else like ‘glass ceilings’ is tangentially related so far as I can see. Yes it’s absolutely important that women at the top are paid the same as men, but it’s far FAR more critical that women at the bottom are paid more (healthcare assistants, carers, foster carers) or paid at ALL (kinship carers, informal care).

These arguments always stick in the throat a bit cos there’s an assumption that it’s only money that gives something value or confers power, but that does seem to be the case. Anyway I’ve got diverged but that’s my 2p.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Lupa said:


> Hiya Jude


*waves*


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 21, 2019)

For me _personally_, the biggest feminist issue is fathers' contact with their children / children's contact with their fathers, and the extremely widespread assumption men are rubbish at raising kids and should just go on working and paying a woman to do it.

Note the emphasis on _personally_. I am aware this is not a huge feminist issue for many feminists (though IMO if more men raised their kids more women could have quality careers so there is that).


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Like spanglechick says there isn’t *a* thread on feminism, but feminism is discussed in a lot of other threads. The place I see most feminism here is the sofa thread for parents, but there’s also been a lot on the Terf thread, and more rarely in other Politics forum threads.



Thank you for the heads up regarding a thread on "Terfs". I have suffered a pile on by TRA's elsewhere which was extremely unpleasant. I find the position of Janine Booth similar to my own - see below. If Urban75 is somewhere that seeks total capitulation to the oft quoted mantra, Transwomen are Women, without any consideration of  material reality, then Urban75 will not be the place for me. I am open to honest debate not totalitarianism in any form. 

Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights



Edie said:


> Starting one thread would be pretty broad eh. Sexism is part of the background structure of how everything is run, so you could have a ‘feminist’ perspective on almost everything. What’s a ‘feminist issue’ in that context, cos yeh stuff like period poverty is a feminist issue for sure, but so is austerity, so is the criminal justice system, so is sport etc.



One thread would be broad but perhaps they would branch into other areas if women wanted to have those discussions? I am interested in reviewing the second wave as I think feminism has stalled. Those texts that were used in the 60s/70s have been all but erased and the current analysis of patriarchy offers no real challenge to male dominance. I am interested in finding women who feel similar and would like to discuss the the different strands of feminism from the past, including where the second wave failed, such as the porn wars and also the true meaning of intersectionality. 



Edie said:


> For me personally the biggest feminist issue is unpaid labour. We need to solve the fact that women do the vast amount of unpaid labour- caring for children, the elderly, neighbours, doing the housework- shouldering the lions share of the responsibility and organisation and obviously actually DOING it too.
> 
> To me that very basic economic inequality underpins everything. Even, or even _especially_, domestic abuse. Because economic/financial dependence on men skews the power dynamic so fucking permanently it essentially creates the conditions for male violence (and consequently the murder of women) to flourish.
> 
> ...



Edie I completely agree with you and would be interested in discussions that interrogate the role and therefore value of women’s reproductive, domestic and emotional labour.

What could be termed the "Terf" wars have galvanised most areas of feminism currently and I am seeking somewhere to have intelligent discourse and some fun discussing the key-concepts of feminism with others, and to hopefully reflect on what we still find vital and indispensable but has been lost to us in recent years.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> For me _personally_, the biggest feminist issue is fathers' contact with their children / children's contact with their fathers, and the extremely widespread assumption men are rubbish at raising kids and should just go on working and paying a woman to do it.
> 
> Note the emphasis on _personally_. I am aware this is not a huge feminist issue for many feminists (though IMO if more men raised their kids more women could have quality careers so there is that).



Hi mojo pixy, anything that affects women and their ability to have power, agency freedom etc should be important. Women's choices are often constrained by structural factors they have no control over and absent fathers or those who do not pull their weight are contributing factors. 

The strong social expectations that women will be the primary carer for children may inhibit further discussion on why society is structured in a way that means women have to make choices that affect their careers, rather than it being limited although not exclusive of men who are absent. 

I would like to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Edie (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Thank you for the heads up regarding a thread on "Terfs". I have suffered a pile on by TRA's elsewhere which was extremely unpleasant. I find the position of Janine Booth similar to my own - see below. If Urban75 is somewhere that seeks total capitulation to the oft quoted mantra, Transwomen are Women, without any consideration of  material reality, then Urban75 will not be the place for me. I am open to honest debate not totalitarianism in any form.
> 
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights
> 
> ...


Ah well welcome along Jude. I’ve got to say though, I really don’t want this (or any other) thread about feminism to be totally or mainly dominated by Terf discussions. For a start there’s a thread for that, and for second it detracts from the discussion about issues such as unpaid labour that have a far more significant impact on women.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Ah well welcome along Jude. I’ve got to say though, I really don’t want this (or any other) thread about feminism to be totally or mainly dominated by Terf discussions. For a start there’s a thread for that, and for second it detracts from the discussion about issues such as unpaid labour that have a far more significant impact on women.


This is music to my ears. Anywhere one goes at present eventually leads to numerous hills people have decided to die on  

I have stated my position and that is as far as I am prepared to speak on the matter. I will refer any one who asks to post #32. I do not expect others' positions to be necessary in discourse around the thinking of the possible social transformations that would accompany the true liberation of women.


----------



## Edie (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> This is music to my ears. Anywhere one goes at present eventually leads to numerous hills people have decided to die on
> 
> I have stated my position and that is as far as I am prepared to speak on the matter. I will refer any one who asks to post #32. I do not expect others' positions to be necessary in discourse around the thinking of the possible social transformations that would accompany the true liberation of women.


Good. Cos genuinely, I’d be interested in hearing your views about ‘why the second wave stalled’. If you could- as far as possible- talk about it without too much jargon or assumed historical knowledge that would be even better. (I know I should have read more but I haven’t. For example, is second wave what’s happened since the 1970s?).

Anyway, I’d be interested in discussing your thoughts (and anyone else’s thoughts) on that. So shoot!


----------



## weepiper (Apr 21, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> For me _personally_, the biggest feminist issue is fathers' contact with their children / children's contact with their fathers, and the extremely widespread assumption men are rubbish at raising kids and should just go on working and paying a woman to do it.
> 
> Note the emphasis on _personally_. I am aware this is not a huge feminist issue for many feminists (though IMO if more men raised their kids more women could have quality careers so there is that).


Many of the most ardent feminists I know have become so as a result of their experiences of childbearing and consequently splitting with the father and then trying to maintain fair contact between him and the children. If you think it isn't a huge issue for feminists then I think you misunderstand feminists.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Personally, and the personal is the political in feminism , I think the porn wars were the beginning of the end of the second wave. Women were only just being seen as humans with their own agency rather than non-men. We are not mirrors to reflect to men all that they are not nor want to be. Women's sexual liberation was still catching up in terms of control of their biology (the pill was pretty toxic in its first formation), the right to legal abortion and sex positivity. 

Dworkin argues that bringing porn into the mainstream is complicit in the subjugation of women. She has a point when one sees how far porn has become mainstream and the constant worries of what young boys are now seeing and being desensitised too. 

But denying porn is not seen as sexy - literally 

And adherents of sex positivity took positions that liberated women's sexuality rightly so but without addressing the areas of subjugation and oppression porn allows. 

Throw in the mix discourse around sexuality, lesbianism, homosexuality which were seen as sex positive, again rightly so, and those on the other side were labelled prudes. 

I started to write about intersectional feminism too, which I believe has been misinterpreted and has allowed second-wave feminism to be turned into a caricature and dismissed as interested in only the advancement of middle-class privileged women. It's my opinion that this position is in itself racist and dismisses the works of Crenshaw, Collins and Davis. 

The third-wave and queer theory (let's not go there!) provides a male-friendly version of feminism that is easy for anyone to digest and not rock the boat. I am as guilty as the next person of previously having no respect for the past for embracing "ladette" culture and believing that sex-work is work (I have grown out of this phase). 

It is the current need to examine material exploitation, and the value of profit-over-people in relation to the climate change threat, that needs us to honestly view them as symptoms of patriarchal power and any change to that power structure requires a robust form of feminism.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Many of the most ardent feminists I know have become so as a result of their experiences of childbearing and consequently splitting with the father and then trying to maintain fair contact between him and the children. If you think it isn't a huge issue for feminists then I think you misunderstand feminists.


I read this as Edie being polite and addressing the point that not all women are mothers. 

But if we examine the role of mothers within the context of women's representation in the workplace, maternal feminism and the ethics of care – we need to address the social, political and philosophical importance of revaluing care-work.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Hey I'm Jude and I came across your boards because I'm looking for somewhere that seems to have an active philosophy section.
> I can't find a thread about feminism, except one asking about the third wave, which most feminists if worth their salt would disregard these days.
> Are there any feminists on here?
> If so I look forward to meeting you.


Could you explain further? Will you tell us about this third wave and about the the bit about "which most feminists if worth their salt would disregard these days"?

How does anyone become worth enough salt?


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> PS I love dressing up too but have not had the chance for a long long time


Why not? In what way have you not had the chance?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Celyn said:


> Why not? In what way have you not had the chance?


Parenthood means I'm too tired or too busy to go out other than to the local


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Feminism isn't seen as healthy? I'm a knackered parent too and an ex raver (more fluff than crust), and no what the offside rule is. But unless it's men only round these parts, feminism is a healthy pursuit
> 
> One could say we wont save the planet without the deconstruction of patriarchal capitalism, but it's only my fourth of fifth post, so one wont


Oh, won't one?

How does one feel about the Firth of Forth?


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Parenthood means I'm too tired or too busy to go out other than to the local


You do have chances and you make choices.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 21, 2019)

Celyn said:


> You do have chances and you make choices.


That's quite insulting.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

It is not.

It is strictly true. I do not yet know what to make of this new friend with the tricky name.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

Celyn said:


> It is not.
> 
> It is strictly true. I do not yet know what to make of this new friend with the tricky name.


How about waiting to find out, and engaging with the topic?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Celyn said:


> It is not.



Well, by itself its maybe not all that constructive.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> How about waiting to find out, and engaging with the topic?


OK, yes.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> ...men who are absent.



A great many fathers are kept from their children and are not intentionally absent. By and large, men don't leave their kids. They leave a partner, then the partner claims the kids so they lose them too. The courts tend to support this kind of split. Either way it's the same issue, and family courts who default to _mother is primary carer and father pays support _are part of the problem. More fathers should be ordered to take their kids up to half the time, "weekend dad" is an insult to fathers and kids, and is little help to a mother wanting to work.



weepiper said:


> Many of the most ardent feminists I know have become so as a result of their experiences of childbearing and consequently splitting with the father and then trying to maintain fair contact between him and the children. If you think it isn't a huge issue for feminists then I think you misunderstand feminists.



I think as a father who has been forced into absence by an abusive, controlling ex being enabled by deeply sexist family courts, I have a different view on this from many feminists. It may be a bigger issue than I realised, but in fairness I often hear the _more freedom for separated mums_ angle, less often the _kids need their dads_ angle. Even less often still the _separated dads should be raising their kids, let's make that happen _angle.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2019)

What I said, however, is true.  But this is late "middle of the night" and wanting sleep time for me. Possibly back later.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Even less often still the _separated dads should be raising their kids, let's make that happen _angle.



I know of one or two cases like this.  Also know one of a mother being kept from her children.  In that case the father is from a very rich and devious family.  She gets a very short supervised visit every week or so, and the kids have gradually been poisoned against her.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 21, 2019)

The tl;dr version is that the family courts are sexist and corrupt. they claim to act for kids but they act for whoever can bring the most expensive lawyer.

With a side order of _adults using kids as weapons against each other_


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> The tl;dr version is that the family courts are sexist and corrupt. they claim to act for kids but they act for whoever can bring the most expensive lawyer.



I guess things got stacked in a certain way as an effort to assure kids were looked after when the fathers wandered off, and were protected from violence when they didn't, but the effect of money certainly is pernicious.

I know some women on here have had plenty of problems with the fathers avoiding any responsibility whatsoever, though.

It's going to be hard to get a rounded view on this, with it being such a raw topic.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> ...
> 
> The third-wave and queer theory (let's not go there!) provides a male-friendly version of feminism that is easy for anyone to digest and not rock the boat. I am as guilty as the next person of previously having no respect for the past for embracing "ladette" culture and believing that sex-work is work (I have grown out of this phase).
> 
> ...


I was reading earlier today that feminism is increasingly anti sex work saying that it isn't working. 

But, big assumption, assuming that the woman is engaging freely and enjoys the work, why is it anti-feminist?

Shouldn't the woman be allowed to work as she wants? Isn't that the point of feminism, to free the woman to do as she wishes for her her benefit? 

I have problems with this.

I was brought up to believe men and women were different but equal. That we are two halves of the same whole. I was brought up in an area where I was the only boy till I was about 14 so perhaps these are the reasons I don't understand.

It's also why I'm interested in this thread.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was brought up to believe men and women were different but equal.



That often gets applied in a problematic way.  Some of the most sexist cultures trot out this line.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> That often gets applied in a problematic way.  Some of the most sexist cultures trot out this line.


I suppose that my life experience makes me different. I've always lived in a situation where I was led to believe that a woman could do anything she chose to. And so could a man.

I accept that living in the patriarchial society we do that it is usually much more difficult for women than men to do what they want.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> A great many fathers are kept from their children and are not intentionally absent. By and large, men don't leave their kids. They leave a partner, then the partner claims the kids so they lose them too. The courts tend to support this kind of split. Either way it's the same issue, and family courts who default to _mother is primary carer and father pays support _are part of the problem. More fathers should be ordered to take their kids up to half the time, "weekend dad" is an insult to fathers and kids, and is little help to a mother wanting to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I think as a father who has been forced into absence by an abusive, controlling ex being enabled by deeply sexist family courts, I have a different view on this from many feminists. It may be a bigger issue than I realised, but in fairness I often hear the _more freedom for separated mums_ angle, less often the _kids need their dads_ angle. Even less often still the _separated dads should be raising their kids, let's make that happen _angle.



Whilst I recognise the genuine awfulness of your own situation mojo pixy I really think we need  stay away away from “most fathers” “most courts” etc . Your own prejudices are on show here. Granted they results from a truly horrible situation, but my experience of “most” is entirely at odds with yours. 

We need Tufty (was it she?) to provide stats.


I was raised by my father, who was given custody at a time when it was so unusal that the case made the papers. His male friends who were divorced were very present in their children’s lives, I remember it as quite normal for the dads to be around during holidays, birthday gatherings etc.

However, amongst my own friends, the norm is for the men to be largely absent by choice or neglect or foolishness and the women to be raising the kids largely on their own. I include my men friends here, by the way. I’m often the castigating voice who tells them to step up and make a bloody effort.

The only men I know who are really truly involved with their kids are either solidly middle class with a decent income, a widow, a man who adores his missus who essentially bullied him into being more engaged as their daughter grew up, and a couple of solid working class men who work all the hours and hardly see their kids but when they're there they’re totally present. All the other fathers I know are either physically or emotionally absent, and their partners are entirely fed up with them.


----------



## Manter (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I read this as Edie being polite and addressing the point that not all women are mothers.
> 
> But if we examine the role of mothers within the context of women's representation in the workplace, maternal feminism and the ethics of care – we need to address the social, political and philosophical importance of revaluing care-work.


It was @mojopixy weeps was responding to.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> ...all the other fathers I know are either physically or emotionally absent, and their partners are entirely fed up with them.



I only know one case of this where I personally know the father.  Where it is the mothers I know, then there are more, and of course I'd only be seeing one side of things.

Like you say, the stats are helpful in terms of removing the skew from our own anecdotal recollections and personal relationships with people.

If we're not talking about where there has been a breakup (I notice you mention a widower), then pretty much all the men I know who have kids are massively involved with their lives and talk about them all the time.


----------



## Manter (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Whilst I recognise the genuine awfulness of your own situation mojo pixy I really think we need  stay away away from “most fathers” “most courts” etc . Your own prejudices are on show here. Granted they results from a truly horrible situation, but my experience of “most” is entirely at odds with yours.
> 
> We need Tufty (was it she?) to provide stats.
> 
> ...


I was about to object to this as the vast majority of dads I know are very very involved- but tbf most are solidly ‘middle class’* (including refugees, of course, as it is usually the middle class refugees who make it to the UK)

Equal distribution of domestic labour- physical and emotional- particularly around childcare- is very much a feminist issue. That includes men being expected to contribute by both society and the courts, and it not being assumed women are supposed to take care of kids and men take care of money. These days, IME, an involved dad gets lionised in a way a similarly involved mum doesn’t..... that should change. Doing the school run and knowing what the kid’s favourite snacks are isn’t ‘amazing’ it’s parenting.

*for a given value of middle class.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was reading earlier today that feminism is increasingly anti sex work saying that it isn't working.
> 
> But, big assumption, assuming that the woman is engaging freely and enjoys the work, why is it anti-feminist?
> 
> ...




I think it’s a very problematic and knotty issue for everyone dessiato .

I know a young woman who worked in the sex industry when she was underage (exploited and trafficked) who has become a very aware feminist and advocate for abused girls and women, and she currently fully supports the idea of sex work being a legitimate choice.

But the sex work that most sex workers are engaged with *is* exploitative, there’s no getting around that.

Added to which, many of those who state that they are making an empowered choice to work in the sex industry simultaneously recognise that if they were healthier (in terms of emotional, social, economic etc. health) they’d probably not choose this work. If you’re a single parent or have a mental health disorder that makes it tricky to work in an organisation, and have to decide between a zero hours contract in Tesco where you can’t choose your shift pattern and have to work over half term and Easter, or work instead taking your clothes off for money, the sex work is then the better of a bad set of options.

It’s rarely a case of “Yay! Sex work!”


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> carnations?


Grommet


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 21, 2019)

so it is


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I think it’s a very problematic and knotty issue for everyone dessiato .
> 
> I know a young woman who worked in the sex industry when she was underage (exploited and trafficked) who has become a very aware feminist and advocate for abused girls and women, and she currently fully supports the idea of sex work being a legitimate choice.
> 
> ...


I'm very much against trafficking and underage sex work. I cannot even vaguely justify trafficking or underage sex work at any level.

But an older, maturer, woman making the informed decision to go into sex work should not, in my opinion, be in anyway castigated for doing so. I don't get why feminists would do so. All women should have the freedom to do as they wish with their body. And should not be shamed, persecuted, or criminalised for it.

I don't understand why some feminists seem to think women cannot, should not, embrace their sexuality and sexual being to do with as they wish. In the same way that many men do.

I accept that, if we lived in a more perfect world there'd be other jobs available. But we don't live in that world. But even then why shouldn't a woman be allowed to do sex work if that's what she wants to do?

Or is it simply that there's something I'm failing to grasp?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> But an older, maturer, woman making the informed decision to go into sex work should not, in my opinion, be in anyway castigated for doing so... all women should have the freedom to do as they wish with their body. And should not be shamed, persecuted, or criminalised for it.



All?  Or just older, maturer ones?


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> All?  Or just older, maturer ones?


I was considering age and mentally maturity against young/underage less mentally mature.

I did not mean old. Although there's no reason for them not to choose sex work should they wish

My question is, why is consensual sex work so anti feminist? Why are hard core feminists so against it?

I'm genuinely trying to understand. At the moment I don't.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> My question is, why is consensual sex work so anti feminist? Why are hard core feminists so against it?



Tentatively (because I wouldn't presume to speak for feminists, and am hence welcoming to corrections), I'm not sure that the premise is entirely valid.  Feminism is a broad church.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Tentatively (because I wouldn't presume to speak for feminists, and am open to corrections), I'm not sure that the premise is entirely valid.  Feminism is a broad church.


I was reading something this morning saying that consensual sex work is not work, and is anti feminist. And that all sex work should be outright banned, men soliciting sex should be criminalised. They were also saying that women cannot enjoy or choose sex work. Hence my questions.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was reading something this morning saying that consensual sex work is not work, and is anti feminist. And that all sex work should be outright banned, men soliciting sex should be criminalised. They were also saying that women cannot enjoy or choose sex work. Hence my questions.


Link?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was reading something this morning saying that consensual sex work is not work, and is anti feminist. And that all sex work should be outright banned, men soliciting sex should be criminalised. They were also saying that women cannot enjoy or choose sex work. Hence my questions.



I wasn't disputing that someone said that, or that a good many feminists may say this.
I was disputing that it is a tenet of general feminist orthodoxy, which seemed to be implied by the quote I was responding to.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Link?


I'll see if I can find it. It was a foreign news site linked to another link where I started.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

I think sex work is a good example of an area where ascribing wholesale to a particular theory of feminism is problematic, because there are meaningful points made on pretty much all sides.  

I’ve not seen many feminist writers attacking sex workers though.   

For myself, I come from a sex-positive starting point, but am also certain that sex work contributes to rape culture.  Which leaves me without a coherent theoretical position, beyond harm minimisation.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

I've been reading "The Philosophy of Pornography, contemporary perspectives." And "The Philosophy of Sex, contemporary readings." These have lead me to think about this more and more. As a result I've looked on the Internet and today found this https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAHegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw24ck-e2XNwC7LgQiYMgGJb

I don't want to hijack the thread, so should perhaps let others explain the feminist view while I just sit back, read, and learn


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Whilst I recognise the genuine awfulness of your own situation mojo pixy I really think we need  stay away away from “most fathers” “most courts” etc . Your own prejudices are on show here. Granted they results from a truly horrible situation, but my experience of “most” is entirely at odds with yours.



I began my first post on the thread with _speaking personally,_ but I stand by the assertion that by and large when a man goes absent it's not the kids they want to leave but the partner. Losing the kids is a corollary of losing the partner, a lot of the time. I too would like to see a figure on this but I doubt one exists. I would agree that just about all separated parents I know are doing better than I and my ex so though my experience colours my view it's not _all_ I have.

Derail done. I wanted to be clear about what I was and was not saying as its an emotive issue. As well as being a feminist one.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> I know of one or two cases like this.  Also know one of a mother being kept from her children.  In that case the father is from a very rich and devious family.  She gets a very short supervised visit every week or so, and the kids have gradually been poisoned against her.


Not all mums!


----------



## Manter (Apr 21, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I think sex work is a good example of an area where ascribing wholesale to a particular theory of feminism is problematic, because there are meaningful points made on pretty much all sides.
> 
> I’ve not seen many feminist writers attacking sex workers though.
> 
> For myself, I come from a sex-positive starting point, but am also certain that sex work contributes to rape culture.  Which leaves me without a coherent theoretical position, beyond harm minimisation.


It’s also interesting to play the ‘what if’- what if academic research was flexible and as well paid as prostitution? What if nursing was as flexible and well paid as porn? Would those people still be making those choices? 

I also think it’s interesting how relatively few male sex workers there are given it’s supposed to be a brilliant, empowering thing for women to do 

I’m sure there are women who have plenty of choices and are empowered, financially and emotionally stable etc and decide to do sex work, but..... So yeah. Harm reduction and a feeling of discomfort


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> It’s also interesting to play the ‘what if’- what if academic research was flexible and as well paid as prostitution? What if nursing was as flexible and well paid as porn? Would those people still be making those choices?
> 
> I also think it’s interesting how relatively few male sex workers there are given it’s supposed to be a brilliant, empowering thing for women to do
> 
> I’m sure there are women who have plenty of choices and are empowered, financially and emotionally stable etc and decide to do sex work, but..... So yeah. Harm reduction and a feeling of discomfort


Academic research and nursing are not available to everyone regardless of pay levels.

There is less demand for male sex workers I imagine. But why shouldn't a man do it if it's what he wants?


----------



## Manter (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> Academic research and nursing are not available to everyone regardless of pay levels.
> 
> There is less demand for male sex workers I imagine. But why shouldn't a man do it if it's what he wants?


That’s the point. If it’s what s/he wants. Is it genuinely what someone wants or is it the least worst option available to them? And what if other well paid and flexible options *were* available? Would that change the choice?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> That’s the point. If it’s what s/he wants. Is it genuinely what someone wants or is it the least worst option available to them? And what if other well paid and flexible options *were* available? Would that change the choice?


What percentage of people do you think are in the job they *want* to be in?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

people not profit, a solidly middle class slogan.

Welcome to the forum, anyway.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

and generally speaking most coloured feminism *in the west* is based on legal theory and not you know, how america's air supremacy smashes us middle easterners to bits every day. The women in my family and communities are solidly anti-american. no amount of jargon is going to change that until your analyses take account of this.

The idea of the quiescent and pliable middle eastern woman is a colonial inheritence that many have inherited, including (and in some cases quite significantly) white women intelligentsia and white feminists (again intelligentsia.)


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Thank you for the heads up regarding a thread on "Terfs". I have suffered a pile on by TRA's elsewhere which was extremely unpleasant. I find the position of Janine Booth similar to my own - see below. If Urban75 is somewhere that seeks total capitulation to the oft quoted mantra, Transwomen are Women, without any consideration of  material reality, then Urban75 will not be the place for me. I am open to honest debate not totalitarianism in any form.
> 
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights



Lol the Alliance for Workers Liberty (of which Janine is a part of) wrote an article stating that Israel would be in its writes to nuke Iran if it was threatened.

Political positions aren't just things you can pick out at the tip of a hat to make yourself feel good.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2019)

It seems inevitable that any thread on feminism will rapidly become dominated by one of the niche subjects men find titillating, like sex work.  Meanwhile, the countlessly bigger but unsexy issues raised by Edie just get sidelined. 

And lo, we see that it comes to pass again in spite of a valiant early effort to focus the agenda where it truly belongs.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was reading something this morning saying that consensual sex work is not work, and is anti feminist. And that all sex work should be outright banned, men soliciting sex should be criminalised. They were also saying that women cannot enjoy or choose sex work. Hence my questions.



I disagree with that end point myself but I understand the argument.

There’s a huge range of potential harm, past present and future, in sex work.


Here’s a quick Wiki précis of what Dworkin said about the inequality of the interactions between men and women being extended to sex, and ultimately being expressed as rape. 

Intercourse (book) - Wikipedia

Sex work must be understood in this context: as things currently stand, the reasons for which women choose sex work and the ways in which they engage in that work arise from - and are expressed in the context of - the underlying inherent inequality between men and women.

Even the empowered mature thoughtful woman who chooses it actively, willingly and consciously is doing so against a background of oppression, suppression, exploitation and objectification. Of course she is free to make such a choice and shouldn’t be judged for it. But given the background context of the patriarchy, her reasons for choosing to engage in sex work, and her experiences of doing it, are going to be entirely different to those of her male counterpart.

Added to which, there’s a very high chance that she’s actually been assaulted, abused or raped in the past, sexually financially emotionally or etc. just be virtue of her gender.

And of course as a sex worker she’s at higher risk of further abuse and assault.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It seems inevitable that any thread on feminism will rapidly become dominated by one of the niche subjects men find titillating, like sex work.  Meanwhile, the countlessly bigger but unsexy issues raised by Edie just get sidelined.
> 
> And lo, we see that it comes to pass again in spite of a valiant early effort to focus the agenda where it truly belongs.


I was engaging on the topic of sex work because I find it intractable and incompatible with absolutist feminist theory. And because of its strong relationship to the issues of male violence and rape culture. 

Not because it titilates me.  

But, thank goodness you, as a man were able to come along and tell me I’m doing feminism wrong.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It seems inevitable that any thread on feminism will rapidly become dominated by one of the niche subjects men find titillating, like sex work.  Meanwhile, the countlessly bigger but unsexy issues raised by Edie just get sidelined.
> 
> And lo, we see that it comes to pass again in spite of a valiant early effort to focus the agenda where it truly belongs.




This is probably why most of the discussions about feminism on here are within threads about sexism.



But yeah. We were talking about parenting and how inequality in income and pay structures means that women end up with the shitty end of the stick.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I was engaging on the topic of sex work because I find it intractable and incompatible with absolutist feminist theory. And because of its strong relationship to the issues of male violence and rape culture.
> 
> Not because it titilates me.
> 
> But, thank goodness you, as a man were able to come along and tell me I’m doing feminism wrong.




I think he was saying men find it titilating.



Like you, I also find the sex and porn thing really knotty and I’d be interested to see this discussion develop.

And of course sex work is tied absolutely to income and poverty and being time poor and burdened with financial responsibilities.

So of course all these things tie together.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I think he was saying men find it titilating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was, and by doing so he ignored the women who were interested in discussing it.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I think he was saying men find it titilating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he was saying it's spin. Tabloids love a sex scandal. It's attention grabbing outrage that deflects us from unsexy topics we should be really be outraged over such as benefit cuts.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I was reading something this morning saying that consensual sex work is not work, and is anti feminist. And that all sex work should be outright banned, men soliciting sex should be criminalised. They were also saying that women cannot enjoy or choose sex work. Hence my questions.


Is this the Norway model?


----------



## Manter (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Is this the Norway model?


criminalising buyers is the Nordic model


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It seems inevitable that any thread on feminism will rapidly become dominated by one of the niche subjects men find titillating, like sex work.  Meanwhile, the countlessly bigger but unsexy issues raised by Edie just get sidelined.
> 
> And lo, we see that it comes to pass again in spite of a valiant early effort to focus the agenda where it truly belongs.



Yes I am quite surprised to return to find the thread is mainly about sex work and fathers being wrongly treated.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Sex work seems to be the topic the majority want to discuss now. The question from a feminist perspective would be is sex work always a form of sexual exploitation? 

My argument would be that any system that provides women at a price for men's consumption becomes a market of exploitation for I do not believe without the consent provided by the provision of cash for the services of sex a woman would choose to perform sex work. Women being viewed as a commodity reinforces the inequality of the sexes and maintains that women are no more than "vending machines" for men's desires. 

From the whistles and catcalls on the street, to the exchange of cash for sex, perhaps we could draw a straight line in society's thinking?


----------



## Edie (Apr 21, 2019)

I don’t wanna discuss the sex work debate. I would (in due course if the discussion comes round to it) be interested in discussing how we move from the status quo to care work (“women’s work”) being valued. 

(Btw mojo pixy I think your right to point out that men also suffer under the assumption by family courts that women remain primary carer after separation. But the other side of that coin weighs heavier, and that’s the side that says men have, and have always had, more freedom to walk away should they so choose).


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> I don’t wanna discuss the sex work debate. I would (in due course if the discussion comes round to it) be interested in discussing how we move from the status quo to care work (“women’s work”) being valued.



Then let's discuss!

My thoughts are that austerity has made an area that was already seen as a subjugated class of work much worse as the cuts in government services has increased the amount of social care that is still mainly undertaken by women - childcare, caring for elderly or disabled family members. 

As Brexit - sorry to say the B word - probably means we will have even less government funding even if Labour are the government to take us out of Europe, is the solution to find a way to de-feminise care work?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> I don’t wanna discuss the sex work debate. I would (in due course if the discussion comes round to it) be interested in discussing how we move from the status quo to care work (“women’s work”) being valued.



I think once the robots have mopped up corporate law, management and finance, that could hopefully be a catalyst.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think once the robots have mopped up corporate law, management and finance, that could hopefully be a catalyst.


In what way?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In what way?



Because care work will be one of the last things to be automated.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Great thought.

But with most of us infuriated by the scan yourself machines at the local supermarket and hating the automated services when trying to reach a utility company, we might have to find something a little sooner than robots. Also there is something around machines and racial profiling isn't there? That should be ironed out first before we hand everything over to our digital overlords. 

What you say is correct in so much as care work could possibly be one of the last areas that will be automated.

To a lot of people, especially women, the opportunity to care for their infants long term, their elderly or disabled relatives is not an option. Before we find a solution perhaps we need to examine why?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Also there is something around machines and racial profiling isn't there?



There is something around training AI's using materials with a racial bias to them.
I think this is pretty interesting since the AI's have no "I shouldn't say that" rule built into them, so if you train them using materials with subtle racial biases and they filter out a lot of the noise, they really can become quite racist.

It could be a useful tool to help us check ourselves, if used right.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> It could be a useful tool to help us check ourselves, if used right.



??


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Need I say more...


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> I don’t wanna discuss the sex work debate. I would (in due course if the discussion comes round to it) be interested in discussing how we move from the status quo to care work (“women’s work”) being valued.
> 
> (Btw mojo pixy I think your right to point out that men also suffer under the assumption by family courts that women remain primary carer after separation. But the other side of that coin weighs heavier, and that’s the side that says men have, and have always had, more freedom to walk away should they so choose).



I've read some S Federici this year and a lot of her wages for housework writing sounds like a call for Universal (Basic) Income. In fact in a recent inttoduction she as good as called for that.

I'd love to hear what she has to say about UBI.

All these subjects deserve their own threads


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

ska invita said:


> All these subjects deserve their own threads



I'd be game


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

In terms of universal basic income, I'd like to know more about where it was trialled and why I have the thought that it was dismissed as unworkable. Was it? If so, by whom and for what reason?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In terms of universal basic income, I'd like to know more about where it was trialled and why I have the thought that it was dismissed as unworkable. Was it? If so, by whom and for what reason?



Finland to end basic income trial after two years


----------



## BristolEcho (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In terms of universal basic income, I'd like to know more about where it was trialled and why I have the thought that it was dismissed as unworkable. Was it? If so, by whom and for what reason?



They trialled it in Finland. People were happier and felt less stressed, but it didn't result in more people getting into work.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

BristolEcho said:


> They trialled it in Finland. People were happier and felt less stressed, but it didn't result in more people getting into work.



Yes, was about to add that edit.

It appeared to fail in terms of getting jobless people into jobs.
It just succeeded in making them happy.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2019)

The Finnish trials are only just completed, they haven't really done much analysis of it yet. Tho I am very dubious about that trial as it seemed to be brought in by the right as a way of trying to cut welfare payments. No one trial will give you that much info, but once they are all aggregated they should say something interesting.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

This is an interesting read Women do four years more work than men in lifetime, report shows


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> There is something around training AI's using materials with a racial bias to them.
> I think this is pretty interesting since the AI's have no "I shouldn't say that" rule built into them, so if you train them using materials with subtle racial biases and they filter out a lot of the noise, they really can become quite racist.
> 
> It could be a useful tool to help us check ourselves, if used right.




That’s really interesting b cause of other stuff I’m reading.
 Link please?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Need I say more...






Innit...


How Easter became a #MeToo Moment - CNN


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> This is an interesting read Women do four years more work than men in lifetime, report shows


Define 'work'?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

BristolEcho said:


> They trialled it in Finland. People were happier and felt less stressed, but it didn't result in more people getting into work.




Too soon maybe?

It probably takes more than a year or so for folks to become bored of having enough leisure time to do laundry and read a book.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> That’s really interesting b cause of other stuff I’m reading.
> Link please?



This is very basic, but it discusses how existing biases in data can be mistaken for predictors, and ways of teasing things apart.  There is loads of stuff out there that can be found with a simple keyword search.

AOC in the States has been bringing up the subject recently.

Is Artificial Intelligence Racist?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Define 'work'?



Did you look at the link?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes, was about to add that edit.
> 
> It appeared to fail in terms of getting jobless people into jobs.
> It just succeeded in making them happy.




Because just being happy is a failure?

Is this in the context of endless growth?

Endless growth is cancer.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Because just being happy is a failure?
> 
> Is this in the context of endless growth?
> 
> Endless growth is cancer.



Yes.  To each one.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Too soon maybe?
> 
> It probably takes more than a year or so for folks to become bored of having enough leisure time to do laundry and read a book.



And it negates the value of "women's work" it focusses on getting people back into "work". The study should include the social care of dependents undertaken by those in receipt of the payment


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> This is very basic, but it discusses how existing biases in data can be mistaken for predictors, and ways of teasing things apart.  There is loads of stuff out there that can be found with a simple keyword search.
> 
> AOC in the States has been bringing up the subject recently.
> 
> Is Artificial Intelligence Racist?




I know AI is psychopathic and dangerously bigoted. Are we isolating racism out from of all the other nasty bigotry that AI exhibits when left to its own devices?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Because just being happy is a failure?
> 
> Is this in the context of endless growth?
> 
> Endless growth is cancer.


Exactly - the planet cannot sustain us if we continue to grow at the rate the IMF requires of us. We need to ask for what reason and what benefits


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I know AI is psychopathic and dangerously bigoted.



#NotAllAI


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

I think we discussed earlier this this year(?) how capitalism depends on ersatz jobs in order to self perpetuate. So basic income “fails” if there’s no growth.


(I’m imagining buthchersapron geinding his teeth at foolishness and naivety here...)


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Did you look at the link?


I did.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I did.



Perhaps I should have said "did you click on the link and read some of the words that appeared on the screen".


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> And it negates the value of "women's work" it focusses on getting people back into "work". The study should include the social care of dependents undertaken by those in receipt of the payment




Don’t dependents also get the universal basic income?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Perhaps I should have said "did you click on the link and read some of the words that appeared on the screen".


I read all of them. But I didn't see any mention of men having to work two more years than women before being allowed a state pension. Let's discuss that?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I read all of them. But I didn't see any mention of men having to work two more years than women before being allowed a state pension. Let's discuss that?



Coincidentally, I didn't see any mention of semiconductor physics.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Coincidentally, I didn't see any mention of semiconductor physics.


It's weird, sometimes I think your posts are OK, then other times I think you're only here to score points.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's weird, sometimes I think your posts are OK, then other times I think you're only here to score points.



And sometimes I think you claim to have read things that you actually haven't.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Sex work seems to be the topic the majority want to discuss now. The question from a feminist perspective would be is sex work always a form of sexual exploitation?
> 
> My argument would be that any system that provides women at a price for men's consumption becomes a market of exploitation for I do not believe without the consent provided by the provision of cash for the services of sex a woman would choose to perform sex work. Women being viewed as a commodity reinforces the inequality of the sexes and maintains that women are no more than "vending machines" for men's desires.
> 
> From the whistles and catcalls on the street, to the exchange of cash for sex, perhaps we could draw a straight line in society's thinking?



Everyone is reduced to a commodity under capitallism. the commodity is embodied within the worker when they sell themselves to capital. that is the whole separation between the head and hand. literally basic class politics 101. the abolition of sex work requires the total obliteration of wage labour.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In terms of universal basic income, I'd like to know more about where it was trialled and why I have the thought that it was dismissed as unworkable. Was it? If so, by whom and for what reason?



What is wrong with free money? |


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes, was about to add that edit.
> 
> It appeared to fail in terms of getting jobless people into jobs.
> It just succeeded in making them happy.



And this once again shows that the proletariat's consciousness is far ahead of leftist crackpots. they are crying for a global campaign of reduction of labour hours whilst increasing labour's bargaining power simultaneously. but dead ends of democratisms amirite.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Everyone is reduced to a commodity under capitallism. the commodity is embodied within the worker when they sell themselves to capital. that is the whole separation between the head and hand. literally basic class politics 101. the abolition of sex work requires the total obliteration of wage labour.


Spot on. We're all whoring ourselves out to capitalism, and the highest risk (injury and death) jobs in the world are mostly performed by men. I'm fairly sure those crab fishers on the Bering straights would rather be paid the same money for flipping burgers, because I'm sure they don't do it for the scenery.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Everyone is reduced to a commodity under capitallism. the commodity is embodied within the worker when they sell themselves to capital. that is the whole separation between the head and hand. literally basic class politics 101. the abolition of sex work requires the total obliteration of wage labour.





Saul Goodman said:


> Spot on. We're all whoring ourselves out to capitalism, and the highest risk (injury and death) jobs in the world are mostly performed by men. I'm fairly sure those crab fishers on the Bering straights would rather be paid the same money for flipping burgers, because I'm sure they don't do it for the scenery.



But there is whoring yourself and WHORING yourself

You working for the man is not the same as you taking the man's cock inside you


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> But there is whoring yourself and WHORING yourself
> 
> You working for the man is not the same as you taking the man's cock inside you


Do you not think those fishermen on the Bering sea would rather fuck for their money than risk their lives in possibly the highest risk profession on the planet? 
Those opportunities aren't open to ugly men, so they have to risk their lives in other ways. What they're doing is no different. They're risking their lives, because it's what they are forced to do in order to survive.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you not think those fishermen on the Bering sea would rather fuck for their money than risk their lives in possibly the highest risk profession on the planet?
> Those opportunities aren't open to ugly men, so they have to risk their lives in other ways. What they're doing is no different. They're risking their lives, because it's what they are forced to do in order to survive.


I think they would rather be on the Bering straight than having to suck cock

ETA Why not ask them?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I think they would rather be on the Bering straight than having to suck cock


Change that to "I think they would rather be on the Bering straight than having to lick pussy", and I'd say you're talking complete bullshit.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

dialectician said:


> What is wrong with free money? |





> The question for a company is not if a technology is more productive than another, but whether it allows producing more cheaply than another. If a sweatshop achieves lower costs than a modern factory, then sweatshops are the adequate technological level of production for that capitalist branch of industry.
> 
> This is also why the “conventional wisdom” (Krugman) that in the past machines replaced low skilled labour but left high skilled jobs alone is wrong. Since the “industrial revolution” machines were also means to replace high skilled jobs with low skilled jobs if that allowed companies to save costs such as higher wages for specialists.






> However, whether they can find another source of revenue, i.e. another job, does not depend on their needs. It depends solely on another company finding use for them in order to make profit.





> But, as argued above, the wage is not a reward or remuneration but the lever to make workers come to work for the purpose of profit of a company. 15 This lever is as high and low as companies can get away with in the universal competition of workers for jobs. 16 Put differently, a small part of the wealth produced by workers is paid to workers in the form of wages. This way, they can sustain themselves as producers of a surplus from which they are excluded. In their agitation, proponents for a Universal Basic Income turn the wage into its opposite: the economic function of the wage seems not to be poverty and exclusion from social wealth, but is posited as wealth and participation.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Change that to "I think they would rather be on the Bering straight than having to lick pussy", and I'd say you're talking complete bullshit.




But that’s not what she said, is it.

 Because the vast majority of those who pay for sex are men.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Change that to "I think they would rather be on the Bering straight than having to lick pussy", and I'd say you're talking complete bullshit.



But you are missing or deliberately ignoring the point

Women do not buy men at the rate that men buy women. 

Men are not vending machines of sexual favours to women. 

We are talking about reality here, not some pretend world where men get to lick pussy for a living.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> And women live longer than men.


Oh the equality!



SheilaNaGig said:


> But that’s not what she said, is it.
> 
> Because the vast majority of those who pay for sex are men.


But that's exactly what she said. I quoted it, so it must have been exactly what she said.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Oh the equality!
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what she said. I quoted it, so it must have been exactly what she said.


[/QUOTE]
Then I hope my post clarified what I meant


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 21, 2019)

so what's the actual proposal to abolish sex work within wage labour? criminalising it obviously doesn't work. And I think prostitution is a grotesque aborration, but surely that necessitates organising against the pimps?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you not think those fishermen on the Bering sea would rather fuck for their money than risk their lives in possibly the highest risk profession on the planet?
> Those opportunities aren't open to ugly men, so they have to risk their lives in other ways. What they're doing is no different. They're risking their lives, because it's what they are forced to do in order to survive.




It might be the highest risk in terms of the job you do but you’re still safer than women just by being a man.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> We are talking about reality here, not some pretend world where men get to lick pussy for a living.


Exactly!
Men don't get the opportunity to get paid for sex. For 'these' unskilled men to earn similar money, they have to risk their lives on the Bering straights.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Oh the equality!
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what she said. I quoted it, so it must have been exactly what she said.




I immediately removed that bit about women living longer because I realised it was bullshit. It was part of a post I’d long before decided was bollox.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> It might be the highest risk in terms of the job you do but you’re still safer than women just by being a man.


Statistically, is a crab fisherman on the Bering straights safer than a woman, in any job?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Statistically, is a crab fisherman on the Bering straights safer than a woman, in any job?



Yes

The women killed on one day around the world


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

dialectician said:


> so what's the actual proposal to abolish sex work within wage labour? criminalising it obviously doesn't work. And I think prostitution is a grotesque aborration, but surely that necessitates organising against the pimps?


I dont have the answers. That's why I am interested in having a thread with intelligent women (and some men I suppose) to chew these ideas over.

The Nordic model criminalises men, the buyers of sexual services, rather than what happens mostly in the world wherein the provider, the woman (girl) is criminalised for providing those services. The reasoning is said to be that men use prostitutes because they can. If they are in fear of recrimination they may stop and thus supply and demand is diminished. The model also allows, in theory, for women to gain skills to remove them from the game


----------



## JudithB (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Statistically, is a crab fisherman on the Bering straights safer than a woman, in any job?


This is a thread about feminism, not crab fisherman


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 21, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Statistically, is a crab fisherman on the Bering straights safer than a woman, in any job?




Oh, I beg your pardon....

In work, not in daily life?

I’m not sure. Slaving away in women’s work may be physically safer than the equivalent in men’s work, to be sure.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 21, 2019)

dialectician said:


> so what's the actual proposal to abolish sex work within wage labour? criminalising it obviously doesn't work. And I think prostitution is a grotesque aborration, but surely that necessitates organising against the pimps?


It necessitates decriminalising it. Like they did in Australia. Now the industry is a much safer place there.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> But there is whoring yourself and WHORING yourself
> 
> You working for the man is not the same as you taking the man's cock inside you



I mean I didn't say it was, I was just saying that, any proposals to abolish sex work under our current system will drive it underground or even legitimise it under histrionic moralist outrages. In Turkey for instance, prostitution is unspeakably taboo. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation outside without at best receiving suspicious looks and being told to leave the store, at worst getting a slap on the hand (or if known to be a political oppositionist, be arrested on trumped up charges.)

This doesn't mean there isn't a huge industry dedicated to this that everyone knows about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Yes
> 
> The women killed on one day around the world


You really don't want to go there, because then you'll have to research how many men die each and every year because of the job they HAVE to do.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I dont have the answers. That's why I am interested in having a thread with intelligent women (and some men I suppose) to chew these ideas over.
> 
> The Nordic model criminalises men, the buyers of sexual services, rather than what happens mostly in the world wherein the provider, the woman (girl) is criminalised for providing those services. The reasoning is said to be that men use prostitutes because they can. If they are in fear of recrimination they may stop and thus supply and demand is diminished. The model also allows, in theory, for women to gain skills to remove them from the game



There are very easy ways for men (any competent criminal really) to avoid being caught under such a model.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> I mean I didn't say it was, I was just saying that, any proposals to abolish sex work under our current system will drive it underground or even legitimise it under histrionic moralist outrages. In Turkey for instance, prostitution is unspeakably taboo. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation outside without at best receiving suspicious looks and being told to leave the store, at worst getting a slap on the hand (or if known to be a political oppositionist, be arrested on trumped up charges.)
> 
> This doesn't mean there isn't a huge industry dedicated to this that everyone knows about.


Thanks for the clarification. 

And in part, I agree. Women will put themselves at risk because of economic necessity and who are we especially as feminists to criticise?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> There are very easy ways for men (any competent criminal really) to avoid being caught under such a model.


All I am hearing is women put up with it. Men are going fuck so men are going to fuck.

Perhaps some women would like to comment, or is this thread on feminism becoming all about the menz? I do hope not. 

For now I bid you guys goodnight


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> All I am hearing is women put up with it. Men are going fuck so men are going to fuck.
> 
> Perhaps some women would like to comment, or is this thread on feminism becoming all about the menz? I do hope not.
> 
> For now I bid you guys goodnight



I'm not saying that? I'm saying without an in depth analysis of protection rackets people can't just be like Nordic model might be an option. It might be, but this requires probing.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> You really don't want to go there, because then you'll have to research how many men die each and every year because of the job they HAVE to do.


This thread is about feminism not crab fisherman


----------



## Gromit (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> all about the menz?


Now I know for sure you're a returner. Who were you?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> I'm not saying that? I'm saying without an in depth analysis of protection rackets people can't just be like Nordic model might be an option. It might be, but this requires probing.


I'll wait to hear from some women for now ok


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Now I know for sure you're a returner. Who were you?


eh?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> All I am hearing is women put up with it. Men are going fuck so men are going to fuck.
> 
> Perhaps some women would like to comment, or is this thread on feminism becoming all about the menz? I do hope not.
> 
> For now I bid you guys goodnight


I thought feminism was about equality? I don't see anyone stopping women from posting, but it seems a couple are trying to stop men from posting.


Miyake69JudithB said:


> Women will put themselves at risk because of economic necessity and who are we especially as feminists to criticise?


Men put themselves at risk, too. Not because they want to, but out of economic necessity. Do you think it's only women who are affected by austerity and capitalism?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I'll wait to hear from some women for now ok



How do you know I'm a man? I mean, not that you're wrong, but you've read about 5 of my posts...

Definitely a returner.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I thought feminism was about equality? I don't see anyone stopping women from posting, but it seems a couple are trying to stop men from posting.
> 
> Men put themselves at risk, too. Not because they want to, but out of economic necessity. Do you think it's only women who are affected by austerity and capitalism?


Yes, but this thread is particularly for women about women's issues. Sorry if it hurts your feelz 

(Gromit I added a z!)


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> How do you know I'm a man?



Did I misgender you?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Goodnight boys

For realz


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Did I misgender you?



Now that would be telling wouldn't it!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Yes, but this thread is particularly for women about women's issues. Sorry if it hurts your feelz


Ah, so you're a sexist. Nice one


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Goodnight boys
> 
> For realz


Do yourself a favour and put the idiot Saul on ignore. It makes the world a better place.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

was gonna say people still subtly imply my username is stupid (which it is) but naming yourself after judith butler, one of the most establishment academic intellectuals is definitely something a returner would do on urban.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Yes
> 
> The women killed on one day around the world


If you are a female child murdered by a parent it's more likely that your mother killed you than your father.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Oh, I beg your pardon....
> 
> In work, not in daily life?
> 
> I’m not sure. Slaving away in women’s work may be physically safer than the equivalent in men’s work, to be sure.


There's no 'could be'. It is. 
I'm not saying 'shut up and deal with it' I'm saying don't talk like men aren't in the same boat.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

oh christ gromit is pontificating i just saw. never mind im out of this thread even if it's firky gone transvestite.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> Do yourself a favour and put the idiot Saul on ignore. It makes the world a better place.


Yet here you are, reading my posts


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 22, 2019)

Gromit said:


> If you are a female child murdered by a parent it's more likely that your mother killed you than your father.




Link please.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Link please.


Filicide - Wikipedia

Google Filicide for some papers on it.

I think it's generally a suicide wanting to take the child they love most with them thing.

Father's statistically favour killing sons.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 22, 2019)

Gromit said:


> If you are a female child murdered by a parent it's more likely that your mother killed you than your father.




I have no doubt, Gromit, that whatever you present here can be taken apart.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 22, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Filicide - Wikipedia
> 
> Google Filicide for some papers on it.




Oh my god seriously? A wiki link?


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Oh my go seriously? A wiki link?


And one that doesn't even back up his claim.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> And one that doesn't even back up his claim.


Do you have anything to add that isn't merely a snipe at someone else? If not, please leave the thread.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's no 'could be'. It is.
> I'm not saying 'shut up and deal with it' I'm saying don't talk like men aren't in the same boat.




You are not in the same boat as I am.

I’ve done men’s work. I deliberately set out to do men’s work in order to make a point. I’ve been the only woman in the work environment in many of my jobs. In all of them, I was sexually objectified, and sometimes assaulted or abused.

Alongside that “men’s work” I’ve still had to go home to do “women’s work” such as house chores, shopping etc, in addition to all the emotional labour in family, personal relationships and social settings.

Show me your equivalent, Saul Good-man.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Yes
> 
> The women killed on one day around the world



You need some comparison with the men killed in one day around the world for that to constitute any argument.


----------



## Sue (Apr 22, 2019)

Well what a surprise this thread has gone to shit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I’ve done men’s work. I deliberately set out to do men’s work in order to make a point. *I’ve been the only woman in the work environment in many of my jobs.*


You're making my point for me 




SheilaNaGig said:


> Show me your equivalent, Saul Good-man.


I don't know what you're asking here? Do you want me to say there are male nurses? Male care workers?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> Well what a surprise this thread has gone to shit.



Thanks for fixing things.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> Well what a surprise this thread has gone to shit.


It's much better if you put Saul on ignore


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> You need some comparison with the men killed in one day around the world for that to constitute any argument.


 

I couldn’t find the equivalent.

That one is for women killed by men they know.

I was making the point that living with a man at home (cooking cleaning watching TV with a man) is more dangerous than working as a crab fisherman on the Bering sea.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's much better if you put Saul on ignore


The thread would be much better if you just fucked the fuck off it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I couldn’t find the equivalent.
> 
> That one is for women killed by men they know.
> 
> I was making the point that living with a man at home (cooking cleaning watching TV with a man) is more dangerous than working as a crab fisherman on the Bering sea.


Then living with a woman is more dangerous than working as a crab fisherman on the Bering sea, as there are more men killed by women each year than there are fishermen killed on the Bering sea.


----------



## Sue (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Thanks for fixing things.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I couldn’t find the equivalent.
> 
> That one is for women killed by men they know.
> 
> I was making the point that living with a man at home (cooking cleaning watching TV with a man) is more dangerous than working as a crab fisherman on the Bering sea.



I'm not sure it is.  Though the crab fishing job has seen some major improvements in safety.


----------



## Sue (Apr 22, 2019)

Well I'm just glad we're concentrating on the important issues affecting so many of us ie the relative dangers of the crab fishing industry. FFS.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure it is.  Though the crab fishing job has seen some major improvements in safety.


It actually isn't. And nowhere near.
How many women live with men, compared to how many men work as crab fishermen on the Bering sea. I'm fairly sure, as a percentage, that working on the Bering sea is far more dangerous than living with a man, but if someone can show me figures that prove otherwise?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> It actually isn't. And nowhere near.
> How many women live with men, compared to how many men work as crab fishermen on the Bering sea. I'm fairly sure, as a percentage, that working on the Bering sea is far more dangerous than living with a man, but if someone can show me figures that prove otherwise?



Tbf to Sue , I'm not too sure how we got down this crab fishing rabbit hole.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> Well I'm just glad we're concentrating on the important issues affecting so many of us ie the relative dangers of the crab fishing industry. FFS.


The important issue is that both women AND men are effectively forced to do things they don't want to do in order to feed themselves. Don't blame this on men. Blame it on capitalism.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 22, 2019)

If women are disadvantaged in society as it stands, then you have to have some sort of plan or politics to correct that. If you are a socialist for example.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> The important issue is that both women AND men are effectively forced to do things they don't want to do in order to feed themselves. Don't blame this on men. Blame it on capitalism.



Capitalism called and said it's not guilty.

<it had a shifty tone to its voice when it said it, mind>


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Apr 22, 2019)

Read "Bering Sea Strong"
By Laura Hartema.

There are a few women working in that particular fishing industry. (Alaska and Bering Sea)
This woman is a federal observer. Spends 90 days on a fishing boat with fishermen on the Bering Sea.
Its obvious the men she works alongside absolutely have a passion for the challenge of their work. It's also obvious that it's a really physically very challenging type of work to do.

There are roughly 150 fishermen who work the Bering sea for the 90 day season each year. They will earn a 6 figure sum for that work.

It's a very rough job but there are people who really want to do it. Men and women apply every year. And only a few are selected by captains. And most of them happen to be men. Those chosen have similar characteristics.
They are physically strong. They want the challenge and dont mind isolation. They have an absolute passion for what they do. There are other jobs they could do...but most of these fishermen actually do love fishing...and those who work the Bering Sea are exceptional in that they for the most part chose/ seek it out.

80% of deaths on the boats are from hypothermia or drowning.
Injuries can be crippling. Deaths have actually dropped in the past 10 years. Mainly because Safety and occupational standards have improved. 
One study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that among 71 fishermen who fell overboard, only 17 were wearing personal flotation devices, even though the devices make them more than eight times as likely to survive.Why was Alaskan fishing named the most dangerous job in the world?

The nature of the work is obviously extremely physical and requires a lot of stamina and physical strength. Safety has been a big problem...as in lack of training or safety management.....it is improving though. There is also a high incidence of specific drug abuse amongst the Alaskan fishermen in order to stay awake onboard and fish longer. Heroin and meth... this has led to deaths.

No doubt it is about as rough a job as you can get.  Most who get selected for Alaskan boats (yep they have to be selected...that many apply) and particularly the Bering Sea, absolutely want it....they cite the camaraderie, the adventure, the physical challenge...the man vs sea...and they also see that the money can be excellent. Often $200,000 for a 90 day season. Before tax... 



The book is well worth reading. I read it after being a fan of the TV series Deadliest Catch for a good while. 
Also love Alaska The Last Frontier. 

Heck if I didn't have this shitty muscle disease I'd love to go there ....for good.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 22, 2019)

I asked my questions earlier because I really want to understand how feminism works, what it is, and it was because of what I'd been reading that my interest in the sex work area was peaked.

I'd like to apologise for spoiling a thread that could have been an interesting learning experience for me.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I asked my questions earlier because I really want to understand how feminism works, what it is, and it was because of what I'd been reading that my interest in the sex work area was peaked.
> 
> I'd like to apologise for spoiling a thread that could have been an interesting learning experience for me.



Piqued.

(and I don’t think it was you that spoiled the thread)


----------



## weepiper (Apr 22, 2019)

We've got to 'ugly women are lucky because men will still pay to put their penis in them' already?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In terms of universal basic income, I'd like to know more about where it was trialled and why I have the thought that it was dismissed as unworkable. Was it? If so, by whom and for what reason?


Longish thread on UBI here. FWIW I'm on the highly sceptical side. 

Also in case you are interested a bunch of older threads (in some cases very old) on feminism. 
Oldy from 2002 but probably one of the best.
Should men describe themselves as feminists, if they are supportive of feminism? (relatively recent from 2015)
Apparently, Feminism is dead!!! (from 2012)


----------



## dessiato (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Piqued.
> 
> (and I don’t think it was you that spoiled the thread)


That'll teach me to post at 3 in the morning.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

weepiper said:


> We've got to 'ugly women are lucky because men will still pay to put their penis in them' already?



We have now.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Longish thread on UBI here. FWIW I'm on the highly sceptical side.



For the record, from what I read about UBI, I believe the trial had run its course, as opposed to that it had "failed" as such.  That finding we were talking about earlier being that, unsurprisingly, stopping hassling people about getting a job does not in itself lead to them getting a job.  

More interestingly to me (and the journalism could equally have been framed as such), it suggests that the only result of hassling people to get a job is making them unhappy and creating costly bureaucracy.


----------



## Manter (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> All I am hearing is women put up with it. Men are going fuck so men are going to fuck.
> 
> Perhaps some women would like to comment, or is this thread on feminism becoming all about the menz? I do hope not.
> 
> For now I bid you guys goodnight


This is par for the course on urban and may explain why there are no threads on feminism


----------



## Manter (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> For the record, from what I read about UBI, I believe the trial had run its course, as opposed to that it had "failed" as such.  That finding we were talking about earlier being that, unsurprisingly, stopping hassling people about getting a job does not in itself lead to them getting a job.
> 
> More interestingly to me (and the journalism could equally have been framed as such), it suggests that the only result of hassling people to get a job is making them unhappy and creating costly bureaucracy.


I understood it wasn’t UBI because a) it wasn’t U and b) it was not enough to live on so wasn’t a BI. 

It was just ‘benefits’ just without lots of strings and conditions, which we have all become used to


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> This is par for the course on urban and may explain why there are no threads on feminism


I do not quit easily


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> I understood it wasn’t UBI because a) it wasn’t U and b) it was not enough to live on so wasn’t a BI.
> 
> It was just ‘benefits’ just without lots of strings and conditions, which we have all become used to



Yeah, it was essentially "free money with no strings attached" (for a limited trial, the "it wasn't U" bit is slightly churlish, but the "BI" bit is fair).
Worryingly, one of the next things the Finnish had on their agenda to try out was Universal Credit (I haven't looked up the results of that yet).


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I do not quit easily



Clearly, that bonobo liver doesn't either.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> For the record, from what I read about UBI, I believe the trial had run its course, as opposed to that it had "failed" as such.  That finding we were talking about earlier being that, unsurprisingly, stopping hassling people about getting a job does not in itself lead to them getting a job.


That thread (and my scepticism) covers more than just the Finland trial.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> Well what a surprise this thread has gone to shit.


We can choose not to let it


----------



## Manter (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, it was essentially "free money with no strings attached" (for a limited trial, the "it wasn't U" bit is slightly churlish, but the "BI" bit is fair).
> Worryingly, one of the next things the Finnish had on their agenda to try out was Universal Credit (I haven't looked up the results of that yet).


Depends what they mean by universal credit I guess. Simplifying and streamlining a maze of credits and benefits makes a lot of sense- reduces errors, reduces cost of administration, recipients more likely to understand what they get etc. How it’s been done in the UK is absolutely inexcusable. 

Also of course worth bearing in mind that Finnish system is so fundamentally different from ours- including their attitude to people in the benefits system, value of work, role of family etc that whatever they do won’t be entirely comparable


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Statistically, is a crab fisherman on the Bering straights safer than a woman, in any job?


according to this unimpeachably rigorous source, yes.

Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in the World - Curiosity Aroused


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> according to this unimpeachably rigorous source, yes.
> 
> Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in the World - Curiosity Aroused


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> Also of course worth bearing in mind that Finnish system is so fundamentally different from ours- including their attitude to people in the benefits system, value of work, role of family etc that whatever they do won’t be entirely comparable


Here is a nub, the nub (?) of the problem in the UK. 

Much of what is understood as "women's work" holds no value. There is little if any real recognition of the actual non-stop, sheer hard slog of mothering and caring for relatives. This undervaluing of this work is realised in the refusal for the state to pay for it and the insistence of women having to better themselves and do other work that is paid, and then paying other women to do the caring for them. This tells women to behave  exactly like men do to their wives/partners, upholding the misogynist, hierarchical model.

Is the answer to de-feminise care work? And what does the de-feminisation of care work look like?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> according to this unimpeachably rigorous source, yes.
> 
> Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in the World - Curiosity Aroused


Number 3
And yet the only one that remains mostly illegal and without safety concerns for its workers


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Perhaps some women would like to comment, or is this thread on feminism becoming all about the menz? I do hope not.


Welcome to urban.  Fuck it, welcome to life.


----------



## killer b (Apr 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> This is par for the course on urban and may explain why there are no threads on feminism


By 2pm this afternoon, it's going to be about guns. Or tanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 22, 2019)

A couple of people have now been banned from the thread.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)




----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 22, 2019)

FWIW I think it'd be a good thing if sex work stayed taboo. Not illegal - people who _buy _sex should be criminalised, not people who _sell_ it - but taboo, why not? Is sex work something we aspire to for ourselves or our kids? It's one of the least skilled jobs there is, it's harmful physically and mentally. There may be some who do it because 'they like it', because it suits them, because it brings in the right income with the right level of investment, because they believe objectifying and selling themselves sexually is empowering for them, but I don't believe for a moment this is the majority of sex workers.

Ideally, buying sex would be taboo while selling it were not; I think that would be an impossible combination. If buying sex is taboo, selling it is bound to be taboo as well. And I don't think this is such a bad thing because surely almost any other kind of work is preferable? Maybe for some people, who have been sexualised and objectified from a young age, it is the best thing they can see themselves doing. That, frankly, is tragic.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. There was a time I was being offered sex work (dancing / stripping anyway, but that can lead to almost anywhere IME) and even though at the time I was struggling for work, I kept looking for something else. Yes, that was my problem, my neurosis let's say, but I believe many people faced with the same choice feel similarly about it. I was lucky, I found other work. I don't know what I'd have ended up doing if that hadn't happened. It's not a time in my life I like to think too much about tbh.

Most sex-workers do not have such a choice. They should _not _be stigmatized - but the work itself IMO should stay taboo, if only to discourage people from taking it up.

It's a difficult issue but unlike many menz I do have some experience on the 'seller' end, still I am sorry for posting on the subject. It will be my only post on 'sex work' on this thread, even if I get flamed for it.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A couple of people have now been banned from the thread.



And 5 people like it.

It's all BDSM round these parts these days.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Much of what is understood as "women's work" holds no value. There is little if any real recognition of the actual non-stop, sheer hard slog of mothering and caring for relatives. This undervaluing of this work is realised in the refusal for the state to pay for it and the insistence of women having to better themselves and do other work that is paid, and then paying other women to do the caring for them. This tells women to behave  exactly like men do to their wives/partners, upholding the misogynist, hierarchical model.


This is certainly true but I'm not sure it's a particularly UK thing.

It's also partly why I'm critical of UBI. IMO the older feminist demands for wages for all work were radical and interesting because they originated from workers recognising their exploitation. Most of the movement of UBI is top down, individually driven - hence its support by Neo-liberals. UBI is not articulated as a method to oppose the exploitation of workers, particularly women, but rather a method of keeping the benefits budget under control.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 22, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> FWIW I think it'd be a good thing if sex work stayed taboo.
> ...


And it is taboo, the job center can't sanction you for not taking up a position as a sex worker. 
Long may this remain.


----------



## killer b (Apr 22, 2019)

How about the job centre not sanctioning anyone full stop? FFS


----------



## killer b (Apr 22, 2019)

(Also, job centre sanctions totally _do_ force women into sex work. Just not officially)


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> It's a difficult issue but unlike many menz I do have some experience on the 'seller' end, still I am sorry for posting on the subject. It will be my only post on 'sex work' on this thread, even if I get flamed for it.


Thank you for such a personal post. 

It is a difficult issue and like many have said, it would be good to concentrate on other areas of "women's work". Women are more than sex vending machines. 

Thank you again x


----------



## weltweit (Apr 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> (Also, job centre sanctions totally _do_ force women into sex work. Just not officially)


That is probably true, but I was just making the point that sex work is officially deemed to be different from other forms of work.


----------



## killer b (Apr 22, 2019)

weltweit said:


> That is probably true, but I was just making the point that sex work is officially deemed to be different from other forms of work.


so what? it's the effects of the sanctions that matter, not the lip service.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> UBI is not articulated as a method to oppose the exploitation of workers, particularly women, but rather a method of keeping the benefits budget under control.



No system will provide value to "women's work" until it is accepted that women are being exploited by society and men in general.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> so what? it's the effects of the sanctions that matter, not the lip service.


To whom?


----------



## Sue (Apr 22, 2019)

weltweit said:


> And it is taboo, the job center can't sanction you for not taking up a position as a sex worker.
> Long may this remain.


The job centre as arbiter of what is or isn't taboo? WTF.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> The job centre as arbiter of what is or isn't taboo? WTF.


Perhaps I should have written "even the job centre .. "


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

I am not sure of its relevance. Are we to applaud the job centre for not making a woman suck cock for her benefits?


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Here is a nub, the nub (?) of the problem in the UK.
> 
> Much of what is understood as "women's work" holds no value. There is little if any real recognition of the actual non-stop, sheer hard slog of mothering and caring for relatives. This undervaluing of this work is realised in the refusal for the state to pay for it and the insistence of women having to better themselves and do other work that is paid, and then paying other women to do the caring for them. This tells women to behave  exactly like men do to their wives/partners, upholding the misogynist, hierarchical model.
> 
> Is the answer to de-feminise care work? And what does the de-feminisation of care work look like?


Yes this is the nub. I think a good first step would be simply to value and PAY caring roles more. This is naive pie in the sky I’m sure, but what I’d like to see is a radical overhaul of what people are paid in society. I’d like any caring or nurturing role (which in my opinion is far FAR more difficult than many other highly paid numerate jobs, and involves far more soft skills like brilliant communication, empathy, compassion, negotiation) to be paid MORE. To include, but not be limited to: HCAs, nurses, care agency staff, nursing home staff, teachers, TAs, Foster carers, adoptive carers, stay at home Mums, relative carers etc.

I would like these people to be paid significantly more. Now I’m shit at economics, so I don’t know if this would work, but I would like to suggest that the increase in their wages- and therefore social position- comes from other industries and I would hazard a guess that this would have to be taxation. Unless someone better at economics has a better idea.

But I do absolutely think that these people- vastly, predominantly women- do literally the most important job in society and that it’s about time that was recognised.

Finally, some of the men on this thread are an absolute embarrassment  Won’t somebody please think about the crab fishermen.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Yes this is the nub. I think a good first step would be simply to value and PAY caring roles more.



There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.

Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.

Part of it, I think, is going to come down to our economy being based on the conversion of resources into exchange commodities, and the industries based around extracting profit from that, and the concomitant "making money from money" derivations.  Looking after people doesn't fit too well into it.  There are clever folk around here that will have far more to say on this.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

Why is a banker paid more than a foster carer. That’s what we’ve got to ask ourselves. Cos let me tell you, sat there in your air conditioned office with your spreadsheet and your Pret A Manger sandwich doing numbers and negotiation, is that REALLY more difficult than a 24/7 role managing minute to minute the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of an emotionally damaged child? Is it more difficult, let alone more important. Is it fuck, and that’s the rub.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.
> 
> Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.


Exactly. Hoofwankery. Get out.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Won’t somebody please think about the crab fishermen.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Is the answer to de-feminise care work? And what does the de-feminisation of care work look like?



Yes.

It is happening IMO, but slowly. And not evenly. General nursing is increasingly attracting men, caring for say old people in homes perhaps less so. My sector, learning disability, has quite a few men at the bottom level but we're definitely the minority.

As an additional point, in my last job my line manager, her senior manager, the finance manager, HR manager and CEO were all women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.
> 
> Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.
> 
> Part of it, I think, is going to come down to our economy being based on the conversion of resources into exchange commodities, and the industries based around extracting profit from that, and the concomitant "making money from money" derivations.  Looking after people doesn't fit too well into it.  There are clever folk around here that will have far more to say on this.


The Abolition of Work

where i start from on the issue of work


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The Abolition of Work
> 
> where i start from on the issue of work



I like that essay, though I think it works better as a guiding star rather than anything that helps with practical strategies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I like that essay, though I think it works better as a guiding star rather than anything that helps with practical strategies.


You have to have something to start with, it's not, as you say, a practical how-to


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Now I’m shit at economics, so I don’t know if this would work, but I would like to suggest that the increase in their wages- and therefore social position- comes from other industries and I would hazard a guess that this would have to be taxation. Unless someone better at economics has a better idea.
> 
> But I do absolutely think that these people- vastly, predominantly women- do literally the most important job in society and that it’s about time that was recognised.





8ball said:


> There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.
> 
> Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.
> 
> Part of it, I think, is going to come down to our economy being based on the conversion of resources into exchange commodities, and the industries based around extracting profit from that, and the concomitant "making money from money" derivations.  Looking after people doesn't fit too well into it.  There are clever folk around here that will have far more to say on this.



Our economy is based on patriarchal capitalism. Sovereignty over dominion and resources, including women. 

The doughnut economic system seems interesting iirc. 

Finally, a breakthrough alternative to growth economics – the doughnut | George Monbiot

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(17)30028-1.pdf

But do we really expect those who benefit from the subjugation of women and the current economic system to give it all up?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Sovereignty over dominion and resources, including women.



Can you expand on that a little?

edit: that business with the doughnut intrigues me

edit2: might just be that I'm hungry


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The Abolition of Work
> 
> where i start from on the issue of work



Good to see women's work gets a *WHOLE PARAGRAPH!*

"Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to _housewives_ doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor. The nuclear family as we know it is an inevitable adaptation to the division of labor imposed by modern wage-work. Like it or not, as things have been for the last century or two it is economically rational for the man to bring home the bacon, for the woman to do the shitwork to provide him with a haven in a heartless world, and for the children to be marched off to youth concentration camps called “schools,” primarily to keep them out of Mom’s hair but still under control, but incidentally to acquire the habits of obedience and punctuality so necessary for workers. If you would be rid of patriarchy, get rid of the nuclear family whose unpaid “shadow work,” as Ivan Illich says, makes possible the work-system that makes _it_ necessary."


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Good to see women's work gets a *WHOLE PARAGRAPH!*
> 
> "Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to _housewives_ doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor. The nuclear family as we know it is an inevitable adaptation to the division of labor imposed by modern wage-work. Like it or not, as things have been for the last century or two it is economically rational for the man to bring home the bacon, for the woman to do the shitwork to provide him with a haven in a heartless world, and for the children to be marched off to youth concentration camps called “schools,” primarily to keep them out of Mom’s hair but still under control, but incidentally to acquire the habits of obedience and punctuality so necessary for workers. If you would be rid of patriarchy, get rid of the nuclear family whose unpaid “shadow work,” as Ivan Illich says, makes possible the work-system that makes _it_ necessary."


yeh, i said it was a starting point. i thought that suggested it wasn't perfect or a blueprint but something to begin with.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, i said it was a starting point. i thought that suggested it wasn't perfect or a blueprint but something to begin with.


Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.


yeh which is why i introduced the link as a starting point, where you (pl.) go with it, up to you.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.



I'm not too sure what this thread is tbh.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm not too sure what this thread is tbh.


It's just as Edie says, an attempt to look at work and society from the perspective of women

I don't get how this is hard to understand?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> It's just as Edie says, an attempt to look at work and society from the perspective of women
> 
> I don't get how this is hard to understand?



Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.

But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.

We did discuss a "feminism" forum a while back, but in the end I think didn't go with it because it overlaps so many other topics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
> As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.
> 
> But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.
> ...


also it would tend to place discussion in a sort of ghetto


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> also it would tend to place discussion in a sort of ghetto



Yep, I remember that being raised too now.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
> As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.
> 
> But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.
> ...


Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
> As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.
> 
> But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.
> ...


Yep. No one wants to hear the words 'maybe if you think it's sexist you should take it to the feminism forum'. Because that would be shit.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why is a banker paid more than a foster carer. That’s what we’ve got to ask ourselves. Cos let me tell you, sat there in your air conditioned office with your spreadsheet and your Pret A Manger sandwich doing numbers and negotiation, is that REALLY more difficult than a 24/7 role managing minute to minute the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of an emotionally damaged child? Is it more difficult, let alone more important. Is it fuck, and that’s the rub.


The answer is simple. We live in a society where greed is considered far more acceptable than caring.

I don't see that changing while we live in this capitalist world.

Basic economics means that ultimately it cannot continue to grow. The market is not infinitely expandable, even though many seem to think it is. 

Hopefully, hopefully, when this is more generally understood and accepted people will start to realise that there's other more important things in life than being immeasurably wealthy.


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome


Of course it's always good to have discussion. Frustrating, inevitably (fucking fishermen?! Wtf?!!) but definitely good. Welcome, Jude.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome



You must admit we've had some... interesting experiences in the past with posters who thunder on in without an apparent phase of reconnaisance and getting a feel for the lay of the land, though.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 22, 2019)

Even if this turns out to be a banned returner, and I hope they aren't, the subject does merit discussion. I hope the thread continues regardless.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

I couldn’t give a rats arse who Jude is or isn’t, honestly who cares, I’m interested in what they have to say and so far her contribution has been quality. So back on topic...

Equal paternal leave when a baby is born, that’s another Good Thing. 

So is increased amounts of flexi-working for everyone without having to overly justify it. Cos it’s disproportionately the woman who takes the part time, low paid, or cash in hand work to ‘fit round’ childcare cos the man with the ‘real job’ can’t leave early or start late. Heave-ho with that one, with ALL jobs being open to LTFT or job sharing.

I have other suggestions...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> So is increased amounts of flexi-working for everyone without having to overly justify it.



Does "everyone" include non-parents?


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Does "everyone" include non-parents?


Everyone.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Everyone.



Count me in.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

In the specific subject of why some work gets paid more than others: a major part of that is because capital is willing to pay for labour on the basis of the profit it generates, not social value.  It’s also keen to let somebody else pay for necessary costs if it can at all get away with it (eg paying for the work that has to be done in a household to sustain it).  Bankers don’t get paid more than nurses because anybody seriously thinks they are more “worthwhile”.  It’s purely because the value nurses create is diffused across society whereas a banker directly provides a particular somebody with a £ amount, and so that somebody will pay 1% for the privilege.

The answer, as ever, starts with the elimination of capitalism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> I couldn’t give a rats arse who Jude is or isn’t, honestly who cares, I’m interested in what they have to say and so far her contribution has been quality. So back on topic...
> 
> Equal paternal leave when a baby is born, that’s another Good Thing.
> 
> ...


Yep, these are all good and right, and yes, for parents _and_ non-parents is also key. Glad you said that. Universal rights and expectations - a society-wide change in attitudes. I don't see mothers being the primary carers in a child's early years in a majority of cases going away any time soon, and I'm not even sure if it should go away. It is the structure of society that needs to change, rather than some kind of a denial or obliteration of difference. 

The above is key to the gender pay gap. It annoys me a little when this stuff gets discussed in ways that ignore this obvious point, as it was over the pay of extremely rich television presenters recently. Women and men are paid roughly the same before they have children - in fact, in the UK women under 30 narrowly edge men now in pay, reflecting much higher educational achievement among girls. After that, a gap widens, and the higher up the pay scale you get the wider the gap tends to be. It's pretty obvious why this is, imo. (A separate concern, the underachievement of boys, is also worthy of discussion, but not really relevant to this, except to show how strong the effect of motherhood is in holding back careers contrasted with the much weaker effect of fatherhood.)

Best thing about this solution is that we all win - women, men, children.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

Stats for gender pay gaps in Europe are perhaps not what you might expect. Lowest by some distance is Romania. Among rich northern countries, Belgium stands out as way lower than most of its neighbours. 

Gender pay gap statistics - Statistics Explained


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> In the specific subject of why some work gets paid more than others: a major part of that is because capital is willing to pay for labour on the basis of the profit it generates, not social value.  It’s also keen to let somebody else pay for necessary costs if it can at all get away with it (eg paying for the work that has to be done in a household to sustain it).  Bankers don’t get paid more than nurses because anybody seriously thinks they are more “worthwhile”.  It’s purely because the value nurses create is diffused across society whereas a banker directly provides a particular somebody with a £ amount, and so that somebody will pay 1% for the privilege.
> 
> The answer, as ever, starts with the elimination of capitalism.


Yes I see


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stats for gender pay gaps in Europe are perhaps not what you might expect. Lowest by some distance is Romania. Among rich northern countries, Belgium stands out as way lower than most of its neighbours.
> 
> Gender pay gap statistics - Statistics Explained


I don’t think that should come as a surprise to those looking to understand the rise in pay gaps generally in the U.K.  the growth in cap between the CEO and cleaner of a company in the last 40 years has not been driven by social values so much as economic liberalisation (notwithstanding that each are the shadow of the other)


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Poot said:


> Of course it's always good to have discussion. Frustrating, inevitably (fucking fishermen?! Wtf?!!) but definitely good. Welcome, Jude.


Thanks Poot

I can understand the criticism. A whole forum for feminism would be too much of a risk. I have not looked at many other threads but if this one is an example, the feminist angle to any discussion might be getting shouted down. 

My intention was to find somewhere to discuss theory in relation to practical necessities in today's society, women's work, the environment and economic changes that are required, from a feminist perspective. 

The second wave now much maligned is in my view worth revisiting to help us answer the questions of today and plan/move forward to tomorrow. 

It's not times up on patriarchal capitalism, but the current system is not working for the majority of the human race and it would be sad if a feminist vision of how the world could work better for all, including women, was not supposed and interrogated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I don’t think that should come as a surprise to those looking to understand the rise in pay gaps generally in the U.K.  the growth in cap between the CEO and cleaner of a company in the last 40 years has not been driven by social values so much as economic liberalisation (notwithstanding that each are the shadow of the other)


My guess before looking would have been that generally ex-communist countries would have smaller gaps. The pattern there is a bit mixed. Stubbornly high gaps among richer 'western' countries, except Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg, which are strikingly different.

It is a good point though that widening inequality in general is likely to lead to widening gender pay gaps as well. When analysed against both sex and race, the US produces some interesting results. I would have predicted this: huge gap among white people and Asian people (cos more of them have well-paid jobs); small gap among black people (cos fewer black people have well-paid jobs, and both black men and black women earn on average less than white women).


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My guess before looking would have been that generally ex-communist countries would have smaller gaps. The pattern there is a bit mixed. Stubbornly high gaps among richer 'western' countries, except Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg, which are strikingly different.


Mixed is putting it mildly. 

The 'striking difference' with Italy is much overstated too, it ranks 118th on a list of economic participation and opportunity. The direct pay gap figure only relates to women actually in work (not entirely unreasonably) and so misses out a hell of a lot of women.  I _suspect _that that is true of Romania, which is the only Euro country (I think) that has a  lower gap.

Italy ranks only a little better than average (and way behind the UK) on umpteen wider measures - see http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, these are all good and right, and yes, for parents _and_ non-parents is also key. Glad you said that. Universal rights and expectations - a society-wide change in attitudes. I don't see mothers being the primary carers in a child's early years in a majority of cases going away any time soon, and I'm not even sure if it should go away. It is the structure of society that needs to change, rather than some kind of a denial or obliteration of difference.



Too damn right! It has to be acknowledged that in the main women want to be with their babies and not outsource motherhood. There should be mechanisms in place to allow this to happen. Women are not non-men. Society is not built for our image. I have not searched to see if there is a thread on Caroline Cirado Perez's book which exposes just how little concern there is for women in all areas of society. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> The above is key to the gender pay gap. It annoys me a little when this stuff gets discussed in ways that ignore this obvious point, as it was over the pay of extremely rich television presenters recently. Women and men are paid roughly the same before they have children - in fact, in the UK women under 30 narrowly edge men now in pay, reflecting much higher educational achievement among girls. After that, a gap widens, and the higher up the pay scale you get the wider the gap tends to be. It's pretty obvious why this is, imo. (A separate concern, the underachievement of boys, is also worthy of discussion, but not really relevant to this, except to show how strong the effect of motherhood is in holding back careers contrasted with the much weaker effect of fatherhood.)
> 
> Best thing about this solution is that we all win - women, men, children.



The majority of  women and girls will be mothers or carers at some stage of their lives, and if  this is not respected,  made a focus, or not valued, and if our concepts of what constitute work remain limited and blinkered, then this is merely internalised patriarchy, not women-centred politics or feminism. If the women's work is not respected by society, no work done by women has a chance for true equality, working for pay or not, mothers or not.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

well, if we're going to discuss economic proposals and the like first we have to discuss the racialised divisions within the workforce, something most of the ivory tower left is utterly incompetent, siding with racist unions to get the sorry remains of the labour party elected. Angry Workers World blog is a good start.

Migration and national social democracy in Britain


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Too damn right! It has to be acknowledged that in the main women want to be with their babies and not outsource motherhood. There should be mechanisms in place to allow this to happen. Women are not non-men. Society is not built for our image. I have not searched to see if there is a thread on Caroline Cirado Perez's book which exposes just how little concern there is for women in all areas of society.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of  women and girls will be mothers or carers at some stage of their lives, and if  this is not respected,  made a focus, or not valued, and if our concepts of what constitute work remain limited and blinkered, then this is merely internalised patriarchy, not women-centred politics or feminism. If the women's work is not respected by society, no work done by women has a chance for true equality, working for pay or not, mothers or not.


Yep agreed. Needs a wide-ranging change in attitudes. My mum was a ward sister before she had kids. Came back to work p/t a few years later as a staff nurse, which is what she remained for the rest of her working life. This was just normal back then. But it's only very recently - 15 years or so ago - that part-time workers even had the right to holiday and sick pay. We've still got a very long way to go.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> well, if we're going to discuss economic proposals and the like first we have to discuss the racialised divisions within the workforce, something most of the ivory tower left is utterly incompetent, siding with racist unions to get the sorry remains of the labour party elected. Angry Workers World blog is a good start.
> 
> Migration and national social democracy in Britain


Do we? From a feminist perspective? 

It might be worth first discussing why women are oppressed, acknowledging that structural male domination exists and exploring what this looks like. Once we have the truest picture of the system of oppression that women face, then we could examine what actions need to be taken to change it.


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My guess before looking would have been that generally ex-communist countries would have smaller gaps. The pattern there is a bit mixed. Stubbornly high gaps among richer 'western' countries, except Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg, which are strikingly different.
> 
> It is a good point though that widening inequality in general is likely to lead to widening gender pay gaps as well. When analysed against both sex and race, the US produces some interesting results. I would have predicted this: huge gap among white people and Asian people (cos more of them have well-paid jobs); small gap among black people (cos fewer black people have well-paid jobs, and both black men and black women earn on average less than white women).


I'm sorry but I take these statistics with a massive pinch of salt. They way that they are presented is almost always showing a skewed picture. I don't doubt for a second that the gap varies between ethnic groups, countries etc etc. But there is always an agenda. Always. The gpg statistics at my workplace are always being thrown in my face and they are clearly bollocks. For a start most of us women have job titles that are several grades below what we actually do. So I do get a bit pissed off with this kind of statistic. Lies, damned lies etc.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

the truist system of oppression of women is racialised. something you would know if you actually had more than transitory relationships with non-white people who don't talk the language of the intelligentsia.

You get used to this sort of glee and mock dismissal. It's partially why I gravitated to communism.

Are you going to read the article or not because it talks quite a bit about temporary migrant women workers.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

It's like when Mingus told roach that he was thinking like a white man because he'd rather save his car than an animal. that's pretty much the trajectory of this forum over the past 3 years. pretty much smug remainiac idpol central with all the racist attitudes that entails.

You could have actually glanced over the article, or defered it for later reading, instead assuming it was all about men men men, when it wasn't. you're the one making assumptions here.

Always seems to happen here. everyone wants clickbait.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Do we? From a feminist perspective?
> 
> It might be worth first discussing why women are oppressed, acknowledging that structural male domination exists and exploring what this looks like. Once we have the truest picture of the system of oppression that women face, then we could examine what actions need to be taken to change it.


why separate them off from one another? The nature of women's oppression, and of racism, both come from the introduction of 'modern' capitalism and the changes required to end feudal support systems. It cannot be sensibly discussed 'outside of' capitalism - just as you can't sensibly talk about ending capitalism without also talking about ending it's patriarchal and racist bedrocks. They are all intimately connected.  Federici is spot on on this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Are you going to read the article or not because it talks quite a bit about temporary migrant women workers.


Can you summarise or perhaps quote a relevant bit? You've not given anyone a particular reason to read the link.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> smug remainiac idpol central


fucks knows what boards you are reading if you think any of that is true.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you summarise or perhaps quote a relevant bit? You've not given anyone a particular reason to read the link.



I can summarise it but then people won't look at the unfolding of the argument so it's pointless.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you summarise or perhaps quote a relevant bit? You've not given anyone a particular reason to read the link.



And I don't have to do your work for you either.

Unwatching thread.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> fucks knows what boards you are reading if you think any of that is true.



Apologies, that should have read smug remainiac or idpol central, because people like mcdumpty were doing an identity politics as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> And I don't have to do your work for you either.
> 
> Unwatching thread.


Nah, you're not getting away with that. It is basic board etiquette to give context to links and provide summaries/quotes to give people reason to look at them. It is hugely egotistical to expect people to read stuff just cos you said so.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

OK a little bit more clarification. I started this thread because I wanted to examine societal needs from a feminist perspective and was hoping to find other feminists to discuss issues around women's work especially in the context of the change to patriarchal capitalism as and economic and social function which requires modification or radical removal to ensure the safety of humanity and other world creatures. 

I am grateful that people are engaging, feminists and feminist-allies,  and I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

It would be helpful as this is a thread regarding feminism that any links have context explained especially if the focus of the article is NOT primarily women and feminism.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 22, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Exactly!
> Men don't get the opportunity to get paid for sex.



Ok what planet is this?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> why separate them off from one another? The nature of women's oppression, and of racism, both come from the introduction of 'modern' capitalism and the changes required to end feudal support systems. It cannot be sensibly discussed 'outside of' capitalism - just as you can't sensibly talk about ending capitalism without also talking about ending it's patriarchal and racist bedrocks. They are all intimately connected.  Federici is spot on on this.



They could both be sensibly discussed and we could also concentrate only on the patriarchal bedrocks of capitalism in a thread about feminism. There is the risk if we try to cover racism except as a function of scrutinising intersectionality  we will end up only or mostly talking about racism as that includes penis people and this thread is about people who do not have penises.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ok what planet is this?


Planet NAMALT?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Poot said:


> I'm sorry but I take these statistics with a massive pinch of salt. They way that they are presented is almost always showing a skewed picture. I don't doubt for a second that the gap varies between ethnic groups, countries etc etc. But there is always an agenda. Always. The gpg statistics at my workplace are always being thrown in my face and they are clearly bollocks. For a start most of us women have job titles that are several grades below what we actually do. So I do get a bit pissed off with this kind of statistic. Lies, damned lies etc.


In your role Poots, are men given higher grades and titles for doing the same work? Or is there a definitive separation of the sexes in behaviours within your company?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep agreed. Needs a wide-ranging change in attitudes. My mum was a ward sister before she had kids. Came back to work p/t a few years later as a staff nurse, which is what she remained for the rest of her working life. This was just normal back then. But it's only very recently - 15 years or so ago - that part-time workers even had the right to holiday and sick pay. We've still got a very long way to go.


It is also very possible that your mother was unable to get a loan or a mortgage without a man's signature. We forget how recently women gained many of the rights they have today.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

That article has fuck all to do with intersectionalism. rather than froth at the mouth talking about people with no penises, have some fucking empathy for people in the food industry (predominantly women by the way) who work to getting your poxy English food to you at a just in time rate with very little to no English language skills, something you would know if you weren't a shit stirrer. not just another country in Africa, right on your doorstep in West London.


----------



## Edie (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Too damn right! It has to be acknowledged that in the main women want to be with their babies and not outsource motherhood. There should be mechanisms in place to allow this to happen. Women are not non-men. Society is not built for our image. I have not searched to see if there is a thread on Caroline Cirado Perez's book which exposes just how little concern there is for women in all areas of society.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of  women and girls will be mothers or carers at some stage of their lives, and if  this is not respected,  made a focus, or not valued, and if our concepts of what constitute work remain limited and blinkered, then this is merely internalised patriarchy, not women-centred politics or feminism. If the women's work is not respected by society, no work done by women has a chance for true equality, working for pay or not, mothers or not.


I’m really really glad you said this. Because part of what I’d like to see happen is women properly supported in staying home with their babies and small kids. That having to put them in childcare despite baby crying at drop off, and Mum crying round the corner as soon as she’s ten steps away, is shite.


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> In your role Poots, are men given higher grades and titles for doing the same work? Or is there a definitive separation of the sexes in behaviours within your company?


My experience, which is not unique, is that middle management is almost entirely made of white middle class men, and whilst there is a single very well paid woman director, women are almost never promoted. We just aren't considered. But because of the one female director who earns fucktons, the stats don't look too bad. Or as my manager says 'there's no sexism here. Look at the gender pay gap statistics!' This was shortly after I'd requested something from a male colleague and been told to 'say pretty please!'  So yeah, no sexism apparently, I must be hysterical or something to even consider it.


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> That article has fuck all to do with intersectionalism. *rather than froth at the mouth talking about people with no penises,* have some fucking empathy for people in the food industry (predominantly women by the way) who work to getting your poxy English food to you at a just in time rate with very little to no English language skills, something you would know if you weren't a shit stirrer. not just another country in Africa, right on your doorstep in West London.



You're out of order.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Poot said:


> You're out of order.



So? what you gonna do about it?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

kmt.


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> So? what you gonna do about it?


I'm going to suggest that you step away for a while. I read your article, it was interesting, but this is probably not the best thread for it.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

pretty tame, in all honesty. was hoping for some more full blooded insults.

The thing is, respect for the elders is a cornerstone of the nuclear family and its on in full force on this thread, so, haha.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ok what planet is this?



He can't reply, he's been banned from the thread, and hopefully another one will be soon.



dialectician said:


> Unwatching thread.



Would had been good idea if you had actually done so, perhaps you can step away now?


----------



## BristolEcho (Apr 22, 2019)

Can't find the posts now, but someone mentioned foster carers. Totally agree with that. My Mum was a foster carer for over 30 years and had to fight for her pension as they didn't want to her pay her properly claiming it wasn't work. Luckily there is organising going on now to try and fight this stuff. My Mum never asked for a penny of what she was entitled too beyond the minimum and they still tried to rip her off at the end. 

In regards to care and social work. It's something that has been getting on my nerves for a while. We need to challenge the idea that it is "unskilled" work that anyone can do competently. It's a long road, but again I am seeing signs of resistence which can only be a good thing.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> That article has fuck all to do with intersectionalism. rather than froth at the mouth talking about people with no penises, have some fucking empathy for people in the food industry (predominantly women by the way) who work to getting your poxy English food to you at a just in time rate with very little to no English language skills, something you would know if you weren't a shit stirrer. not just another country in Africa, right on your doorstep in West London.


I am unsure if you are rude to other people in the same way. I am going to make an assumption you are probably not as rude to people with penises. 

Thank you for taking the time to elucidate some of the points of the article you posted. 

FYI I do not live in West London


----------



## scifisam (Apr 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> why separate them off from one another? The nature of women's oppression, and of racism, both come from the introduction of 'modern' capitalism and the changes required to end feudal support systems. It cannot be sensibly discussed 'outside of' capitalism - just as you can't sensibly talk about ending capitalism without also talking about ending it's patriarchal and racist bedrocks. They are all intimately connected.  Federici is spot on on this.



They are connected, but in order to have meaningful discussions you have to separate them. That doesn't mean pretending the connections don't exist, because we should always be aware of them and they're often very important. But when we just go nebulous it's all capitalism all things are interconnected etc etc it goes over the head of most people and is very, very helpful to those in charge because we just argue amongst ourselves about what we should even be arguing about.

It's OK to talk about women being underpaid. It doesn't mean that the people talking about that are unaware that other people are also underpaid. It means we've selected one specific topic to discuss. The way you deal with problems is not to launch yourself headlong against them all like a berserker, you have to break them down and deal with them one by one.

And for discussion on a messageboard that applies even more. Some people want to discuss one topic in a bit of spare time and some other people come along and say no, that's too general! Discuss ALL topics! Now! On this thread!

So should all the Star Trek: Discovery threads then be obliged to be general scifi or TV discussions? Even to the extent that ST is sidelined? No. Then why should talking about being a woman be subsumed by other topics in a thread that was about women?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

nvm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I am unsure if you are rude to other people in the same way. I am going to make an assumption you are probably not as rude to people with penises.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to elucidate some of the points of the article you posted.
> 
> FYI I do not live in West London


To be fair he's rude to everyone without regard for their sex


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> To be fair he's rude to everyone without regard for their sex



Now that's some pedantry i can get behind!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Now that's some pedantry i can get behind!


Perhaps you could get 30 feet behind it or at least 30 feet from a computer or mobile


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could get 30 feet behind it or at least 30 feet from a computer or mobile



Pretty easy with a wireless keyboard that.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Poot said:


> My experience, which is not unique, is that middle management is almost entirely made of white middle class men, and whilst there is a single very well paid woman director, women are almost never promoted. We just aren't considered. But because of the one female director who earns fucktons, the stats don't look too bad. Or as my manager says 'there's no sexism here. Look at the gender pay gap statistics!' This was shortly after I'd requested something from a male colleague and been told to 'say pretty please!'  So yeah, no sexism apparently, I must be hysterical or something to even consider it.


This is a condition oft repeated in organisations. Sex segregation. Men and women perform different jobs and women's jobs are undervalued because they are performed by women. 

This is galling insomuch as historically women were paid less as they were expected to prioritise domestic duties allowing the men to be the main bread winners. Nowadays it is a useful tool of capitalism to keep wages down and a great deal of care work inside the home relatively free. Wherein most households need both wages to remain out of poverty and there are a fuckton of women who are not married/cohabiting and do not have dependents. 

Of course sexual division of labour inside the home is still unchallenged and the patriarchal system of work, organised on the assumption that the protype worker is male, creates a situation removed from reality by an unconcious internalised fantasy of the working man supporting his wife and children on a family wage.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> That article has fuck all to do with intersectionalism. rather than froth at the mouth talking about people with no penises, have some fucking empathy for people in the food industry (predominantly women by the way) who work to getting your poxy English food to you at a just in time rate with very little to no English language skills, something you would know if you weren't a shit stirrer. not just another country in Africa, right on your doorstep in West London.


Why do you go from 0 to 90 like this all the time? You're like an angry shouty child who want his voice to be louder than everyone else's. Why don't you converse with people with a bit more kindness in your words like the way you would like someone to talk to you?

You're a bright lad but no-one engages with you because you rant like rude kid from the Vis.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Why do you go from 0 to 90 like this all the time? You're like an angry shouty child who want his voice to be louder than everyone else's. Why don't you converse with people with a bit more kindness in your words like the way you would like someone to talk to you?
> 
> You're a bright lad but no-one engages with you because you rant like rude kid from the Vis.



Practical intelligence


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> I’m really really glad you said this. Because part of what I’d like to see happen is women properly supported in staying home with their babies and small kids. That having to put them in childcare despite baby crying at drop off, and Mum crying round the corner as soon as she’s ten steps away, is shite.


I am a mother who breastfed each time and also used the attachment method by mistake. Whatever works for a mother. 

The demonisation of the mother must be curtailed and reexamined so that we are not again having to fit into a prototype designed for men. Women who stay at home should not be vilified for doing nothing all day. Childcare is hard work. Those who want to return to work often do so out of necessity. Both wages are needed to ensure the family stays out of poverty. Again these women should not be demonised.

Some women will want to return to work because after a year of winding up bobbins and peekaboo, some adult company is much desired. Again this is not wrong.

Women should be able to make choices and it is society in allowing men to be the breadwinner even before women have started a family - see Poot's post - that leads to women being the primary care worker. Early childcare and parent is often than not the sole responsibility of the mother from 9 til 5 and through the night. 

What do we need to change to allow all mothers the choice to either stay at home or return to a "working life" that allows for parental considerations?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Practical intelligence



Interesting link


----------



## scifisam (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> This is a condition oft repeated in organisations. Sex segregation. Men and women perform different jobs and women's jobs are undervalued because they are performed by women.
> 
> This is galling insomuch as historically women were paid less as they were expected to prioritise domestic duties allowing the men to be the main bread winners. Nowadays it is a useful tool of capitalism to keep wages down and a great deal of care work inside the home relatively free. Wherein most households need both wages to remain out of poverty and there are a fuckton of women who are not married/cohabiting and do not have dependents.
> 
> Of course sexual division of labour inside the home is still unchallenged and the patriarchal system of work, organised on the assumption that the protype worker is male, creates a situation removed from reality by an unconcious internalised fantasy of the working man supporting his wife and children on a family wage.



Yes, parents are still expected to act as if there were two of them, even though there's often only one, and still expected to act as if the woman is the main caregiver.

I wouldn't say it's unchallenged though. It is challenged. But it has been for ages and it doesn't seem to have moved on that much in the past thirty years. We were challenging it then and we still have to challenge it now.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yes, parents are still expected to act as if there were two of them, even though there's often only one, and still expected to act as if the woman is the main caregiver.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's unchallenged though. It is challenged. But it has been for ages and it doesn't seem to have moved on that much in the past thirty years. We were challenging it then and we still have to challenge it now. View attachment 168698



It's like mummy flu. The same as man-flu but nobody gives a shit

I love that picture


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Practical intelligence


Interesting. Ta.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

P.S. Can someone please come and remove all the Easter Eggs from my house?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Interesting. Ta.


I concur
I was judging EQ levels which do not seem to be covered by Sternberg's theory


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Practical intelligence



Cheers, some useful references there, I shall have to read them in depth when I can brace it.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Apr 22, 2019)

BristolEcho said:


> Can't find the posts now, but someone mentioned foster carers. Totally agree with that. My Mum was a foster carer for over 30 years and had to fight for her pension as they didn't want to her pay her properly claiming it wasn't work. Luckily there is organising going on now to try and fight this stuff. My Mum never asked for a penny of what she was entitled too beyond the minimum and they still tried to rip her off at the end.
> 
> In regards to care and social work. It's something that has been getting on my nerves for a while. We need to challenge the idea that it is "unskilled" work that anyone can do competently. It's a long road, but again I am seeing signs of resistence which can only be a good thing.



Never knew that fosters carers got a pension. Dont know why I didn't know that...


----------



## BristolEcho (Apr 22, 2019)

Lupa said:


> Never knew that fosters carers got a pension. Dont know why I didn't know that...



I can't remember the exact details, but it was due to her not making any national insurance contributions IIRC. I think it was to do with the amount of state pension she would get.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I concur
> I was judging EQ levels which do not seem to be covered by Sternberg's theory


The problem with EQ is that it assumes there is a context-free objective standard against which an individual can be judged.  As the link notes, practical intelligence is domain-specific and learner-specific.  The other problem with EQ is that (although it is not necessarily intended as such) it implies something inherent rather than learned.  In Sternberg’s approach, the whole thing is conceptualised as developed abilities, not innate or otherwise fixed qualities.  I think it’s a far more powerful way of thinking about the wider nature of human intelligence.

To bring this back to the subject at hand, the relevance to feminism is that if Sternberg is right, it’s this embedded sociocultural learning about how to interact with your environment that is a key impediment to all types of equality.  Once you learn that your way to fit into the world is to show this characteristic and that behaviour, you don’t even have the conceptualisation you need to challenge it.  This creates an overwhelming need for modelled alternatives to fight these self-conceptualisations that the embedded knowledge brings.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Thanks  

Can you expand on modelled alternatives are they societal or individual?


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Pretty easy with a wireless keyboard that.


I'm giving you a week off from this thread.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Thanks
> 
> Can you expand on modelled alternatives are they societal or individual?


Could be anything.  But think “I can’t be what I can’t see” except on the scale of the full spectrum of behaviour, not just job aspiration.  

It applies to both men and women and about men and women too, of course.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Could be anything.  But think “I can’t be what I can’t see” except on the scale of the full spectrum of behaviour, not just job aspiration.
> 
> It applies to both men and women and about men and women too, of course.


Yes I thought it must be something around this. I was serving dinner whilst snatching a moment to reply before. Which had me thinking I am serving the dinner because I always serve the dinner at the weekends. This is not because I am the only one capable of serving the dinner. But in my household women serve dinner when everyone is home. Does this mean my sons will expect their partners if female, to serve the dinner?

Or is it greater than what they see at home? At their friends' houses I know husbands often do all the cooking. Therefore societally my sons are not conditioned to think all women always serve dinner


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Yes, that’s exactly the kind of questioning that  this kind of thinking about tacit learning raises.  Cultural assumptions are difficult to break because people don’t even notice that they exist.

Out of interest, what would it take for you to simply tell one of your sons that it’s his turn to do dinner this time?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

For that matter, what would it take for him to think to offer?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Yes, that’s exactly the kind of questioning that  this kind of thinking about tacit learning raises.  Cultural assumptions are difficult to break because people don’t even notice that they exist.
> 
> Out of interest, what would it take for you to simply tell one of your sons that it’s his turn to do dinner this time?



They do it during the week. I have put myself firmly in the matriarchal role at the weekends (and bank holidays). We are all together and I do enjoy it. They clear up and the eldest can now load the dishwasher. The youngest wants to do everything the eldest does so drips sauce all over the floor trying to copy big bro. The middle one sits on his arse waiting to be asked to do anything. A cunning ploy I almost admire.

Motherhood should still allow for women to do things she enjoys. I enjoy what is a family ritual.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> They do it during the week. I have put myself firmly in the matriarchal role at the weekends (and bank holidays). We are all together and I do enjoy it. They clear up and the eldest can now load the dishwasher. The youngest wants to do everything the eldest does so drips sauce all over the floor trying to copy big bro. The middle one sits on his arse waiting to be asked to do anything. A cunning ploy I almost admire.
> 
> Motherhood should still allow for women to do things she enjoys. I enjoy what is a family ritual.


There’s nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but it’s still a perfect example of embedded cultural assumptions that are not even identified as something for questioning, let alone questioned.  I’m thinking in particular of your final paragraph, which begs the question. Several, in fact.  What told you what “motherhood” looks like, how did you actually come to enjoy the things you enjoy and where did the family ritual actually come from and why?


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

I can't think of any of my friends who follow the traditional nuclear family layout with women doing the home stuff and the man going out working. Tbh I find that an old attitude - although I do know it still exists in some places. 

Pay equality is a different matter. I've been watching the relative pay at various companies to see how things change now that it's published for medium and large scale companies. I'd hope after time we can see a real improvement in equality now that the figures are published.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> There’s nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but it’s still a perfect example of embedded cultural assumptions that are not even identified as something for questioning, let alone questioned.  I’m thinking in particular of your final paragraph, which begs the question. Several, in fact.  What told you what “motherhood” looks like, how did you actually come to enjoy the things you enjoy and where did the family ritual actually come from and why?


Yes I was going to expand but unless one is saying something interesting I find it's best to shut up before boredom sets in. 

Definitely the Oxo Family 

My mother worked full time and my father prepared all meals.

Motherhood should look however one wants it to. It is not a form of masochism. I believe in today's society motherhood has a role in breaking down hierarchical concepts.



It is a joy to be able to talk sensibly and practically about women’s lives without upholding stereotypes about divisions between women and I am thankful that Urban75 is a place it seems women wish to do this.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 22, 2019)

it can usually happen in the end. after a few bannings


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 22, 2019)

Hi Jude, I just wanted to say welcome to urban!

Just catching up with this thread, it may take a while to read all 12 pages. 

I'm old enough to remember the equal pay act and equal education act coming in. My reading on the subject was all so long ago, along with CR sessions, reclaim the night marches, and Greenham.  I'm trying to get to grips with what it actually means now.  Not sure that much has changed. 

I always love to hear more about feminist stuff.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> I can't think of any of my friends who follow the traditional nuclear family layout with women doing the home stuff and the man going out working. Tbh I find that an old attitude - although I do know it still exists in some places.
> 
> Pay equality is a different matter. I've been watching the relative pay at various companies to see how things change now that it's published for medium and large scale companies. I'd hope after time we can see a real improvement in equality now that the figures are published.


Yes it is completely outdated but the pay gap does not reflect this.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> it can usually happen in the end. after a few bannings


I can assure you I have never been banned from any site and I am not the poster you are looking for


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Yes it is completely outdated but the pay gap does not reflect this.



Fingers crossed the naming and shaming for companies helps matters


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Hi Jude, I just wanted to say welcome to urban!
> 
> Just catching up with this thread, it may take a while to read all 12 pages.
> 
> ...


A pleasure to meet you. What name should I call you? 

Unfortunately until we revisit the past gains we cannot admit/accept how little we have progressed. 

Do you have Netflix? The documentary "She's Beautiful When She's Angry" is a joy to watch. It is about the US women's liberation movements. But as we know they were happening concurrently over the western world it still speaks to us all.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> Fingers crossed the naming and shaming for companies helps matters


Direct action! I like this idea. I may not be the person to organise it beyond what we are already being told in the media. Would there be people on the Direct Action subforums who would pick up the baton on this one? If we knew how insidious it was and not just in terms of unequal pay but also segregated work, it could be an awakening.


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Direct action! I like this idea. I may not be the person to organise it beyond what we are already being told in the media. Would there be people on the Direct Action subforums who would pick up the baton on this one? If we knew how insidious it was and not just in terms of unequal pay but also segregated work, it could be an awakening.



It's now law so no action needed. You can find a companies performance here:

Gender pay gap: What is the pay gap at your company?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> It's now law so no action needed. You can find a companies performance here:
> 
> Gender pay gap: What is the pay gap at your company?


I checked the first company I could think of and it says there is a pay gap. So why no action needed?


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I checked the first company I could think of and it says there is a pay gap. So why no action needed?



I didn't say no action needed. I said that the availability of this information will hopefully reduce the difference due to public shaming.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> A pleasure to meet you. What name should I call you?
> 
> Unfortunately until we revisit the past gains we cannot admit/accept how little we have progressed.
> 
> Do you have Netflix? The documentary "She's Beautiful When She's Angry" is a joy to watch. It is about the US women's liberation movements. But as we know they were happening concurrently over the western world it still speaks to us all.


Hi, some round here call me FoD but I prefer Dorothy.  I don't have netflix, but i've just watched the trailer.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> I didn't say no action needed. I said that the availability of this information will hopefully reduce the difference due to public shaming.


How does that work, then?


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> How does that work, then?



Companies are very conscious about their public appearance. This is a way (one of the ways) that things can hopefully improve the situation.  Name and shame


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Hi, some round here call me FoD but I prefer Dorothy.  I don't have netflix, but i've just watched the trailer.


A pleasure to meet you Dorothy


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> I didn't say no action needed. I said that the availability of this information will hopefully reduce the difference due to public shaming.


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

So find a company on there and tweet them asking what they are doing about it


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> Companies are very conscious about their public appearance. This is a way (one of the ways) that things can hopefully improve the situation.  Name and shame


Is that why CEOs are no longer paid millions of pounds, then, after all the public shaming that’s happened about it?

Is it why Amazon now pays lots of tax?

Is it bollocks.  Companies couldn’t give a shit about these things.


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Companies couldn’t give a shit about these things.



Maybe the CEO won't take action on CEO wages but maybe they will on their minions pay gap.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> Maybe the CEO won't take action on CEO wages but maybe they will on their minions pay gap.


Why will they?


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Why will they?



Companies honestly do think about their public perception. It affects sales so it affects their bottom line. 

The more noise made about it the more they have to listen.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> Companies honestly do think about their public perception. It affects sales so it affects their bottom line.
> 
> The more noise made about it the more they have to listen.


There are plenty of ways to manage public perception that don’t involve increasing your wage bill by 20%


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> I didn't say no action needed. I said that the availability of this information will hopefully reduce the difference due to public shaming.


Why? Countries with much more vocal movements and laws about gender pay gaps than the UK, such as Scandinavian countries, still have big gender pay gaps. This is structural stuff. It doesn't get changed by ceos deciding they're going to be nicer cos some figures have been published.

At best you get almost meaningless gestures like Finland's requirement for female board members, which helps only a tiny number of already rich women who didn't need any help and does fuck all for anyone else.


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> There are plenty of ways to manage public perception that don’t invoke increasing your wage bill by 20%



True. And I'm not saying this publishing is the whole answer. 

A friend of mine is a female engineer in a well known engineering company. Somebody accidently emailed everyone's pay in a spreadsheet some years ago. Because the company was shamed with this my friend and all other females in the company got an immediate pay rise and it was back dated to when she started working for them. She managed to buy a decent car from her windfall


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 22, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I am not the poster you are looking for



this is true, what I wrote referred chiefly to posters who had been banned up till that point, with an abstract kind of nod to those still to be banned down the line.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> True. And I'm not saying this publishing is the whole answer.
> 
> A friend of mine is a female engineer in a well known engineering company. Somebody accidently emailed everyone's pay in a spreadsheet some years ago. Because the company was shamed with this my friend and all other females in the company got an immediate pay rise and it was back dated to when she started working for them. She managed to buy a decent car from her windfall


Only example I can give from personal experience was from a place I was freelancing and three of us were getting more than the fourth. She found out in casual conversation, thought this was because she was a woman, and complained (one of the three on more than her was also a woman but she didn't know that). End result: we all got put down to her wage. Not sure how these anecdotes help.


----------



## Supine (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only example I can give from personal experience was from a place I was freelancing and three of us were getting more than the fourth. She found out in casual conversation, thought this was because she was a woman, and complained (one of the three on more than her was also a woman but she didn't know that). End result: we all got put down to her wage. Not sure how these anecdotes help.



Gutted! TBF my example was a more positive one


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only example I can give from personal experience was from a place I was freelancing and three of us were getting more than the fourth. She found out in casual conversation, thought this was because she was a woman, and complained (one of the three on more than her was also a woman but she didn't know that). End result: we all got put down to her wage. Not sure how these anecdotes help.


Do you mean to tell women they should put up with lower rates because men might suffer if they question it?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> Gutted! TBF my example was a more positive one


And why shouldn't the outcome be positive? If men are being paid more than women and are then told that they are worth "only" the amount the woman is, that is not the woman's fault.
But if the woman is being paid less because she is a woman she should have the opportunity to ask to be paid the same as the men


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Do you mean to tell women they should put up with lower rates because men might suffer if they question it?


Nope. I meant little more than that individual anecdotes mean little. And as ever we are back to power relations and people's status and position of leverage. Among a bunch of pretty low-paid, non-unionised freelancers, management just decided to fuck everyone over equally in reaction to a complaint.


----------



## campanula (Apr 23, 2019)

I have found the discontents of capitalism to be profoundly debilitating  and inextricably linked to oppression as a parent...in particularly   a specific few months either side of the 3 births I have experienced.  It was also easier to find the sort of casualised, lowly paid and often menial work which fitted around childcare while my male partner never had a job which didn't entail a 7.30am start and a finish far later than school pick-up times. The enforced segregation of parenting based on biology, for this woeful and often reluctant mother was  particularly insidious...as it reinforced an already deeply ingrained sense of duty, denial of self and failure of confidence to ever attempt to regain my relatively egalitarian position pre-parenting.
I have nothing remotely objective to say about this thread's earlier pre-occupation with sex-workers since I am so wholly fucked up on that score that my views are basically worthless.
Came late to feminism in the 70s and generally despaired of  later iterations with weasel omissions of class (see the general approval given to 'burlesque' as opposed to mere stripping...) I guess i have some terfy tendencies since I definitely think women should have the right to a penis-free space.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> True. And I'm not saying this publishing is the whole answer.
> 
> A friend of mine is a female engineer in a well known engineering company. Somebody accidently emailed everyone's pay in a spreadsheet some years ago. Because the company was shamed with this my friend and all other females in the company got an immediate pay rise and it was back dated to when she started working for them. She managed to buy a decent car from her windfall


And then they started paying new women (“females” ) equal amounts and giving equal pay rises forever after, as did their rivals who worried that the same thing would happen to them.

No they didn’t, I’m guessing.  They acted to prevent their highly trained workers going to rivals now that those workers and rivals were all in possession of powerful personal information.  It was nothing to do with shame.  

Knowing about generic pay gap statistics will not achieve the same thing at all.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Knowing about generic pay gap statistics will not achieve the same thing at all.


Hi Kabbes, I'd be interested in your thoughts on what would achieve equal pay from offer to leaving? My excitable-self adores the idea of direct action and naming and shaming, if done properly. But would like to know more about why you think it wouldn't work and what you think would.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

campanula said:


> I have found the discontents of capitalism to be profoundly debilitating  and inextricably linked to oppression as a parent...in particularly   a specific few months either side of the 3 births I have experienced.  It was also easier to find the sort of casualised, lowly paid and often menial work which fitted around childcare while my male partner never had a job which didn't entail a 7.30am start and a finish far later than school pick-up times. The enforced segregation of parenting based on biology, for this woeful and often reluctant mother was  particularly insidious...as it reinforced an already deeply ingrained sense of duty, denial of self and failure of confidence to ever attempt to regain my relatively egalitarian position pre-parenting.
> I have nothing remotely objective to say about this thread's earlier pre-occupation with sex-workers since I am so wholly fucked up on that score that my views are basically worthless.
> Came late to feminism in the 70s and generally despaired of  later iterations with weasel omissions of class (see the general approval given to 'burlesque' as opposed to mere stripping...) I guess i have some terfy tendencies since I definitely think women should have the right to a penis-free space.



 Yes let's keep sex work out of it if we can. For while we can all sit here pontificating, unless we have real life experience we may have a tendency to sound patronising. When I read what you said about Burlesque it brought back memories of having the same uncomfortable feeling I think you did. This is just middle class stripping. I even went on a very nice day course to learn how to spin nipple tassles among other skills I have never used again. All very lovely and very far removed from real life experience of sex work. I also don't think there is anything wrong with being a bit terfy. Debate needs to happen and the more no debate is shouted I'm afraid more women are going to turn terf-wards. I am determined this thread is not going to turn into a trans v terf thread. We are here to talk about women and women's issues. 

It is so disappointing that intelligent women are being forced into low paid work to accommodate child care. I did find a good website for women seeking freelance opportunities using the skills and knowledge they had gained through working in high level positions which allowed for some control of hours. I went self-employed after being made redundant during my first round of maternity leave.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 23, 2019)

When I was doing the school run, the only work I could do was self employment. It worked after a fashion, I could at least choose my hours, but it wasn't well paid.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

weltweit said:


> When I was doing the school run, the only work I could do was self employment. It worked after a fashion, I could at least choose my hours, but it wasn't well paid.


Yes I now lose out on sick and holiday pay. With Brexit looming I may look to find a part-time job to receive company benefits. I think I will lose some clients due to supply chain issues. This also means there may be fewer jobs too. 

This is a question to anyone on the thread - we know austerity affected women's jobs to a greater degree than men's. Do we think Brexit will have the same affect? If not, why not? If yes, which industries and why?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 23, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why is a banker paid more than a foster carer. That’s what we’ve got to ask ourselves. Cos let me tell you, sat there in your air conditioned office with your spreadsheet and your Pret A Manger sandwich doing numbers and negotiation, is that REALLY more difficult than a 24/7 role managing minute to minute the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of an emotionally damaged child? Is it more difficult, let alone more important. Is it fuck, and that’s the rub.



I'd recommend this for a discussion of work, gender and class, and how we might get out of it: https://libcom.org/files/the-problem-with-work_-feminism-marxism-kathi-weeks.pdf


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Hi Kabbes, I'd be interested in your thoughts on what would achieve equal pay from offer to leaving? My excitable-self adores the idea of direct action and naming and shaming, if done properly. But would like to know more about why you think it wouldn't work and what you think would.


Oh God, it requires huge structural changes from top to bottom.  Most of the causes of things like pay inequality  is not because somebody directly sets out to oppress women.  The people who set pay probably think of themselves as fair-minded types that treat everyone the same.  But it happens anyway because capital fundamentally sets out to oppress/exploit *everyone*.  And those with the biggest gap between themselves and the means of production get screwed the hardest. When you have to take whatever job is going, the people doing the hiring can afford to pay you the least.  When your job doesn’t produce scalable profit, you’re going to continue to be viewed as a cost centre to be rationalised rather than an asset to be retained.  It’s only 50 years since women even started to gain a measure of power, which is a blink of an eye, and we lived with half-changed minds in a world that is structurally slanted to create barriers for them.  

Let me put it another way: why is there still such a massive pay gap between the average wage of a Briton and the average wage of an Afghani or a Ugandan?  Is it because you are unaware that the difference exists?  Is it because we collectively think Britons are superior?  Or are there deep structural issues to do with ownership and power that don’t go away just because we all decide we’re going to be nice from now on?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

smokedout said:


> I'd recommend this for a discussion of work, gender and class, and how we might get out of it: https://libcom.org/files/the-problem-with-work_-feminism-marxism-kathi-weeks.pdf


Fabulous - thank you. 

Are there certain parts of the text you would recommend we look at first?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It’s only 50 years since women even started to gain a measure of power, which is a blink of an eye, and we lived with half-changed minds in a world that is structurally slanted to create barriers for them.



I do not think that people realise how recently in historical terms women actually gained as you say a measure of power. Within my mother's lifetime, loans and mortgages were not afforded to women without the signature of a husband or father.

And let's not get on to rape within marriage and how difficult it remains for a woman to get heard and believed to the extent that ‘the law’ (or its representatives) intervene in ways that prevent, protect or even punish perpetrators.



kabbes said:


> Let me put it another way: why is there still such a massive pay gap between the average wage of a Briton and the average wage of an Afghani or a Ugandan?  Is it because you are unaware that the difference exists?  Is it because we collectively think Britons are superior?  Or are there deep structural issues to do with ownership and power that don’t go away just because we all decide we’re going to be nice from now on?


 Do you mean an Afghani and Ugandan living in the UK or within their own countries. I require a little more of your insight on this either way.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> I can't think of any of my friends who follow the traditional nuclear family layout with women doing the home stuff and the man going out working. Tbh I find that an old attitude - although I do know it still exists in some places.


*raises hand* he's better at putting up with workplace bullshit in a lucrative field. i'm better at being my own boss and doing repetitive manual/dirty stuff


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> *raises hand* he's better at putting up with workplace bullshit in a lucrative field. i'm better at being my own boss and doing repetitive manual/dirty stuff


Are you both men or am I assuming your gender Bob ?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Do you mean an Afghani and Ugandan living in the UK or within their own countries. I require a little more of your insight on this either way.


In their own countries.  I’m asking (semi-rhetorically) why such wealth disparity perpetuates across people generally?  You don’t need to view male/female disparity as existing as somehow distinct from that process.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Are you both men or am I assuming your gender Bob ?


Bobs a woman.  And for transparency: I’m a man.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Are you both men or am I assuming your gender Bob ?


a millennial me might be gender fluid, perhaps, but i'm born female


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> a millennial me might be gender fluid, perhaps, but i'm born female


An old bird like me tries to always be as gender free as I can


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> In their own countries.  I’m asking (semi-rhetorically) why such wealth disparity perpetuates across people generally?  You don’t need to view male/female disparity as existing as somehow distinct from that process.


But in terms of the feminist perspective we will examine the male/female disparity


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> An old bird like me tries to always be as gender free as I can


i approach the world that way but it doesn't pan out as often as i'd like.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> But in terms of the feminist perspective we will examine the male/female disparity


And rightly so.  But don’t be fooled into thinking it will be fixed if we just persuade everyone to try to be fairer.  It’s a structural problem that needs structural solutions.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> And rightly so.  But don’t be fooled into thinking it will be fixed if we just persuade everyone to try to be fairer.  It’s a structural problem that needs structural solutions.


We're women we're used to being told we must be kinder and the world will be fairer. No one is fooling us. 

I really appreciate your input on this thread and hope you will continue to contribute


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 23, 2019)

campanula said:


> ...as it reinforced an already deeply ingrained sense of duty, denial of self and failure of confidence to ever attempt to regain my relatively egalitarian position pre-parenting...


i took an absolutely voluntary choice, given my/our circumstances, our current situation is my best-possible-outcome, and i'm genuinely content with it.

the fact that i'm _most_ content with it right now at this moment when my beloved and offspring are 100 miles away is pure coincidence


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Gromit posts regularly to try and expose hypocrisy from feminists.  He’s not very clever though, and it never works,  so he’s probably the most derided poster on urban.  He’s pretty much the closest thing we have to an incel.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2019)

kabbes said:


> In their own countries.  I’m asking (semi-rhetorically) why such wealth disparity perpetuates across people generally?  You don’t need to view male/female disparity as existing as somehow distinct from that process.





kabbes said:


> And rightly so.  But don’t be fooled into thinking it will be fixed if we just persuade everyone to try to be fairer.  It’s a structural problem that needs structural solutions.


 But there is still  male/female inbalance in this country and most others that needs a 'structural' solution too. How do you suggest we address that?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 24, 2019)

Wasn't there recently a thread about a country, I think a Scandinavian one, in which all tax returns were publicly viewable. I would have thought it might be that sort of action which could go a long way to redressing salary imbalances.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> But there is still  male/female inbalance in this country and most others that needs a 'structural' solution too. How do you suggest we address that?


To be honest, I wish I knew.  Slowly, I suspect.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2019)

I think female pay parity is possibly more achievable than solving all the capitalist inequalities in the world.

This is 2019, 50 years after the equality act - change has been too slow already.
Women lets speed it up! there must be some way we can use the equal pay act stats to put pressure on companies. Consumer boycotts/twitter shaming/ chaining ourselves dressed as suffragettes to their head offices?

I haven't felt much solidarity from many men on urban yet over the equal pay issue (awaits male angry shit storm. . .)


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2019)

kabbes said:


> In their own countries.  I’m asking (semi-rhetorically) why such wealth disparity perpetuates across people generally?  You don’t need to view male/female disparity as existing as somehow distinct from that process.


I do see it as different. Yes there is obscene inequality in the world and its something thats needs to change. But I don't accept we need to solve the issue of the inequalities of global capitalism before we can can consider why whether the man sitting next to us at work gets paid more than we do.


----------



## Edie (Apr 24, 2019)

I like how kabbes is being demanded to solve the structural cause of pay inequality for the feminist cause  *Come on* kabbes your not trying hard enough


----------



## JudithB (Apr 24, 2019)

Edie said:


> I like how kabbes is being demanded to solve the structural cause of pay inequality for the feminist cause  *Come on* kabbes your not trying hard enough


But he's a man! We all know men know how to do feminism better than anyone.

Kabbes, I hope you know I'm pulling your leg.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think female pay parity is possibly more achievable than solving all the capitalist inequalities in the world.
> 
> This is 2019, 50 years after the equality act - change has been too slow already.
> Women lets speed it up! there must be some way we can use the equal pay act stats to put pressure on companies. Consumer boycotts/twitter shaming/ chaining ourselves dressed as suffragettes to their head offices?
> ...


I think there is a lot of denial. Inequality in pay has been based on women taking maternity leave and time out to raise children. We are told we cannot be paid a different salary for the same job as it is illegal. But we all know it happens. 

The link shared earlier was interesting. We could choose well known large British employers and see how they fair. Go for those with the largest inequality first. Then start asking them to tell us why.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 25, 2019)

I'm a real big of Jessica Eaton and the work she does for both men and women (more about Jessica here)

All of Jessica's blogs are interesting, but her recent one about encouraging women who are victims of rape NOT to report it, was frankly jarring. 

Victim Focus | Blog |

I am not sure that link takes you to the blog post I refer to - if it's not, search rape and the title is 
*Why I stopped encouraging women to disclose to police or doctors after rape
*
I think Jessica makes some very valid points. What are your thoughts on how and why reactions to rape have not changed in recent years, however progressive we have become?


----------



## Sue (Apr 25, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I think there is a lot of denial. Inequality in pay has been based on women taking maternity leave and time out to raise children.


Not necessarily. I've no children and a number of times have discovered a less experienced and less qualified man is earning significantly more than me.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 26, 2019)

Society (on whatever scale) needs to re balance and re-calibrate societal values. Once again destructive capitalism fuels a mental breathless race where we all lose except a small percentage who are held up as the deserving.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2019)

Edie said:


> I like how kabbes is being demanded to solve the structural cause of pay inequality for the feminist cause  *Come on* kabbes your not trying hard enough



Had some potential, but always struck me as lazy, that one.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think female pay parity is possibly more achievable than solving all the capitalist inequalities in the world.
> 
> This is 2019, 50 years after the equality act - change has been too slow already.
> Women lets speed it up! there must be some way we can use the equal pay act stats to put pressure on companies. Consumer boycotts/twitter shaming/ chaining ourselves dressed as suffragettes to their head offices?
> ...


For many years, Glasgow City Council was failing in its legal equal pay obligations with regard to women workers. A Labour-controlled council, with the relevant unions doing sweet FA about it. Appalling. You* wouldn't really think it possible.  

* edit - "you", meaning "I".


----------



## JudithB (Apr 26, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Society (on whatever scale) needs to re balance and re-calibrate societal values. Once again destructive capitalism fuels a mental breathless race where we all lose except a small percentage who are held up as the deserving.


I think we need to name it for what it is - Patriarchal Capitalism


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> I think we need to name it for what it is - Patriarchal Capitalism



PC for short.  And it's gone mad!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 27, 2019)

Celyn said:


> For many years, Glasgow City Council was failing in its legal equal pay obligations with regard to women workers. A Labour-controlled council, with the relevant unions doing sweet FA about it. Appalling. You* wouldn't really think it possible.
> 
> * edit - "you", meaning "I".


several councils have been held to account for similar things. The problem lies in that a lot of organisations its not apparent what people get paid and that pay is so private and confidential. We need men to be prepared to say how much they earn. Why are we so secretive about money?


----------



## Celyn (Apr 27, 2019)

The council is no longer Labour-controlled, and the situation is getting sorted out now, (and will cost a fortune, with implications for council finances and services provision etc) but it's revolting that unions were happy to throw women workers under a bus and, as you say, the same shenanigans probably been happening in far too many other places too.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 27, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Let me put it another way: why is there still such a massive pay gap between the average wage of a Briton and the average wage of an Afghani or a Ugandan?  Is it because you are unaware that the difference exists?  Is it because we collectively think Britons are superior?  Or are there deep structural issues to do with ownership and power that don’t go away just because we all decide we’re going to be nice from now on?



But that's whataboutery that's easily debunked. Yes, women, and men, in many countries get paid less than people in the UK do for similar jobs. But their living costs are also far lower, so in all honesty it would slightly strange if someone living in an area with living costs of <10pw were paid the same as someone living in an area where the living costs are multitudes higher. 

There's Central London Weighting for some jobs in areas like teaching and the civil service. You will hear some people complain about this if they live in an area like Poole where the living costs are about the same, but on average, people accept that you work in central London, you pay more to live, ergo you get a higher wage.

You are basically changing the subject to make it seem like women being paid less in the UK is not important at all.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But that's whataboutery that's easily debunked. Yes, women, and men, in many countries get paid less than people in the UK do for similar jobs. But their living costs are also far lower, so in all honesty it would slightly strange if someone living in an area with living costs of <10pw were paid the same as someone living in an area where the living costs are multitudes higher.
> 
> There's Central London Weighting for some jobs in areas like teaching and the civil service. You will hear some people complain about this if they live in an area like Poole where the living costs are about the same, but on average, people accept that you work in central London, you pay more to live, ergo you get a higher wage.
> 
> You are basically changing the subject to make it seem like women being paid less in the UK is not important at all.


It’s not whataboutery and it’s not changing the subject.  It’s also not saying the pay gap isn’t important.  It’s merely pointing out that you aren’t going to fix the pay gap with individual targeted actions to try to make companies play fair when the underlying reasons for the inequality are structural, not individual.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> Too damn right! It has to be acknowledged that in the main women want to be with their babies and not outsource motherhood. There should be mechanisms in place to allow this to happen. Women are not non-men. Society is not built for our image. I have not searched to see if there is a thread on Caroline Cirado Perez's book which exposes just how little concern there is for women in all areas of society.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of  women and girls will be mothers or carers at some stage of their lives, and if  this is not respected,  made a focus, or not valued, and if our concepts of what constitute work remain limited and blinkered, then this is merely internalised patriarchy, not women-centred politics or feminism. If the women's work is not respected by society, no work done by women has a chance for true equality, working for pay or not, mothers or not.


I’m sorry I know this was days ago but pleas think about your language. Women who use childcare aren’t ‘outsourcing motherhood’ they are still completely and absolutely their child’s mother. They may be forced to leave their child for part of a day- work because they have to, have another caring commitment; or they may leave their child because they want to- they want to work, study, or have time to themselves. 

That sort of language is never used about men. So let’s not use it about women.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 27, 2019)

But are you not pretending a problem does not exist by asking us not to use language that is rarely used about men?


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Supine said:


> I can't think of any of my friends who follow the traditional nuclear family layout with women doing the home stuff and the man going out working. Tbh I find that an old attitude - although I do know it still exists in some places.
> 
> Pay equality is a different matter. I've been watching the relative pay at various companies to see how things change now that it's published for medium and large scale companies. I'd hope after time we can see a real improvement in equality now that the figures are published.


Pay equality is an interesting one. I have worked in a couple of places as the data was being pulled together. In one it was used as a really good chance to examine why there was a gap (not a huge gap but a gap nonetheless) and consider what could be done. This year the same company are running some other reports- on age, race where we hold the information (aren’t allowed to in some countries), religion in NI, geography etc. 

Other place; gender gap was *huge* and all the effort was put into the narrative explanation you have to submit on the form. Basically it was a ‘what do we say about this to make it go away’


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Miyake69JudithB said:


> But are you not pretending a problem does not exist by asking us not to use language that is rarely used about men?


No absolutely not. I’m asking you to have a think about the prejudices you have internalised. Women don’t outsource motherhood. In the same way words like dad babysitting needs to be used with care- they aren’t daddy daycare, they are parent. 

In your example on women working or not, it struck me your examples were within a range you and most others find acceptable- it’s ok for women to work after a year of playing wind the bobbin up. What about women who want to go back to work after 10 days? If it is their choice- genuinely, freely made choice- that’s fine too. 

We need to stop judging women for choices we find uncomfortable. And stop using words that suggest there are good choices and unfortunate ‘counter-natural’ ones. 

What is much more interesting is that where we are told women have free choice, so many in fact make the same choices. Which raises the question about how free those choices are


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Another thought on the choice thing. We need to be careful about seeing discussion about structural issues and changes as a criticism of individuals. Large numbers of women make the ‘choice’ to take part time work and lower paid work after having children. How free is that choice, really, given the society we live in? Interesting discussion to be had there.... but it doesn’t mean women who have made that choice as individuals are in any way being criticised or patronised. We can still note that few men make the same choice and that raises all sorts of questions about free choice- the personal is political after all


----------



## scifisam (Apr 27, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It’s not whataboutery and it’s not changing the subject.  It’s also not saying the pay gap isn’t important.  It’s merely pointing out that you aren’t going to fix the pay gap with individual targeted actions to try to make companies play fair when the underlying reasons for the inequality are structural, not individual.



You were literally telling us not to worry about the gender pay gap but to think instead about people in other countries who get paid less. I really don't see how you don't think that's changing the subject.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

scifisam said:


> You were literally telling us not to worry about the gender pay gap but to think instead about people in other countries who get paid less. I really don't see how you don't think that's changing the subject.


I was not doing that and you insisting otherwise isn’t going to change anything.  You’ve read what you expected to read, not what’s there. 

I was *not* telling you to think about people in other countries who get paid less.  I was asking you *why* they still get paid less in spite of all the public shaming that goes on.  I was also pointing out in the same post that Amazon still don’t pay tax in spite of all the public shaming that goes on.  It was a post about why public shaming doesn’t have the effect consumerism tells us it should.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2019)

Thats not true.  Kabbes specifically criticised the GPG. Arguing that something is a structural problem and will require a structural solution is the opposite of whataboutry, it's examining the issue from its core.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

I think you can easily see why identity politics is a ‘thing’ though. If someone is talking about one thing that centres, say, black people or trans people or women or whatever and people draw parallels that take the core of the conversation away from that. Even if it’s well meant and in some ways logically follows on, the person who was originally trying to be heard feels invisible again. 

It’s the issue with the attacks on identity politics. They require others to be actually heard.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

Manter said:


> I think you can easily see why identity politics is a ‘thing’ though. If someone is talking about one thing that centres, say, black people or trans people or women or whatever and people draw parallels that take the core of the conversation away from that. Even if it’s well meant and in some ways logically follows on, the person who was originally trying to be heard feels invisible again.
> 
> It’s the issue with the attacks on identity politics. They require others to be actually heard.


This is true but I don’t think I was remotely not hearing the problem.  I’d like to actually tackle it, not just do things that make us feel good but are actually ineffectual.  I mean, do the stuff that makes you feel good too but don’t be surprised when it doesn’t work.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This is true but I don’t think I was remotely not hearing the problem.  I’d like to actually tackle it, not just do things that make us feel good but are actually ineffectual.  I mean, do the stuff that makes you feel good too but don’t be surprised when it doesn’t work.


It wasn’t an attack on you- I was more musing as I have just read through the thread. There is a pretty standard narrative that emerges in any discussion of feminism at the moment- opening feminism- talk about borderline MRA stuff- angry interjection that it’s actually all about class- dismissive comment that it’s all identity politics- women try and reassert themselves on the subject of feminism- accusations they are racist- suggestion it’s about class and capitalism with suggestions that they should leave the ‘girl’ stuff and join mainstream/approved leftie debate- women start to get really bitey with everyone persistently derailing/talking over/dismissing them- accusations that they are too emotional/not good allies/ not rigorously grounded in approved Marxist theory. The only thing missing here you get on Twitter is a Home Counties Tory pearls and judgement type/gun-toting Texan republican in a confederate flag bikini suggesting everyone is unladylike and should wear more makeup and then they’d be less bitter. That last bit is transparently gross and easy to dismiss- but actually many women are kind of bored of the rest of it too.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

And what happens now is a proper political theorist comes along and starts thundering at me about how much I have missed on structural analysis of 19th century feudalism and it’s link to climate change, and until I am au fait with the entire oeuvre of their favoured obscure theorist I have no right to an opinion about my own lived experience. But I’ll miss that bit that because I’ve got to wash the school uniform


----------



## scifisam (Apr 27, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Thats not true.  Kabbes specifically criticised the GPG. Arguing that something is a structural problem and will require a structural solution is the opposite of whataboutry, it's examining the issue from its core.



But what on earth is the point in that? Does anyone not think it's a structural problem? Do any of us need to be told that?

Nobody here can change the structure. So it's not very helpful to be told not to think about the gender pay gap but instead to think about stuff that's more deep and meaningful and also completely beyond our reach.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 27, 2019)

Manter said:


> And what happens now is a proper political theorist comes along and starts thundering at me about how much I have missed on structural analysis of 19th century feudalism and it’s link to climate change, and until I am au fait with the entire oeuvre of their favoured obscure theorist I have no right to an opinion about my own lived experience. But I’ll miss that bit that because I’ve got to wash the school uniform



Oh yeah, that's always the most fun part


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2019)

Does that ever happen on here? The other criticism is fair, but people rarely pull theory rank on urban ime. And if they do they're usually called on it


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But what on earth is the point in that? Does anyone not think it's a structural problem? Do any of us need to be told that?
> 
> Nobody here can change the structure. So it's not very helpful to be told not to think about the gender pay gap but instead to think about stuff that's more deep and meaningful and also completely beyond our reach.


Who’s telling you not to think about the gender pay gap?


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

yeah it would be great to discuss practical suggestions to help - particularly how men can help address this problem.


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does that ever happen on here? The other criticism is fair, but people rarely pull theory rank on urban ime. And if they do they're usually called on it



There’s a lot of eye-rolling (from some prolific posters) when anyone naive enough not to have spent hours discussing these issues ventures into P&P


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does that ever happen on here? The other criticism is fair, but people rarely pull theory rank on urban ime. And if they do they're usually called on it


Yeah, what Winot says. And there are whole swathes of people who don’t post there having been thoroughly patronised in the past.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But what on earth is the point in that? Does anyone not think it's a structural problem? Do any of us need to be told that?
> 
> Nobody here can change the structure. So it's not very helpful to be told not to think about the gender pay gap but instead to think about stuff that's more deep and meaningful and also completely beyond our reach.


There are certainly some voices that argue it isn't a structural problem. kabbes specifically raised his point because some felt that the publication of the data with some naming and shaming would result in reduction in the GPG.

That's not being "told not to think about the gender pay gap", anymore than criticising the argument that the best way to reduce the gap is to increase the pay of the highest paid women is. We can change the structure, indeed we constantly change structures and if we really want to tackle gender inequality we have to change structures.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 27, 2019)

The words class and capitalism, I understand how they sometimes seem to act to shut down discussion, there's a sense that it's all wrapped up in these words, they can feel blocking. I don't know how we can talk about these structures in a way that keeps them alive as ongoing dynamic processes of relations between people but I don't see how we can talk about feminism without them.

Seems to me, the tension between feminism as everyday experience and the theory needed to make sense of women's oppression is longstanding. I struggle to link the two in a way that feels fruitful. I mean, I have no idea what to do about any of it.


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> There are certainly some voices that argue it isn't a structural problem. kabbes specifically raised his point because some felt that the publication of the data with some naming and shaming would result in reduction in the GPG.
> 
> That's not being "told not to think about the gender pay gap", anymore than criticising the argument that the best way to reduce the gap is to increase the pay of the highest paid women is. We can change the structure, indeed we constantly change structures and if we really want to tackle gender inequality we have to change structures.



What do you think the best structures are to change that specifically address the GPG?


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> yeah it would be great to discuss practical suggestions to help - particularly how men can help address this problem.



It's quite difficult because you'd need to listen to every little niggle and we have difficulty getting even the really big stuff taken seriously. But structurally, not assuming that male is the default sex would go a huge way to helping. This, I'm afraid, is a pretty universal viewpoint. Animals are male. Anyone at work is male (businessmen, firemen, train drivers) according to a good chunk of people. Even this morning I used a machine at the gym that I couldn't set to my (averagely small, female) frame. I can't reach the boot of my car when it's open. These things are never, ever set to a default female, are they? Nobody says 'Aah, look at that dog, isn't she lovely?' when they don't know what sex it is. When I ordered some PPE at work the website had two sections: Workwear and Women's Workwear. My steel toe cap boots don't fit because I ordered my size but the male version is bigger. 

This stuff is part of the structure. It's arrogant and it's constant and nothing ever, ever has a female default, even my lilac-coloured running watch measures the calories burned by an average man. 

I could go on (many would say that I do!) but whilst politics may play a part in it, if we can't get our heads around this very basic stuff, what hope is there?!


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yeah, what Winot says. And there are whole swathes of people who don’t post there having been thoroughly patronised in the past.


That's pretty boring, but it's not shouting at people about obscure theorists. 

It is a bit of a silo in there, and the same topics have been discussed ad infinitum so - as with feminism threads that follow the same pattern - regular posters can get eyerolly when a thread is following the same well-trodden route it always does. It's not ideal, but it's understandable it happens IMO.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> What do you think the best structures are to change that specifically address the GPG?


You're going to have to unpick that question before I can answer it.
What do you mean by best? Are you using the government definition of the GPG?  A definition which, to go back to a point earlier in the thread, excludes many workers.


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

Thanks Poot. The physical design stuff hadn’t occurred to me at all  until recently when I read about this book (Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez – a world designed for men).


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> Thanks Poot. The physical design stuff hadn’t occurred to me at all  until recently when I read about this book (Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez – a world designed for men).



It's good that this is being noticed now. Honestly, some of us have been talking about it for a while but in a fairly unfocused way, and people just assume that you're just whinging but *nothing* is female default. And I'm a small female so I really notice! And I was aware of CCP's work - she's hit the nail on the head.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does that ever happen on here? The other criticism is fair, but people rarely pull theory rank on urban ime. And if they do they're usually called on it



Sorry, whut?

The very few times I’ve tried to get into a discussion this is exactly what I’ve experienced. So I just never bother now.

It’s like trying to get a go on the roundabout in the playground and the big kids (almost all of them boys) just keep it spinning far too fast. And even if it slows down enough for me to get get on, they then spin it so fast I either fall off or get too dizzy and want to get off.

It’s absolutely a closed shop. I used to read threads trying to learn enough to join in. Then I just read threads to follow the discussion. Now I suspect that a lot of the political debate happens in PM threads ( it seems much quieter round here these days). I think the big kids have gone off to create a secret clubhouse somewhere. And I reckon that’s why there’s been less of the usual pile on on this thread.


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You're going to have to unpick that question before I can answer it.
> What do you mean by best? Are you using the government definition of the GPG?  A definition which, to go back to a point earlier in the thread, excludes many workers.



Just pick one! It's not a trap. I'm just interested in a practical answer that (a) doesn't require the overthrow of the entire capitalist system* and (b) is focussed on women rather than all workers.

(*NB I am _not_ claiming that is not a solution)


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> It's good that this is being noticed now. Honestly, some of us have been talking about it for a while but in a fairly unfocused way, and people just assume that you're just whinging but *nothing* is female default. And I'm a small female so I really notice! And I was aware of CCP's work - she's hit the nail on the head.



I found this essay by Grayson Perry really interesting and challenging 
Grayson Perry: The rise and fall of Default Man


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> Just pick one! It's not a trap. I'm just interested in a practical answer that (a) doesn't require the overthrow of the entire capitalist system* and (b) is focussed on women rather than all workers.
> 
> (*NB I am _not_ claiming that is not a solution)


The answer is boring and it fits in with Poot’s point.  You have to work continuously and tirelessly to pull people — individual people — up on the 1000001 ways they enable the structures with their assumptions, schema and behaviours.  Particularly in relation to gender with respect to this discussion but more widely in respect to all the enabling structures too.  If ideas take deep enough root, there is generational shift.  

I’m sorry, though, but it doesn’t happen in a handful of years.  I wish it did.  It takes many generations and you can’t deal with any part of the structure in isolation.  We’ve had 50 years of civil rights movement in the US and the race gap there is as wide as it ever was because the division is embedded in more than just individual attitudes to race alone, but in general liberal concepts of the importance of free choice combined with general wide streaks of social conservatism.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Sorry, whut?
> 
> The very few times I’ve tried to get into a discussion this is exactly what I’ve experienced. So I just never bother now.
> 
> ...



I tend to try and share any relevant or worthwhile knowledge on topics than use it as a weapon to do down others. I keep my trap shut on things I don't fully understand and read what others have to say.  We all blunder about sometimes and we need robust argument too. That's part of learning.  You're tested.  Its harshness is not always a bad thing imo. People who try the kind of crap mentioned/complained above, aiming for some unqualified (not in a formal sense) authority, claim exclusivity of comment on some subjects get absolutely slaughtered occasionally. Good.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 27, 2019)

Seems to me there's very little political discussion generally because nobody knows what to do. My understanding is that Marxist theory isn't about ideas and education changing minds and changed minds changing systems, but people changing through activity and there's not much of that going on.


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I think the big kids have gone off to create a secret clubhouse somewhere.



On the plus side, it means the roundabout's free now.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Seems to me there's very little political discussion generally because nobody knows what to do. My understanding is that Marxist theory isn't about ideas and education changing minds and changed minds changing systems, but people changing through activity and there's not much of that going on.



Who said strictly Marxist? And this place has been in decline as a place for serious political discussion for some years.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> I found this essay by Grayson Perry really interesting and challenging
> Grayson Perry: The rise and fall of Default Man


Yeah, he gets it. I want to say that it's a shame it had to be written by a man but that would be unfair; it's very insightful. And having spent a week with a female relation of mine who has been so indoctrinated by male gaze/anti feminism/male default shit that she now views every woman as inferior and verges on being a misogynist, I am very aware that you should just take it where you find it. Besides, people are more likely to listen to a man


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> I tend to try and share any relevant or worthwhile knowledge on topics than use it as a weapon to do down others. I keep my trap shut on things I don't fully understand and read what others have to say.  We all blunder about sometimes and we need robust argument too. That's part of learning.  You're tested.  Its harshness is not always a bad thing imo. People who try the kind of crap mentioned/complained above, aiming for some unqualified (not in a formal sense) authority, claim exclusivity of comment on some subjects get absolutely slaughtered occasionally. Good.




Patronising. In several ways; and actually, seventh bullet  , neatly illustrating my point for me, as well as demonstrating how women get curtailed by men in debate

You’re trying to school me in something I already know (mansplaining)

You’re telling me that you’re not the culprit (not all men).

You’re telling me I’ve misunderstood or misinterpreted things (hysterical exaggerating).

You’re telling me my reaction/interpretation is not really appropriate (overreacting).

And so, QED, the problem must be with me (not the status quo (patriarchy) ).



We have to tolerate (or challenge) this attitude in every single sphere, not only in situations that are very obviously a feminist/sexist situation.

Men *  can’t see when they’re part of sexism bingo, because they are the actual bingo grid.




ETA
*Not all men etc. obvs


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 27, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> Who said strictly Marxist? And this place has been in decline as a place for serious political discussion for some years.



I don't know what you mean by strictly Marxist. It's the political theory I have the most familiarity with and Marxism came up in the criticism of p&p. And I do think the lack of political discussion is linked to the lack of political activity.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Manter said:


> And what happens now is a proper political theorist comes along and starts thundering at me about how much I have missed on structural analysis of 19th century feudalism and it’s link to climate change, and until I am au fait with the entire oeuvre of their favoured obscure theorist I have no right to an opinion about my own lived experience. But I’ll miss that bit that because I’ve got to wash the school uniform



HOUSE!!


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Patronising. In several ways; and actually, seventh bullet  , neatly illustrating my point for me, as well as demonstrating how women get curtailed by men in debate
> 
> You’re trying to school me in something I already know (mansplaining)
> 
> ...



Nope.  I was talking about _my_ experience of posting here over many years, and being many times on the receiving end of such arguments, feeling intimidated, being punched and pounded into the ground and humiliated,  spending days, weeks licking my wounds, and following from killer b's post about pulling theory rank.  And don't presume to know anything about me, although being patronised and condescended to, being told what you think, indeed being told what you're capable of thinking  is something you have to put up with when you're from a poor, uneducated working class background.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I don't know what you mean by strictly Marxist. It's the political theory I have the most familiarity with and Marxism came up in the criticism of p&p. And I do think the lack of political discussion is linked to the lack of political activity.



I thought you were talking directly to me earlier.  I agree with what you say.


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

What would make P&P better,  SheilaNaGig?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> Nope.  I was talking about _my_ experience of posting here over many years, and being many times on the receiving end of such arguments, feeling intimidated, being punched and pounded into the ground and humiliated,  spending days, weeks licking my wounds, and following from killer b's post about pulling theory rank.  And don't presume to know anything about me, although being patronised and condescended to, being told what you think, indeed being told what you're capable of thinking  is something you have to put up with when you're from a poor, uneducated working class background.




You know what, I nearly wrote what would happen next in my earlier post.

I wrote it and then deleted it, because I thought “you never know, Sheila, it might not happen this time..” so I wrote that bit about bingo instead.

I was going to say “the next thing that happens is that you’ll get miffed and act injured and maybe even play the victim card”.


Bingo...


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> You know what, I nearly wrote what would happen next in my earlier post.
> 
> I wrote it and then deleted it, because I thought “you never know, Sheila, it might not happen this time..” so I wrote that bit about bingo instead.
> 
> ...



Again, no.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Athos said:


> What would make P&P better,  SheilaNaGig?




Thanks for asking. But that discussion has happened over and over and nothing has changed.

I’d like it if I could read along, and if I get stuck or lost, say so without expectation of mocking, scolding, or being told to refer to an obscure treatise.

I really admire Edie because despite being mocked and scolded in the past she keeps plugging away and finally someone will give her a brief laypersons outline of what she needs to know in order to understand the discussion. I’m always glad when she’s on a thread in there.

I don’t know any philosophy or political theory over and above the basics I’ve picked up along the way. But I don’t feel shit out on feminism/sexism threads, and that’s not because I’m a woman and so have first hand experience blah blah. After all, I’m person and a voter and a worker and I’ve been at the shitty end of things like everyone else, so why am I made to feel that I’m not qualified to make a point or ask a question in p&p?

If course it’s partly my own fault. But I know it’s also largley the fault of the roaring lumbering attitudes I find in there.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> Again, no.




Okay, whatever.

I’ll be over here and you can stay over there.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

<shrugs>


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Okay, whatever.
> 
> I’ll be over here and you can stay over there.




The thing is seventh bullet  you've left no room for “Why do you feel that way...? In what ways might this have contributed to this assumption....?”

So it’s the end of the discussion. You’re right and I’m wrong. Apparently.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

How is this thread now a discussion about this forum rather than the important topics that have been raised on the thread?


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2019)

My fault I think. Soz.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> The thing is seventh bullet  you've left no room for “Why do you feel that way...? In what ways might this have contributed to this assumption....?”
> 
> So it’s the end of the he discussion. You’re right and I’m wrong. Apparently.



I never said you were wrong. I was never denying your experience. My post was about firstly relaying my own experience of p+p generally and wanted to expand further on just how long it took before I plucked up the courage to begin to explore my own views so publicly, open to blistering attack.  

It was about acknowledging people feeling vulnerable and also how long term posters have actually attacked those who seek to bully others and act as an authority via not only their behaviour but the content of their arguments getting ripped apart. That's a good thing imo.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 27, 2019)

The problem for me with saying that everything is structural and the only answer is to undo capitalism... is that as kabbes has said, that’s going to take a good while.  In the meantime, In actually quite short timescales, working within capitalism, advances have been made.  

Some oppressed groups have been helped by changes that weren’t about undoing the whole structure.  Now those changes have often only benefitted some sections of the oppressed group... but not always and that doesn’t make them meaningless anyway.  

To choose the most lightweight, middle class example: The Let Toys Be Toys movement may feel like rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic, and it obviously doesn’t address food poverty or domestic abuse or FGM, let alone bring down capitalism.  But it’s been achievable wins on the route to a small battleground. And individual women have been involved.  

The answer to austerity hitting women hardest might be “undoing capitalism”, but in the meantime shouldn’t we get the fuck on with working within the system we have? Isn’t that what we, as feminists should be actually doing?


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Thanks for asking. But that discussion has happened over and over and nothing has changed.
> 
> I’d like it if I could read along, and if I get stuck or lost, say so without expectation of mocking, scolding, or being told to refer to an obscure treatise.
> 
> ...



Ta.  I see how that would make it better from your perspective.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> HOUSE!!


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> The answer to austerity hitting women hardest might be “undoing capitalism”, but in the meantime shouldn’t we get the fuck on with working within the system we have? Isn’t that what we, as feminists should be actually doing?



I guess it depends on the unintended consequences of our actions; the risk being that some efforts to make capitalism less harmful end up perpetuating it.  But I agree with the sentiment, and think there's loads we can (and should) do, here and now, to e.g. end the gender pay gap, that can be done alongside attempts to end capitalism, and that are not only consistent with those attempts, but, also, further them.  I don't know any serious anti-capitalist that would argue that no other struggles should take place; historically, liberation struggles (e.g. Black Panthers) have been an important component of class struggle.  But they are different from, say, a campaign whose ultimate aim is to ensure capitalism is 'fairer' by increasing the number of black people in the boardroom.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Athos said:


> Ta.  I see how that would make it better from your perspective.




I understand when a thread is moving quickly that there may not be the time, inclination or opportunity to explain something. But if people are able to take the time to make a mocking jeering post, then they have time to jot a couple of lines to clarify something. So why do one and not the other.

We can’t all be experts in everything (I’m considered an authority in my own field but my political theory is very basic). And I really am puzzled by the apparent reluctance to share, include, bring in, teach, and increase understanding. Surely ffs that basic tenet underlines left politics, right? But it doesn’t translate into the general atmosphere in there.


I’ll stop now, no further derailing from me.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

dialectician said:


> Everyone is reduced to a commodity under capitallism. the commodity is embodied within the worker when they sell themselves to capital. that is the whole separation between the head and hand. literally basic class politics 101. the abolition of sex work requires the total obliteration of wage labour.



I always wonder whether those calling for its legalisation would a) be willing to do sex work themselves and/or b) be happy being forced into it by the DWP in order to get them off the dole.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

I guess the DWP already forces people into it, unofficially.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Not dissimilar to fully legalising drugs under the current system where Smith Klein Beecham becomes your dealer.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> I guess the DWP already forces people into it, unofficially.



Good point that I wouldn’t disagree with. But one that wealthy liberals probably don’t consider.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 27, 2019)

In my experience feminists who argue that "sex work is work" include a fair few women with first-hand experience of the sex industry, as well as others who put their politics into practice organising with sex workers and collaborating on other projects with them. Their perspective is also often informed by an autonomist feminist/Marxist critique of work in general, too.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

May I bring up a short anecdote to illustrate how deeply (some) women have internalised a way of thinking which directly reflects both class and the patriarchal hegemony which still casts a long shadow? In the 80s/90s, I worked for several women's organisations including the Cambridge Women's Resource Centre. When this opened, we had 1 full-time worker and several part-timers. I joined because there was a free creche, and eventually taught carpentry for several years. Everyone was paid a basic flat rate. Everyone. However, as the organisation became more successful, council, European and even lottery money allowed us to expand and employ more workers. Initially, it was agreed that creche workers would recieve exactly the same rate as the admin crew in the office, along with various tutors. This arrangement did not last the first year of having salaried workers and within 2 years, there was a complete separation of the 'real, qualified' workers...and creche workers, many of whom came to the job as a parent themselves. Fulltime workers were paid 4 times more than creche workers, who also had no employment rights apart from a very vague rota not dissimilar to the current zero hour contracts. The higher paid types argued vigorously that they had been to uni and had 'experience' plus their jobs were somehow 'more important' while creche work was demoted to the usual lowly position BY OTHER FUCKING WOMEN! Tell me this was not class based entitlement because I have no explanation for the utter betrayal. I have never worked in a women -only organisation since as I found the  weight of dissonance and hurt, along with casual dismissal of fellow women, ro be unforgiveable.

I have floundered regarding feminism in the last 30 years and struggle to find relevance for a specific feminist discourse. The deep structures of equality run far deeper than equal pay...and at heart, I feel, is a contempt for parenthood (not just women either) which reflects the  prevailing attitudes towards caring and other modes of action which are not easily quantified or placed in a hierarchy of status where  worth and value are predicated on profit, consumption and a fear of falling off some imaginary economic ladder.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> The problem for me with saying that everything is structural and the only answer is to undo capitalism... is that as kabbes has said, that’s going to take a good while.  In the meantime, In actually quite short timescales, working within capitalism, advances have been made.
> 
> Some oppressed groups have been helped by changes that weren’t about undoing the whole structure.  Now those changes have often only benefitted some sections of the oppressed group... but not always and that doesn’t make them meaningless anyway.
> 
> ...


Is Let Toys Be Toys working?  To me, it seems that the whole area is light years behind where it was 20 years ago.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

campanula said:


> May I bring up a short anecdote to illustrate how deeply (some) women have internalised a way of thinking which directly reflects both class and the patriarchal hegemony which still casts a long shadow? In the 80s/90s, I worked for several women's organisations including the Cambridge Women's Resource Centre. When this opened, we had 1 full-time worker and several part-timers. I joined because there was a free creche, and eventually taught carpentry for several years. Everyone was paid a basic flat rate. Everyone. However, as the organisation became more successful, council, European and even lottery money allowed us to expand and employ more workers. Initially, it was agreed that creche workers would recieve exactly the same rate as the admin crew in the office, along with various tutors. This arrangement did not last the first year of having salaried workers and within 2 years, there was a complete separation of the 'real, qualified' workers...and creche workers, many of whom came to the job as a parent themselves. Fulltime workers were paid 4 times more than creche workers, who also had no employment rights apart from a very vague rota not dissimilar to the current zero hour contracts. The higher paid types argued vigorously that they had been to uni and had 'experience' plus their jobs were somehow 'more important' while creche work was demoted to the usual lowly position BY OTHER FUCKING WOMEN! Tell me this was not class based entitlement because I have no explanation for the utter betrayal. I have never worked in a women -only organisation since as I found the  weight of dissonance and hurt, along with casual dismissal of fellow women, ro be unforgiveable.
> 
> I have floundered regarding feminism in the last 30 years and struggle to find relevance for a specific feminist discourse. The deep structures of equality run far deeper than equal pay...and at heart, I feel, is a contempt for parenthood (not just women either) which reflects the  prevailing attitudes towards caring and other modes of action which are not easily quantified or placed in a hierarchy of status where  worth and value are predicated on profit, consumption and a fear of falling off some imaginary economic ladder.



A perfect example of class vs identity politics. Your fellow identitarians will more often than not sell you down the river than the reverse.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

It is also fair to say that I despair of the increasingly fragmented, almost tribal cliques - a horrible twisting of the earnest politics of single interest groups, including feminism, which has proved to be such an effective weapon in the armoury of Capital. The seemingly intractable  class/identity is also an example of a false binary since they are not in opposition, yet are frequently construed as such. I am fed up with foregrounding difference rather than solidarity. My initial feminism was actually a hopeful belief that boundaries of gender and biology could be dissolved or at least recognised as not some immutable law of nature, but something to be resisted.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

I edited my post, Magnus McGinty, because I am really uncomfortable with drawing an adversarial line between class and identity - it seems easy and obvious, to me, that one is in a fundamental relationship with the other.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> The problem for me with saying that everything is structural and the only answer is to undo capitalism... is that as kabbes has said, that’s going to take a good while.  In the meantime, In actually quite short timescales, working within capitalism, advances have been made.
> 
> Some oppressed groups have been helped by changes that weren’t about undoing the whole structure.  Now those changes have often only benefitted some sections of the oppressed group... but not always and that doesn’t make them meaningless anyway.
> 
> ...


+1. I've never heard or read anyone serious addressing gender issues who _doesn't_ think there are deeper structural issues, but addressing individual instances in this context is how things progress. How else is anything going to happen? Let Toys Be Toys is great, it achieves something measurable and works in a broader systemic way too.

It seems to me that the major modes of attack on feminism still seem to be denying the existence of anything structural. "There's no gender pay gap, women just do different jobs", "toxic masculinity doesn't exist some men are just bastards it's not to do with society" etc. Including some people nominally lefties or anarchists.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> A perfect example of class vs identity politics. Your fellow identitarians will more often than not sell you down the river than the reverse.



I think that's an absurd idealisation of class politics.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

Thinking a bit harder, I find I am also not comfortable in isolating parenting as a pivotal point, but service work, ranging from retail to care work, has been placed in a economic and psychological subaltern position (Gods, let me resist using political theory terms I am not altogether sure of).  The ease and 'naturalness' which this has been ascribed as 'women's work',   and devalued for the usual range of reasons, has, I think, more use as a rallying point than concentrating on equal pay...In employment rights, the main inequality is still the sharpening distinctions between owners/workers, blue collar/white collar, us and them. Feminism is a specific subset of a broader category of social justice. I think small, grass roots campaigning (Pink Stinks  and Let Toys be Toys are terrific) though, spanglechick


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think that's an absurd idealisation of class politics.





campanula said:


> I edited my post, Magnus McGinty, because I am really uncomfortable with drawing an adversarial line between class and identity - it seems easy and obvious, to me, that one is in a fundamental relationship with the other.



It isn’t though, is it? My point here is that women can oppress women as equally as men can oppress women. With class the distinctions are clear.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

In what bizarre world would women not be capable of doing horrible things to other women? But _as equally _as men oppress women? Really? What distinctions? Ah soz - forgetting quotes)  Magnus McGinty


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

campanula said:


> In what bizarre world would women not be capable of doing horrible things to other women? But _as equally _as men oppress women? Really? What distinctions? Ah soz - forgetting quotes)  Magnus McGinty



I’m losing sight of the context within the point I raised was made. Read backwards, if I’ve said something irrelevant then accept my apologies, I’m not after a row and the point you raise wasn’t one I was raising.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Class vs Identity every day of the week.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn’t though, is it? My point here is that women can oppress women as equally as men can oppress women. With class the distinctions are clear.



No. Women can and do frequently oppress women. Especially where there are class differences. But they are rarely in a position to do so, more usually that's men, who do so casually and get away with it much more, and have done (let's not forget) since forever. That's why women are noticed more when they do it.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

O no worries, Magnus. I am sure we are more or less on the same page...mostly


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> No. Women can and do frequently oppress women. Especially where there are class differences. But they are rarely in a position to do so, more usually that's men, who do so casually and get away with it much more, and have done (let's not forget) since forever. That's why women are noticed more when they do it.



Fair point. I’ve trodden on the wrong hill here, I’m mostly in agreement!


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Is Let Toys Be Toys working?  To me, it seems that the whole area is light years behind where it was 20 years ago.


Maybe, but also light years ahead of where it was 5 years ago


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn’t though, is it? My point here is that women can oppress women as equally as men can oppress women. With class the distinctions are clear.




Equally? Women can oppress women equally to men? 


I think you need to go back and think that through Magnus McGinty


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Equally? Women can oppress women equally to men?
> 
> 
> I think you need to go back and think that through Magnus McGinty



Ok, if I reword it to ‘as capably’ does that make more sense?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ok, if I reword it to ‘as capably’ does that make more sense?



Well thank goodness women can do things as capably as men now!


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Well thank goodness women can do things as capably as men now!




_Not all men_ written as _yeah but some women.

_
We're perfectly aware that women can be part of the problem. We run up against this almost every time we have a discussion about this stuff. And it mostly kills the conversation stone dead.  ETA I mean that when I'm talking with women about this stuff and a woman says "Well not in my experience yeah but men can't help it" or whatever, it can silence the discussion. Because now we're dealing with something very deep, very inherent, very insidious.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> No. Women can and do frequently oppress women. Especially where there are class differences. But they are rarely in a position to do so, more usually that's men, who do so casually and get away with it much more, and have done (let's not forget) since forever. That's why women are noticed more when they do it.



Indeed, Poot. The number of women, killed at the hands of men.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Well thank goodness women can do things as capably as men now!



Like oppressing people? Phew, for a moment I thought I was in danger of making the wrong point.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 27, 2019)

Gender roles have become much much more restrictive than they were when I was a child. Some of it is branding and social media - clothes for playing for boys and girls were pretty much the same when I was little but now we have ‘gender’ reveal parties, pink and blue prams, hair bows for baby girls and endless messaging on kids’ T-shirts tell them what is appropriate behaviour for girls and boys. 

Let Toys Be Toys has had a positive impact in that pointing out this isn’t necessarily a good thing is much more acceptable nowadays. It’s no longer dismissed as rabid feminist stuff in mainstream mothering SM groups


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> Just pick one! It's not a trap. I'm just interested in a practical answer that (a) doesn't require the overthrow of the entire capitalist system* and (b) is focussed on women rather than all workers.
> 
> (*NB I am _not_ claiming that is not a solution)


One of the interesting things I think is that to help you yourself have to get into and engage with some really difficult situations. 

Saying ‘yeah I’m sorry, xyz is shit’ is one thing. 
Doing something to change it is different. That might mean tough conversations with mates. Turning down opportunities at work. Asking difficult conversations about things and opportunities offered to you.... women can’t force this, we need the other 50% of the population to help.


----------



## Manter (Apr 27, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Gender roles have become much much more restrictive than they were when I was a child. Some of it is branding and social media - clothes for playing for boys and girls were pretty much the same when I was little but now we have ‘gender’ reveal parties, pink and blue prams, hair bows for baby girls and endless messaging on kids’ T-shirts tell them what is appropriate behaviour for girls and boys.
> 
> Let Toys Be Toys has had a positive impact in that pointing out this isn’t necessarily a good thing is much more acceptable nowadays. It’s no longer dismissed as rabid feminist stuff in mainstream mothering SM groups


Have you read female chauvinist pigs? It’s a bit dated now but what she identified about entrenchment of some quite extreme gender roles seems to have been bourne out


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Gender roles have become much much more restrictive than they were when I was a child.


 Yes, I feel desolate at the blatant division and objectification of children as markets.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Well thank goodness women can do things as capably as men now!



If only power was so equally distributed. I could get sacked by my female senior manager or evicted by my female landlord. This is why identity can be problematic when making claims about power.


----------



## campanula (Apr 27, 2019)

I am shamefully vague about current feminist discourse because I feel a bit far removed from most social stuff. I do remember being involved in a whole program of positive ideas (from 70s on) - from refuges to self-defence courses, (in which I was rubbish), education, reclaim the night, a really positive attempt to break down traditional family and gender roles (I was a window cleaner, carpentry teacher,  bodywork customiser, landscaper), challenging objectification and commodification - it was a hopeful time for me. I admit to being bored and confused about feminist po-mo theory when I finally had a chance to do a mature student thing in the 90s and then drifted  back into general social care/youthwork before full anti-socialness kicked in. 
A bit reluctant to post though, as I am not sure that there isn't a large element of 'things were better in my day' (but not neccessarily for me)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

I can image there’s both female managers and female landlords here on Urban75. Hopefully not waxing lyrical about oppression.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I can image there’s both female managers and female landlords here on Urban75. Hopefully not waxing lyrical about oppression.




Because a female manager or landlord wouldn’t have experience of being oppressed?

Are you saying that having financial power puts a women beyond oppression?


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I can image there’s both female managers and female landlords here on Urban75. Hopefully not waxing lyrical about oppression.


I'm actually an employer. Does this mean I get to opt out of sex based oppression?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2019)

Because money is the only oppression you can imagine


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 27, 2019)

A parent stopping or ruining contact with another parent is a kind of sex-based oppression. Children growing up alienated, all that. Patriarchy facilitates it so I'm sure it has reasons. Keeping women dependent on men, the state, and part-time low-status work, keeping men angry because angry men work harder and longer hours. Fuck knows really but I don't believe part-time-dad-ism is good for men, women or children. I reckon it's good for capitalism though, 100% sure of that. Broken families buying two of everything for starters.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

My point was that women can oppress other women economically. That doesn’t disregard any other feminist point.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Blimey.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Because money is the only oppression you can imagine



Did I say that?


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My point was that women can oppress other women economically. That doesn’t disregard any other feminist point.


Your point was female managers and landlords can't talk about oppression.  So they do face oppression, they just shouldn't talk about it?

I'm a pretty low earner by the way, and a renter.  And I employ someone.  But I shouldn't be talking about feminism


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Thora said:


> Your point was female managers and landlords can't talk about oppression.  So they do face oppression, they just shouldn't talk about it?
> 
> I'm a pretty low earner by the way, and a renter.  And I employ someone.  But I shouldn't be talking about feminism


Bad luck, Thora. You just missed the cut-off for being able to talk about feminism. So near and yet so far.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Thora said:


> Your point was female managers and landlords can't talk about oppression.  So they do face oppression, they just shouldn't talk about it?
> 
> I'm a pretty low earner by the way, and a renter.  And I employ someone.  But I shouldn't be talking about feminism



Not sure I mentioned you personally, but to be clear, are you saying that I oppress my female higher manager and female landlord by virtue of having a dick?


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I mentioned you personally, but to be clear, are you saying that I oppress my female higher manager and female landlord by virtue of having a dick?


quit this tedious bullshit dude.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> quit this tedious bullshit dude.



Fair enough mate. Glad to. It evolved from an earlier point I was making, but it’s lost direction now.


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I mentioned you personally, but to be clear, are you saying that I oppress my female higher manager and female landlord by virtue of having a dick?


Exactly.  Dick-havers, as a class, oppress vagina-havers, as a class.  

Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you personally either.  I'm sure you're great.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Thora said:


> Exactly.  Dick-havers, as a class, oppress vagina-havers, as a class.
> 
> Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you personally either.  I'm sure you're great.



Ive been told to shut up. But surely you can see that there’s no absolute here. I’m in agreement with about 95% of feminist theory btw, and I’m surprised that me making a couple of class based points met with a lot of resistance, but there we are.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I mentioned you personally, but to be clear, are you saying that I oppress my female higher manager and female landlord by virtue of having a dick?




on the evidences of recent posts here, I’d say there’s a significant chance that’s the case.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> on the evidences of recent posts here, I’d say there’s a significant chance that’s the case.



Not fair to keep engaging me after I’ve been slapped down but, my points are all there to read up thread.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ive been told to shut up. But surely you can see that there’s no absolute here. I’m in agreement with about 95% of feminist theory btw, and I’m surprised that me making a couple of class based points met with a lot of resistance, but there we are.



Because class doesn’t trump sexism.

It just doesn’t.

Otherwise there’d be no glass ceilings, no middle class women being oppressed and abused in their own homes, no issues with CEOs bringing their children into work or breastfeeding in meetings.

ffs


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not fair to keep engaging me after I’ve been slapped down but, my points are all there to read up thread.




Slapped down? Really? Bitch slapped, were you?

ffs


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

I wasn’t even talking about Sexism. Please understand my points if you want to attack them rather than invent ones to attack.


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ive been told to shut up. But surely you can see that there’s no absolute here. I’m in agreement with about 95% of feminist theory btw, and I’m surprised that me making a couple of class based points met with a lot of resistance, but there we are.



A lot of feminist theory is at odds with other feminist theory, so it's hard to see how anyone could be in agreement with 95% of it!

The class-based points you made were met with resistance because they were very silly.  Of course those who are oppressed on one basis can oppress others on another basis.  And of course trying to prevent the oppression of women needn't be at odds with class politics (indeed, no class politics worth its name would fail to encompass it).  I've no time for identity politics, but your crude attempts to frame any attempt to tackle the oppression of women specifically as identity politics, such that it's at odds with class politics, are a bit shit.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not fair to keep engaging me after I’ve been slapped down but, my points are all there to read up thread.



I don’t see you retracting or agreeing, i see you stepping aside for the ladeez.

I see you standings by your points, but reluctant to defend them for fear of being scolded by the shrews, the shrill call of the feminissst.

What I mean is that I don’t see any change in your thinking or agreement with the several women who have had the same reaction. I only see you digging into your position.

I’m so so sick of this shit.

Why do you (not all men etc) get the righteous right to define and assume that if a woman challenges what you say or the position that your words imply, the fault is with the woman’s understanding, not the man’s  opinion.

“Fair enough” is the same as saying “whatever”

Which is what I said earlier to man who was  doing this exact thing of stepping back rather not than really engaging with the criticism.

Whatever.


I’m so bored, really, so so bored of seeing men retreat from this criticism rather than trying to understand it.

So y’know, pardon my lack of intellectual reference points and autodidactic credentials here, but this kind of exchange serves as a pure example of all that stuff that theory expounds upon.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wasn’t even talking about Sexism. Please understand my points if you want to attack them rather than invent ones to attack.




Your point was that oppression is about money and power, and within the current circumstances, men women children are all under the cosh. That men who are abused and oppressed are no better off than any one else who is under the boot.

Or have I got my pretty little head muddled about that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Athos said:


> A lot of feminist theory is at odds with other feminist theory, so it's hard to see how anyone could be in agreement with 95% of it!
> 
> The class-based points you made were met with resistance because they were very silly.  Of course those who are oppressed on one basis can oppress others on another basis.  And of course trying to prevent the oppression of women needn't be at odds with class politics (indeed, no class politics worth its name would fail to encompass it).  I've no time for identity politics, but your crude attempts to frame any attempt to tackle the oppression of women specifically as identity politics, such that it's at odds with class politics, are a bit shit.



Thanks for telling me my points were ‘silly’, I guess that’s what happens when your position is based in theory rather than the real world? Do you think that might explain things to you?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Your point was that oppression is about money and power, and within the current circumstances, men women children are all under the cosh. That men who are abused and oppressed are no better off than any one else who is under the boot.
> 
> Or have I got my pretty little head muddled about that.



Yeah, that’s what I think.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for telling me my points were ‘silly’, I guess that’s what happens when your position is based in theory rather than the real world? Do you think that might explain things to you?




Ffs.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah, that’s what I think.




What, that I’m muddled?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> What, that I’m muddled?



I’m agreeing that you can invent whatever you want about me.


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for telling me my points were ‘silly’, I guess that’s what happens when your position is based in theory rather than the real world? Do you think that might explain things to you?


Lol.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2019)

^ that's a rhetorical smiley btw, I know exactly what's happening


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Athos said:


> Lol.


 
Mate, you’re a caricature. Laugh all you like.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah, that’s what I think.



If you want to set up a tally system, where we all get anti-points and dark stars for the level of oppression we experience then please go right ahead.

Meanwhile, over here in the real world, women who are under the same fucking cosh that you are are also under the invisible steel toe capped boot that you don’t even know you’re wielding.

Women are perhaps better than men at accessing help (social, friendships, actually going to see the sodding GP) but that’s partly because we’ve been forced by circumstances to go outside the immediate relarionship to find help.



Look this doesn’t do of us any good, this carping.

Men are also also also fucked by the system. But it is shitty bullshit for you to get onto a feminist thread to say “what about the menz, the system fucks us too”.

ffs


----------



## Athos (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Mate, you’re a caricature. Laugh all you like.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Remind me how this suddenly became all about Magnus McGinty, his landlady, female manager and - apparently - penis?



Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I mentioned you personally, but to be clear, are you saying that I oppress my female higher manager and female landlord by virtue of having a dick?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah, that’s what I think.


Is it just gender that you think is irrelevant beyond class when defining oppression? How about race? Sexuality? Disability?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Is it just gender that you think is irrelevant beyond class when defining oppression? How about race? Sexuality? Disability?




I was going to say this too but got caught up in frustrated annoyance.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

I remember agreeing to drop it where-upon several posters made sure I couldn’t.
Which is it?


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I remember agreeing to drop it where-upon several posters made sure I couldn’t.
> Which is it?


Yeah, you're right. Best to drop it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> Yeah, you're right. Best to drop it.



I did try...


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> Yeah, you're right. Best to drop it.



Why though?

killer b told him to stop the tedious shit. So then he said he would.

But the tedious shit is a really good example of the tedious shit we have to put up with in normal everyday exchanges.

And now he’s been challenged, and he’s retreating, and asking to be permitted to retreat.

And being given permission to retreat.

I’m not wanting to I have a go (believe it or not) but I’m interested in this exchange being a good example of the sort of tedious petty stuff that makes up the ground floor of patriarchal exchanges in daily life.  

It’s not always a warzone, is it. It’s more usually normal conversation and banal interactions that support, enable and reiterate the problem. Because it’s the status quo. And we all play our part in supporting enabling and reiterating it.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

But I’ll leave it there.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

I’m also interested as to why my fairly obvious and not particularly contentious point got attacked. But there we are.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2019)

oh jesus fuck can we just not


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> oh jesus fuck can we just not



I promised not to. Control others.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I promised not to. Control others.


Shut up then. Don't post here again. Just don't. Don't even reply to this. It's easy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2019)

I won’t, despite the daft aggression you display.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2019)

OK. Thread ban then as per other people.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 27, 2019)

Working class history is littered with instances  of more privileged sections  shitting on those below them.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 27, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Working class history is littered with instances  of more privileged sections  shitting on those below them.




When , in working class history, have working class women shat upon working class men?

I realise that I may be ignorant of the theory because I've not done the right course or read the right books or done the correct degree.

Are you saying that working class men have had the same degree of shat-up-upon-ness as working class women, or are you saying that shat-upon working class men are in some way worse off than shat upon working class woman? Or is it possible that the working class man that has been shat upon then goes home and shits upon his wife?

This is nonsense! It’s like I’m playing Hungry Hippo here. Argh!

ffs


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 27, 2019)

Putting words into his mouth?


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 27, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> When , in working class history, have working class women shat upon working class men?
> 
> I realise that I may be ignorant of the theory because I've not done the right course or read the right books or done the correct degree.
> 
> ...



I think he's responding to McGinty.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 27, 2019)

Well that seemed killed the thread for a bit...  but no SheilaNaGig that wasn't my point, as I hope is clearer by now.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2019)

In order to address the gender pay gap it has to be possible to find out who earns what. 

Which is why I am a bit surprised no one commented on my suggestion that government makes everyone's tax returns public, or at least available on application. 

It would help women in work on wage negotiations if they knew what men were being paid for the same job, to take one example. But it would also help everyone in the labour market to know how well or poorly paid people in various sectors were. 

Admittedly it would do nothing to address the issue of unpaid work, but for that it could be that a citizens wage might work to reduce inequality, and finally pay essential work like parenting which the nation absolutely requires but for which no one actually pays at the moment.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 27, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Is it just gender that you think is irrelevant beyond class when defining oppression? How about race? Sexuality? Disability?



Have you never noticed? No one can talk on any issue apart from _*class*_ in a way that he likes and identifies with and not get called an identitarian by MM. It's been like that for a long while. It mostly boils down to him not being in charge of the conversation in reality though because talk about being a White working class man is fine and actually what he wants to do.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 28, 2019)

This identity politics vs classical student of Marx (the latter is very valuable no one has disagreed) is basically the same in terms of struggle for societal justice. So perhaps a snobbishness amongst our more learned friends is to be expected, but is better avoided.

Cunted off in 3 ... 2... 1...


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

I am delighted and somewhat tearful, I must confess, on returning to the thread to find so many new posters and much conversation being had.

Welcome to one and all and thank you!

There are so many posts I want to quote - you brilliant women (*wells up again*) that I have lost track, so I will make a couple of points, suggestions and some assumptions.


If anyone has not read CCP’s book the Invisible Woman I would highly recommend you do. I would also recommend you buy it for your husbands, partners and most importantly bosses and male co-workers. Learn the stats important to your roles and tell HR they need to make the necessary changes. Start a women’s group at work to discuss the safety issues.

In the same way Let Toys Be Toys is working from the grass roots, CCP’s book should bring into the light the inequalities on how the game is rigged from the start.

GPG IS a structural problem. Until we break the patriarchal capitalist structure that perceives the average male as the default, changing the GPG will be more difficult.  With the imminent threat of climate change and its causes being tied to patriarchal capitalism do we find ourselves in a (unique?) position to try and dismantle the structure?

Having only known patriarchal structures, women as a consequence, internalise their own patriarchal modes of oppression as they are unable to find expression outside of  andocentric capitalism. This is not a criticism. We only know what we know. But to quote Thora, mostly those with dicks oppress those without dicks.

Who here has read Naomi Alderman’s “The Power?” It imagines a world where women have the greater strength, but because it is set within the limitations of 2000 years of patriarchal rule, the outcomes are interesting and perhaps unsurprising.

Manter, thank you for your comments which I take on board. Motherhood is one of the main sticks society uses to beat women and we must be careful not to fall into the trap of demonising the mother for her choices, however we phrase our intent. Thanks

IMO the 3rd wave has a lot to answer for in terms of the regressiveness of its particular strand of feminism. To regalvanise yourselves, watch “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” on Netflix

For the men on this thread who might find the conversations a little uncomfortable, be assured if you let the conversations break through that barrier it will make it easier for you to contribute. I am white and if a POC mentions racism to me, especially institutional racism, it makes me feel uncomfortable for I am part of the oppression whether I like it or not. But it does neither party any good for me to shout not all white people, or white lives matter. It is no more than that for men when feminism is discussed. Let it go bro.

Edited for shocking grammar!


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 28, 2019)

The most vocal man on here is neither very learned or very Marxist, there's no point talking to him about feminism because he can't even explain what he means by class politics and every time produces the same blockage in any discussion.

As for some of the other men, I think it's unfair to put everybody in the same camp, they come from different positions, only some are Marxist, some are anarchists, some are anarchists influenced strongly by Marx, others not. Some read theory and history, including feminist theory and history. This is, after all, the theory and philosophy forum, but yes some of them are going to piss people off if it feels like they're saying you're not doing it right, again.

Miyake69JudithB  the idea that women's capacity to oppress others is internalised patriarchy, that's surely only one feminist idea about this. Are there others?


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 28, 2019)

Invisible Women looks interesting, I hadn't heard of that before this thread.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Invisible Women looks interesting, I hadn't heard of that before this thread.


It's incredible. Women are 19% more likely to die in car accidents because of how seatbelts are fitted and tested. No thought has been put into pregnant women and seatbelts. 

Stab and bullet proof vests are less likely to protect women's vital organs because no thought has been put into women having breasts. 

These are just a couple of examples that spring to mind


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

Hi JudithB 

thinking back to your original question _Feminism where are the threads_? - I think this thread shows there is an appetite for starting some. Several different feminist issues and themes have come up here (and I never did get around to reading the first 12 pages) I think we need threads on the following and will start some as soon as I have time:
gender pay gap / equal pay
motherhood and parenting 
male as default 
rape 
sexual harassment​
I'm sure theres lots of other themes we need to explore too. Let's start some more specialised threads.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

Great idea. The gender pay gap is a good one to start with as it will branch into the first three topics you refer to above and may spawn threads from it.

Having seen the reactions within this thread, I suggest treading lightly at the moment and holding fire on rape and sexual harassment threads.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Great idea. The gender pay gap is a good one to start with .


Done!


----------



## trashpony (Apr 28, 2019)

Thanks for the nudge to get CCP's book Judith - just ordered it. I read this article by her and was blown away: The deadly truth about a world built for men – from stab vests to car crashes 

I literally had never considered the far-reaching implicaitons of living in a world where women are basically defined as non-men until I read this article. I knew CCP was writing a book but didn't know what it was about. She's a genius.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2019)

What would a feminism from the bottom up look like -  would it look like this thread? Would it look like this? Why would it need to be bottom up at all?

In short

Fork in the road

Faced with these two visions of feminism, we find ourselves at a fork in the road. One path leads to a scorched planet where human life is immiserated, if it remains possible at all. The other points to the sort of world that has always figured in humanity’s dreams: one whose wealth and natural resources are shared by all, where equality and freedom are premises, not aspirations. What makes the choice so pressing is the disappearance of any middle way, due to the predatory form of financialized neoliberal capitalism that has held sway for the last forty years—raising the stakes for every social struggle and turning efforts to win modest reforms into pitched battles for survival. In these conditions feminists, like everyone else, must take a stand. Will we continue to pursue ‘equal-opportunity domination’ while the planet burns? Or will we reimagine gender justice in an anti-capitalist form, which leads beyond the present carnage to a new society?

Our Manifesto is a brief for the second path. What makes an anti-capitalist feminism thinkable today is the political dimension of the present crisis: the erosion of elite credibility throughout the world, affecting not only the centrist neoliberal parties but also their Sandberg-style corporate-feminist allies. This was the feminism that foundered in the us presidential election of 2016, when the ‘historic’ candidacy of Hillary Clinton failed to elicit the enthusiasm of women voters. For good reason: Clinton personified the disconnect between elite women’s ascension to high office and improvements in the lives of the vast majority.

Clinton’s defeat is our wake-up call. Exposing the bankruptcy of liberal feminism, it represents a historic opening for a challenge from the left. In the current vacuum of liberal hegemony, we have the chance to build another feminism and to re-define what counts as a feminist issue, developing a different class orientation and a radical-transformative ethos. We write not to sketch an imagined utopia, but to clarify the road that must be travelled to reach a just society. We aim to explain why feminists should choose the road of the feminist strikes, unite with other anti-capitalist and anti-systemic movements and become a ‘feminism for the 99 per cent’. What gives us hope for this project now are the stirrings of a new global wave, with the international feminist strikes of 2017–18 and the increasingly coordinated movements that are developing around them. As a first step, we set out eleven theses on the present conjuncture and the bases for a radical, new, anti-capitalist feminist movement.

In full


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> ...faced with these two visions of feminism, we find ourselves at a fork in the road...



I don't think the Inclusion & Diversity committee at my work is going to like either of those.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Thanks for the nudge to get CCP's book Judith - just ordered it. I read this article by her and was blown away: The deadly truth about a world built for men – from stab vests to car crashes
> 
> I literally had never considered the far-reaching implicaitons of living in a world where women are basically defined as non-men until I read this article. I knew CCP was writing a book but didn't know what it was about. She's a genius.



I like the quote right at the start - will give that a read once I'm done with BA's link.


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2019)

Sue said:


> Well what a surprise this thread has gone to shit.


I'm playing terf fem bingo with the predictable slagging of blokes and trans people.


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2019)

But there are some compelling issues being discussed.


----------



## sojourner (May 1, 2019)

Not got time to read the whole thing but it looks like it got shat on anyway. I've read the Guardian article - brilliant. Will get the book when I can afford it. Cheers and hi and welcome Judith


----------



## Edie (May 1, 2019)

Sorry I’m just catching up cos ironically I’ve been too busy caring for other people (the ex mother in laws had a stroke and the teenage boys are being teenage boys and the ex is drinking like a cunt again). But this threads fucking ace. Gonna read a few links posted, then get stuck in again.


----------



## smokedout (May 1, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Gender roles have become much much more restrictive than they were when I was a child. Some of it is branding and social media - clothes for playing for boys and girls were pretty much the same when I was little but now we have ‘gender’ reveal parties, pink and blue prams, hair bows for baby girls and endless messaging on kids’ T-shirts tell them what is appropriate behaviour for girls and boys.



I've heard people say this a few times recently and wondered what others thought because I remember things being very different in the 80s.  Girls were enouraged to play wth Cindy and My Little Pony, boys with Action Men and Star Wars figures and any deviation from this would have resulted in bullying.  At my schools girls had to wear tiny impractical skirts and boys wore shorts, although at my upper school this was being challenged (arguments about girls wearing trousers and boys wearing earrings come to mind).  Girls played netball and boys football, and no-one trascended this, or would have been allowed to.  Girls did two sessions of Home Economics a week and one of woodwork and for boys it was the other way round. Up North in the 80s even men having long hair was still an issue, whilst i dont think I ever saw a butch lesbian until I moved to London.  I sometimes wonder if people are looking back with rose tinted spectacles at their own youth, because whilst there is a long way I go think there has been considerable progress in breaking down gender stereotypes within my lifetime.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (May 1, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Is it just gender that you think is irrelevant beyond class when defining oppression? How about race? Sexuality? Disability?



Please don't bring race or disability into this conversation because I'm yelled at when I raise points about, these topics both by the 'hard man class identity politics' and identity feminist crowds. Thank you.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2019)

Capitalism has become more geared to deliberate gender events - so your gender reveal parties and the cheap trashy kids clothing with 'lil' heartbreaker' for boys and 'my dad says no dating' for girls.

This weird aesthetic of 'cute' when slapped on seriously questionable projections onto young kids. We've got little Treebi and yo man the shit that people say if he's in a pink t-shirt - not like offensive but just 'oh he likes pink' and stuff around that, like they're very gently patrolling the boundaries.

There's more shit about gendered products (and more shit gendered products) and also the cultural backlash against diverse cultures which takes its most avataristic forms in Jordy Petersen and the weird hearth and home-making women of the conservative right.


----------



## weepiper (May 1, 2019)

I didn't like Sindy or Barbie and thought My Little Pony was shit. I wasn't bullied for preferring climbing trees and wearing trousers although I was generally thought of as a bit odd. Tbh I got picked on for having weirdo hippie parents, wearing glasses and being a bus kid not a village kid much more than I ever got for being gender non conforming. Edit, this is mid 80s Scotland. YMMV.


----------



## trashpony (May 1, 2019)

smokedout said:


> I've heard people say this a few times recently and wondered what others thought because I remember things being very different in the 80s.  Girls were enouraged to play wth Cindy and My Little Pony, boys with Action Men and Star Wars figures and any deviation from this would have resulted in bullying.  At my schools girls had to wear tiny impractical skirts and boys wore shorts, although at my upper school this was being challenged (arguments about girls wearing trousers and boys wearing earrings come to mind).  Girls played netball and boys football, and no-one trascended this, or would have been allowed to.  Girls did two sessions of Home Economics a week and one of woodwork and for boys it was the other way round. Up North in the 80s even men having long hair was still an issue, whilst i dont think I ever saw a butch lesbian until I moved to London.  I sometimes wonder if people are looking back with rose tinted spectacles at their own youth, because whilst there is a long way I go think there has been considerable progress in breaking down gender stereotypes within my lifetime.


I didn’t grow up in the 80s. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. We didn’t have uniform at my school. Everyone wore jeans and T-shirts. Girls and boys had equal amounts of HE and DT classes. 

How exactly have gender stereotypes broken down since the childhood you’re describing? They’re much worse now, especially for girls.


----------



## 8ball (May 1, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Capitalism has become more geared to deliberate gender events - so your gender reveal parties and the cheap trashy kids clothing with 'lil' heartbreaker' for boys and 'my dad says no dating' for girls.



I think capitalism just realised that it thrives on creating distinctions and niches, so it will vacillate between being a bit "woke" (boke) and trying to encourage gender distinctions, with a patchwork of one gaining the upper hand in certain areas, and then the pendulum swinging back again, as emergent trends dictate.


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Capitalism has become more geared to deliberate gender events - so your gender reveal parties...





<Googles...>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2019)

Wow. Gender reveal party. I've just googled that as well. Firstly, it's a _sex_ reveal party, ffs. A unborn foetus doesn't have a gender. We're so confused about the sex/gender distinction. Who cares? It's a fucking baby! But yes, wow, everyone needs to know what baby clothes to buy, eh? As FabricLiveBaby! said on another thread, gender is an opportunity for capitalism to sell us the same thing twice. It ain't going to miss out.


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow. Gender reveal party. I've just googled that as well. Firstly, it's a _sex_ reveal party, ffs. A unborn foetus doesn't have a gender. We're so confused about the sex/gender distinction. Who cares? It's a fucking baby! But yes, wow, everyone needs to know what baby clothes to buy, eh? As FabricLiveBaby! said on another thread, gender is an opportunity for capitalism to sell us the same thing twice. It ain't going to miss out.



Just two choices is a bit limiting, though.  The market is missing a trick.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

Yeah and calling it a 'sex reveal party' sounds like a TOTALLY different kind of party


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Yeah and calling it a 'sex reveal party' sounds like a TOTALLY different kind of party


It's just weird, tbh. The idea that anyone would or should give a shit either way. If I were ever invited to such a monstrosity, I would insist on calling it a sex reveal party at every opportunity. And probably get myself uninvited...


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's just weird, tbh. The idea that anyone would or should give a shit either way. If I were ever invited to such a monstrosity, I would insist on calling it a sex reveal party at every opportunity. And probably get myself uninvited...



I'd call it a 'genital unveiling ceremony'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'd call it a 'genital unveiling ceremony'.


----------



## wayward bob (May 2, 2019)

i think what we're mostly finding out about the lack of feminism threads is that _many_ women are so busy keeping everything afloat they have no time or headspace for philosophical discussion or explaining to men _in detail_ how they could/should help...


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

Well at least we've explained it. 
The lack of football threads remains a mystery, however.

Tough day?


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'd call it a 'genital unveiling ceremony'.



Not worth us having another kid for to do this but fuck lol


----------



## wayward bob (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> Tough day?


who, me? i only had one-and-a-half birthdays, one set of benefit forms, one orthodontist, one sick kid (at home), one autistic kid (at school), one cat, one garden, two teas to sort out/tend to. essentially a day off, ta


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> who, me? i only had one-and-a-half birthdays, one set of benefit forms, one orthodontist, one sick kid (at home), one autistic kid (at school), one cat, one garden, two teas to sort out/tend to. essentially a day off, ta



Sounds like enough without having to explain to me how half a birthday works.


----------



## wayward bob (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> Sounds like enough without having to explain to me how half a birthday works.


one birthday, one degree removed  (i chivvy/organise for _immediate_ birthdays but frankly if the inlaws want to do everyone in one month good luck to them)


----------



## wayward bob (May 2, 2019)

emotional labour is an actual thing. being the glue that holds a family together is an actual thing. i abdicated a lot of it a while ago because i really wasn't well enough to keep myself functioning let alone any extended family systems. but part of picking back up the pieces is picking back up the emotional labour. that i have a life partner who's committed, willing and (mostly) able to hold the fort in the interim is pretty unusual when it comes to heterosexual relationships, ime.

in my optimistic moments i hope that the amount of time he takes to deal with kid-admin and (especially) kid1's counselling/hospital appointments goes some small way to restoring the gender/parental responsibility balance in the workplace...


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> emotional labour is an actual thing. being the glue that holds a family together is an actual thing..



Fuck yeah.  Hugely more draining if you’re introverted to any degree or anywhere along the autistic spectrum, too, so you need downtime and support and to not let anyone make you feel any guilt about that.

Fasten your own oxygen mask first etc.


----------



## JudithB (May 2, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> i think what we're mostly finding out about the lack of feminism threads is that _many_ women are so busy keeping everything afloat they have no time or headspace for philosophical discussion or explaining to men _in detail_ how they could/should help...


I am feeling guilty for just that reason. Life has taken hold and I have not had the time to come back and see what everyone is saying. 

I am very glad to see that women appear to be outnumbering the men on the threads. There is nothing better than women actually getting to say what feminism is rather than men dictating to them what they must think, feel, centre in their own movement - well done women!


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2019)

smokedout said:


> I've heard people say this a few times recently and wondered what others thought because I remember things being very different in the 80s.  Girls were enouraged to play wth Cindy and My Little Pony, boys with Action Men and Star Wars figures and any deviation from this would have resulted in bullying.  At my schools girls had to wear tiny impractical skirts and boys wore shorts, although at my upper school this was being challenged (arguments about girls wearing trousers and boys wearing earrings come to mind).  Girls played netball and boys football, and no-one trascended this, or would have been allowed to.  Girls did two sessions of Home Economics a week and one of woodwork and for boys it was the other way round. Up North in the 80s even men having long hair was still an issue, whilst i dont think I ever saw a butch lesbian until I moved to London.  I sometimes wonder if people are looking back with rose tinted spectacles at their own youth, because whilst there is a long way I go think there has been considerable progress in breaking down gender stereotypes within my lifetime.



I think it's a mixed picture. I didn't play with those kinds of dolls. I had a big robust doll called Suzy who had brown curly hair, I didn't have any Cindy dolls or anything like that. I didn't like a lot of 'girls' stuff so I didn't do it, but I did love my cuddly animals and they got pushed round in a big pram. I dressed in shorts and trousers at my non-uniform primary and refused to wear a skirt for at least a year, including insisting on wearing jeans in the country dancing show we did when we were 8. Lots of 70s kids clothing was quite gender neutral, patterned hooded cardies, that kind of stuff, there wasn't any pink. I had Star Wars figures, as did my sister. I wasn't ever bullied but there were some parents who didn't approve of us. I climbed trees, played with boys and girls. That was the 70s. My daughter went on a Woodcraft folk outdoorsy trip recently and the girls in her class went eugh jumping in mud that's weird, why did you want to do that? I don't recall any shit like that when I was a kid. It's so self-limiting, it's all selfies and shit, what they look like. But my daughters friend in a different school dresses in boys clothes, so does her friend, they play football, and that is different, that there are more girls clubs and team. However, these girls see themselves as separate from girls, though not identified fully as boys, they don't get bullied in primary, but they're not integrated, they're split off. 

I do think there's more freedom for teenagers these days but that probably depends on the environment. I went to high school in Liverpool in the 80s and there was a huge pressure to conform to some really narrow scouse identity and it was tough for those of us that didn't. I don't think that's changed much.


----------



## scifisam (May 2, 2019)

I grew up in the eighties and although Cindy and Barbie were popular there was also a _huge_ push against them. They were controversial, especially Barbie because of her body shape. Lots of girls weren't even allowed them, and were sometimes bought similar alternatives instead because there's nothing actually wrong with playing with dolls. 

I never totally bought into the hate, despite being a total tomboy, because one of my best friends had Barbies and we played all sorts of games with them, sending them off on adventures in her awesome Barbie car. Her body shape was crap but even then there was a Barbie doctor and a Barbie vet. 

Cindy and Barbie aren't big now but there are lots of other similar toys. And Barbie actually has some really cool dolls - I wouldn't at all be against G playing with them when she gets older (J was never interested in dolls). 

And now there are things like pink lego, pink toy pushchairs, everything branded pink to try to make parents buy more than one of everything. And Playmobile is huge right now, it seems to me, and that's quite heavily gendered. I looked up playmobile+chickens (because I kept chickens) and there is a chicken keeper! Labelled "farmer's wife."  

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playmobil-...ocphy=9044965&hvtargid=pla-434823194063&psc=1


----------



## smokedout (May 2, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I didn’t grow up in the 80s. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. We didn’t have uniform at my school. Everyone wore jeans and T-shirts. Girls and boys had equal amounts of HE and DT classes.
> 
> How exactly have gender stereotypes broken down since the childhood you’re describing? They’re much worse now, especially for girls.



The first row I ever remember my mum and step dad having was when my mum said she wanted to get a job.  Even this
was controversial because there was huge social pressure for married women to stay at home with the kids although the financial constraints of Thatcherism would soon change this as more women had to work as wages stagnated and male unemployment grew.  I remember a woman bus driver being employed locally and older men in my family saying they wouldn't travel on a bus if a woman was driving.  Bender and poof were used synonymosly as insults in my schools, gender conformity (and heterosexuality) was ruthlessly policed, amongst both boys and girls, being a poof or lemon (which meant lesbian at my school) was seen as digusting and the lowest of the low, and out of well over one thousand kids in my school not one came out as gay, lebsian, bisexual or trans.  Gender was even socially enforced by different dress codes, lesson plans and sports and play available.  At my primary  school boys and girls were segregated at playtimes, boy had to play football and the girls had some sloping concrete bank at the side of the pitch. People like Boy  George and Annie Lennox were despised by many people, and gender stereotypes were much more bound up with sexuality back then. A lot of the older generations conflated being gender non conforming with being gay or lesbian and society was increadibly homophobic in the 80s compared to now.

Yes there were some 'tomboys', my friend was one, and the various subcultures did allow for some men to be more feminine, but it was socially frowned on to the extent you might not get a job and it probably wasn't a good idea to go walking through the city centre on a Saturday night unless there was a big gang of you.  And someone who was read as male, but went out wearing a frock and heels would likely have been beaten up or even potentially arrested back then.

I'm not at all saying that new things haven't emerged which reinforce gender stereotypes, or that the problem is solved, its far far from that.  But  I don't think its anything like it was, young people are much freer to make choices about their lives outside of the social constraints of gender than they were.


----------



## Edie (May 2, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> emotional labour is an actual thing. being the glue that holds a family together is an actual thing. i abdicated a lot of it a while ago because i really wasn't well enough to keep myself functioning let alone any extended family systems. but part of picking back up the pieces is picking back up the emotional labour. that i have a life partner who's committed, willing and (mostly) able to hold the fort in the interim is pretty unusual when it comes to heterosexual relationships, ime.
> 
> in my optimistic moments i hope that the amount of time he takes to deal with kid-admin and (especially) kid1's counselling/hospital appointments goes some small way to restoring the gender/parental responsibility balance in the workplace...


Emotional labour. I’ve never heard that term before. But yeh absolutely. The having to remember everything for everyone bit is absolutely exhausting. And if you forget one thing you get blamed. Example: I go to the supermarket every week, and buy like, what, over fifty different items. But the only time anyone ever even notices that I’ve gone to the shops is if I forget the one thing they wanted. See also: all the appointments, birthdays, school shit (fuck off world book day I’m looking at you), family occasions (his fam as well as yours), pets, the list goes on. Along with the actual work (ie scrub the toilet, cooking, lifts, homework, counselling, screaming like a harridan) it’s at _least_ equivalent to a part time job (and mine are teenagers!).

There’s that, plus the fact that a lot of men even now can’t do even basic household management. My father in law is of a generation of men who’ve never so much as boiled an egg. Now M-in-laws on the stroke ward I’m having to cook for him, fling a hoover round etc cos he literally cannot do this shit himself.

But here’s the thing, I don’t even mind doing that work myself. I quite like taking care of people, especially people I love. But it needs to be recognised. I need TIME to do it, and I need to be able to AFFORD to do it. If I work part time (as I did til last year) and get working family tax credits cos my incomes under 15k pa, don’t look down on that as benefits. I mean _society_ don’t look down on that. Because it’s cheap at the fucking price, compared to meals on wheels or a care package or a nursery.

Why are we (as a society) paying minimum wage to childcare workers, yet still the cost of childcare absolutely demolishes a young family’s (let alone single mums) income, to do a job that a lot of the time could be done by a Mum or Dad who actually loves that baby/child and wants to do it but can’t afford to?

It’s insane! You pay through the fucking nose to go to work to do a job that nine times out of ten you’d probably rather not be doing, or doing _so_ _much_, cos you’d rather be home with your baby. And most of the time it’s at best marginally fucking worth it! At least that’s how it’s been for me up til last summer. Same with care packages for the old folk, insanely expensive, often poor quality, whilst someone (a daughter or son) who _wants_ to do it sits in an office feeling guilty, or dashes there between working days.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for women having a career, having a job outside the home, their own interests and identity. It’s what I wanted once my kids were in primary. But it should be a choice. A sit down ‘so how many days do you want to work, and how many days do you want or need running the home?’. Rightio, there you go, sorted. Men the same, no excuses here, they get offered the same deal. Caring responsibilities = option of flexible working + decent WTC.

It seems to me not just better for people (the carer and the cared for) but it’s also surely gotta be more cost efficient for us as a society?! Whose crunched these numbers, someone must have. The issue will be that Care Provider X doesn’t make a profit. Well fuck Care Provider X.

As a society let’s do the numbers and have a chat about this, cos it’s not working out right now. Not for the old folk sat alone with their Wiltshire Farm Foods ready meals, or the little kids in day care for longer thans reasonable, but mostly for the women who are trying to do it all because they *have* to.


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

Edie said:


> Emotional labour. I’ve never heard that term before. But yeh absolutely. The having to remember everything for everyone bit is absolutely exhausting. And if you forget one thing you get blamed.



... and then everyone is like "but you only had to remember ONE THING!!"... 

Can identify with this from the other side because it's triggering memories of me doing this sort of thing as a grumpy teen.


----------



## Edie (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> ... and then everyone is like "but you only had to remember ONE THING!!"...
> 
> Can identify with this from the other side because it's triggering memories of me doing this sort of thing as a grumpy teen.


I just tell my sons they know where Asda is tbf.


----------



## smokedout (May 2, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I grew up in the eighties and although Cindy and Barbie were popular there was also a _huge_ push against them. They were controversial, especially Barbie because of her body shape. Lots of girls weren't even allowed them, and were sometimes bought similar alternatives instead because there's nothing actually wrong with playing with dolls.
> 
> I never totally bought into the hate, despite being a total tomboy, because one of my best friends had Barbies and we played all sorts of games with them, sending them off on adventures in her awesome Barbie car. Her body shape was crap but even then there was a Barbie doctor and a Barbie vet.
> 
> ...



I think toys are one this that has proved pretty resistant to change, but I'm not convinced it is worse as such, just the same: 35 Awesome Toys Every '80s Girl Wanted For Christmas


----------



## kabbes (May 2, 2019)

I just want to point out that when I asked this:


kabbes said:


> Is Let Toys Be Toys working?  To me, it seems that the whole area is light years behind where it was 20 years ago.


I would note that 20 years ago is 1999, not the 1980s.

You’ve got old, folks. The 1980s were quite shit but they were 30-40 years ago.


----------



## Edie (May 3, 2019)

Winot said:


> I found this essay by Grayson Perry really interesting and challenging
> Grayson Perry: The rise and fall of Default Man


This was really good mate. Excellent. One of those bits of writing that genuinely give you a different perspective suddenly. An anthropological eye for suit man and the straight guy. This bit in particular made me laugh out loud 



> With their colourful textile phalluses hanging round their necks, they make up an overwhelming majority in government, in boardrooms and also in the media.




The stuff about how thinking about Default Man as the rational and normal is absurd, the suit, and hiding power in plain sight was great too:





> They like to keep their abnormal power low-key: the higher the power, the duller the suit and tie, a Mercedes rather than a Rolls, just another old man chatting casually to prime ministers at the wedding of a tabloid editor.



Gonna read that link by butchers now. Any of the others posted I’ve missed particularly worth a read?


----------



## Edie (May 3, 2019)

Winot from now on I will only ever be able to think of ties as ‘colourful textile phalluses hanging round their necks’, and it will make me silently laugh


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2019)

This, by Silvia Federici, covers a lot of what you're taking about, Edie:
Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle
SKU: 9781604863338


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 3, 2019)

Edie and anyone, really - I really like the book "Where we stand: class matters" by bell hooks, in which there's a chapter on Feminism and Class Power (Chapter 9, p.107)



which begins




			
				bell hooks said:
			
		

> Revolutionary feminist thinking has always raised the issue of classism among women. From the onset, there has been a struggle
> within feminist movement between the reformist model of liberation, which basically demands equal rights for women within the existing class struggle,
> and more radical and/or revolutionary models, which call for fundamental change in the existing structure so that models of mutuality
> and equality can replace old paradigms. Just as militant black liberation struggle calling for an end to classism was made to
> ...


----------



## wayward bob (May 3, 2019)

Edie said:


> I just tell my sons they know where Asda is tbf.


we live within a 5 minute walk of several supermarkets, but kid1 will only leave the house (sometimes :/) for school. she does go out with us, but never on her own. technically i have provided her with both the proximity to the shops and the legs with which to get there but even that isn't enough! (she claims the legs are sub-standard)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow. Gender reveal party. I've just googled that as well. Firstly, it's a _sex_ reveal party, ffs. A unborn foetus doesn't have a gender. We're so confused about the sex/gender distinction. Who cares? It's a fucking baby! But yes, wow, everyone needs to know what baby clothes to buy, eh? As FabricLiveBaby! said on another thread, gender is an opportunity for capitalism to sell us the same thing twice. It ain't going to miss out.



Latest example from Let Toys Be Toys.

There are many reasons why this is shameful, but what struck me was the free cinema tickets for parents on the "blue" box and the health benefits.

Where as the pink box? Well...



I've never been to a gender reveal party.

I always avoid gender reveal parties. I've been invited to them but find excuses, to meet with the expectant mother some other time. I refuse to add to the pink/blue nonsense but also mainly because there'saa danger that I'd go off on a rant and ruin it for everyone. 

When friends announce they are having kids I always buy something creative for the boys, or something mechanical for the girls to use when they are a year old (or even older) and the congratulatory presents have disappeared (newborns grow out of stuff quickly). 

It's not much, but it is a small feminist act to counter the pinkification and bluification that kids are having to battle against today. And an acknowledgement that gifting drops off a cliff after 9 months old (whereas rearing a child becomes more and more expensive).

I recently wrote on twitter recently about how patriarchy and capitalism seem to me to be basically the same thing re: controlling the means of production. Specifically women are the class that is the means of reproduction of the human race, and therefore supply capital their worker force.

I don't know if we can smash capitalism without smashing patriarchal control first. In which case, we seem to be a long way off with the amount of misogyny still entrenched in the left.

The more I read the more I am convinced they are one and the same.

Anyway, this is a great thread, and so are the threads that have sprung from it.  Thanks JudithB and friendofdorothy. Good work ladies


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Latest example from Let Toys Be Toys...
> 
> View attachment 169694



I don't eat cereals, and don't look at cereal boxes in the supermarket (or haven't done for many years), but is it a thing now to have different boxes for the actual same product?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> I don't eat cereals, and don't look at cereal boxes in the supermarket (or haven't done for many years), but is it a thing now to have different boxes for the actual same product?





It wasn't hyperbole when I talked about gender allowing capital to sell the same product twice.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 3, 2019)

My mum taught us all to cook and bake from a very early age. She never made us breakfast or cups of tea after we were able to fend for ourselves. Glad she did that a s it made us all more independent and not entitled about whose 'job' it was to feed and water you - it was a case of if you want something, make or fetch it for yourself. So we did. Same wirh things like laundry. Didn't realise til i went to university that some offspring treat their mums like skivvies. 
The one downside to this is that i am a terrible host who rarely offers guests refreshments
ETA oops must be going senile. I must have been thinking of another thread, or I'm thinking of another exchange earlier in tje thread


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> My mum taught us all to cook and bake from a very early age. She never made us breakfast or cups of tea after we were able to fend for ourselves. Glad she did that a s it made us all more independent and not entitled about whose 'job' it was to feed and water you - it was a case of if you want something, make or fetch it for yourself. So we did. Same wirh things like laundry. Didn't realise til i went to university that some offspring treat their mums like skivvies.
> The one downside to this is that i am a terrible host who rarely offers guests refreshments


did you not offer your mum a cup of tea when you were making one for yourself?


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It wasn't hyperbole when I talked about gender allowing capital to sell the same product twice.



Yeah, I was thinking of pink razors, and gendered lego, but _cereal?_
If I saw those boxes in a supermarket my natural assumption would be that the pink ones related to a film promo that had come to an end and they were mid-switch.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I recently wrote on twitter recently about how patriarchy and capitalism seem to me to be basically the same thing re: controlling the means of production. Specifically women are the class that is the means of reproduction of the human race, and therefore supply capital their worker force.
> 
> I don't know if we can smash capitalism without smashing patriarchal control first. In which case, we seem to be a long way off with the amount of misogyny still entrenched in the left.
> 
> The more I read the more I am convinced they are one and the same.


I saw someone suggest recently that the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control or own anything he desires. So capitalism (and before if feudalism) is the natural consequence of that.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> did you not offer your mum a cup of tea when you were making one for yourself?


Aye, she was often too tired to make owt cos of her MS. Not my siblings though!


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> I saw someone suggest recently that the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control or own anything he desires. So capitalism (and before if feudalism) is the natural consequence of that.


it's not really tho is it. the great majority of men under feudalism or capitalism haven't and don't really get much chance to control or own what they want. yeh i'll grant you that of the beneficiaries of capitalism the majority are men. but i think it a superficial and facile comment to say 'the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control of own anything he desires'. gender expectations differ in time and place - not to mention in terms of power. it's like the nonsense that there's one unchanging human nature, on the surface attractive and plausible but it's like smoke as you try to grasp it, it slips away in a hundred different directions.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


>



Equally weird, but I can't see how you would sell more of them.  Plus one looks to be a film promo pack.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Equally weird, but I can't see how you would sell more of them.  Plus one looks to be a film promo pack.



Imagine you have a son AND a daughter...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Equally weird, but I can't see how you would sell more of them.  Plus one looks to be a film promo pack.


I would think there are two considerations - sell more plasters in total, but sell more of your highly priced brand in particular over cheaper ones with generic packaging.

I remember gimmicks like bake-shrink toy figures in cereal packets as a kid (non-gendered from what I remember, although I may be misremembering). They had a powerful pull on me, and so by extension on my parents.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Equally weird, but I can't see how you would sell more of them.  Plus one looks to be a film promo pack.


I don't understand what you're trying to argue. What about a film promo?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Equally weird, but I can't see how you would sell more of them.  Plus one looks to be a film promo pack.


a subliminal message is girls cut themselves less frequently (16 plasters) than boys do (20 plasters)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Imagine you have a son AND a daughter...


Or you have other kids staying, and the horror at being given the 'wrong' plaster. Gendered plasters are bonkers.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or you have other kids staying, and the horror at being given the 'wrong' plaster. Gendered plasters are bonkers.



That too!

It's all bollocks, mate


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Imagine you have a son AND a daughter...



In such cases I'd most likely have a first aid kit with a compartment that the plasters go into.
And the strip-based ones which you cut up with scissors, because they are cheaper and more versatile.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> a subliminal message is girls cut themselves less frequently (16 plasters) than boys do (20 plasters)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

... If it wasn't profitable (i.e working) they wouldn't have bothered. It doesn't matter if you, personally, wouldn't buy it. Plenty of people ARE buying into it, because if they weren't, the issue wouldn't be getting worse


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> a subliminal message is girls cut themselves less frequently (16 plasters) than boys do (20 plasters)


Well spotted. I bet they're the same price.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well spotted. I bet they're the same price.


yeh i bet they are


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ... If it wasn't profitable (i.e working) they wouldn't have bothered. It doesn't matter if you, personally, wouldn't buy it. Plenty of people ARE buying into it, because if it wasn't profitable the issue wouldn't be getting worse



Are you talking about the plasters or the cereals or just speaking generically?
The Elastoplast pic is unconvincing for several reasons, and the Kinder Surprise thing is understandable on the basis of toys being heavily gendered generally, but selling parallel identical (contentrs-wise) gendered cereals is pretty barking - that's the one that really surprised me.

I assume from the responses on here that this isn't that remarkable these days, though intuitively I find it hard to see any commercial benefit from it.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i bet they are



I bet they're not. 



Spoiler



Elastoplast Waterproof Batman Plasters 20 Strips | Online Pound Store

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elastoplas...ocphy=1006965&hvtargid=pla-708508621655&psc=1


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Are you talking about the plasters or the cereals or just speaking generically?
> The Elastoplast pic is unconvincing for several reasons, and the Kinder Surprise thing is understandable on the basis of toys being heavily gendered generally, but selling parallel identical (contentrs-wise) gendered cereals is pretty barking - that's the one that really surprised me.
> 
> I assume from the responses on here that this isn't that remarkable these days, though intuitively I find it hard to see any commercial benefit from it.


What is unconvincing about it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> I bet they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fucking hell. 44p each!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Are you talking about the plasters or the cereals or just speaking generically?



All of it.  At the end of the day it's self fulfilling. It might originally be perhaps marginally profitable but mainly feeds into the culture, and then the culture markets it back out again. Like a feedback loop.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fucking hell. 44p each!



I get the feeling these are rarely-sold discontinued packs being sold to obsessed collectors, there are some related links to far crazier prices.  The Batman ones appear to be from a "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" product line.

It's pretty easy to trawl for Twitter-fodder if you leave out bits of context.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> All of it.  At the end of the day it's self fulfilling. It might originally be perhaps marginally profitable but mainly feeds into the culture, and then the culture markets it back out again. Like a feedback loop.



It feels like a patchwork of some things getting better, and some things getting worse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> It feels like a patchwork of some things getting better, and some things getting worse.


In terms of gendered marketing, it's definitely getting worse, though. That's part of a wider ramping up of marketing in general, but it's definitely strongly there. ffs gendered plasters.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In terms of gendered marketing, it's definitely getting worse, though. That's part of a wider ramping up of marketing in general, but it's definitely strongly there. ffs gendered plasters.



The main time I notice these things is the run-up to Christmas.  That sea of pink in the toy shops with the iron-clad boundary..


----------



## Winot (May 3, 2019)

In relation to gender stereotyping and capitalism, I wonder if one of the issues is that capitalism seeks to maximise profit from the world as it is, and therefore marketing tends to support the status quo?

I am thinking for example about the Iceland advertising campaign "because Mums are heroes!" which was clearly pitched at persuading mums to shop at Iceland but equally reinforced societal expectations that men don't do the shopping.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> It feels like a patchwork of some things getting better, and some things getting worse.



I don't mean to sound flippant (I'm not, I just don't know how else to write it), but perhaps you should ask the women about this issue? We might be seeing something you're not. 

I'll shut up now, and see what the other women of urban have to say about it.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> What is unconvincing about it?



From looking at at the pack design, the logo (which has been updated and shows substantial differences in the case of the pink pack(, even the compression artefacts, these are different products made at different times, probably for different territories, and for different market segments.  Though tbf they may be on sale concurrently, since plasters have a massive shelf life.

It's not like the case with the cereal where it really does appear to be a "his and hers" version of the same product (on the same shelf, same basic product description and pack size etc.).  It seems to be more of a generic "look, gendered plasters!" pic.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I don't mean to sound flippant (I'm not, I just don't know how else to write it), but perhaps you should ask the women about this issue?



It wasn't a question.
And oddly enough, I have regular contact with a range of women who aren't even on this site! 

Not meaning to sound flippant. 

edit:  to explain further, that comment *was* my impression of what women on this thread have said so far, though I may be accidentally incorporating a few impressions from another thread that is ongoing.


----------



## cheesethief (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> I saw someone suggest recently that the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control or own anything he desires. So capitalism (and before if feudalism) is the natural consequence of that.





Pickman's model said:


> it's not really tho is it. the great majority of men under feudalism or capitalism haven't and don't really get much chance to control or own what they want. yeh i'll grant you that of the beneficiaries of capitalism the majority are men. but i think it a superficial and facile comment to say 'the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control of own anything he desires'. gender expectations differ in time and place - not to mention in terms of power. it's like the nonsense that there's one unchanging human nature, on the surface attractive and plausible but it's like smoke as you try to grasp it, it slips away in a hundred different directions.


That's not really what Santino's post said, if I understood it correctly - the fact that most men throughout history have been effectively powerless doesn't detract from the asserted expectation. The implication being that men consider themselves entitled to power, whether they achieve it or not. The question I would raise is "whose expectation is this?". Is it innate to the male of the species (in which case it might as well be immutable) or is an expectation imposed by society itself. Do men want this power because that's what men want, or do they want it because they're a product of a world that inculcates them to believe that to be so?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> the fact that most men throughout history have been effectively powerless doesn't detract from the asserted expectation. The implication being that men consider themselves entitled to power, whether they achieve it or not.


I think it rather does, tbh. In feudalism, a lower-ranked man had basically to do what he was told in the public sphere (at home it may have been different), and there was absolutely no expectation of anything else.

This is rather a sidetrack, but certainly some kind of innate male will to power sounds very much like nonsense on stilts to me. Looking in the wrong place for answers. To see the roots of feudalism and so capitalism, you need to look at the changes that happened with settlement and agriculture, in particular the invention of 'property'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> That's not really what Santino's post said, if I understood it correctly - the fact that most men throughout history have been effectively powerless doesn't detract from the asserted expectation. The implication being that men consider themselves entitled to power, whether they achieve it or not. The question I would raise is "whose expectation is this?". Is it innate to the male of the species (in which case it might as well be immutable) or is an expectation imposed by society itself. Do men want this power because that's what men want, or do they want it because they're a product of a world that inculcates them to believe that to be so?


if capitalism and feudalism are natural consequences of the gender expectation of being a man as santino suggests, then it is perplexing that such systems have evolved in which so few men have the wherewithal to compel other men, and indeed women too, to their bidding. yeh, the question you raise is a good one - where does this expectation come from? i don't believe it is innate but rather culturally constructed. this doesn't mean that it is necessarily transient - it may be what the annales historians might have seen as a _longue duree _phenomenon, something which came into effect a very long time ago and has developed since then, perhaps emerging around the time people in the middle east stopped being nomads (this is just a suggestion and not an actual argument i'm proposing).


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is rather a sidetrack, but certainly some kind of innate male will to power sounds very much like nonsense on stilts to me.



You mean as in innately biological and different in quality to any kind of female will to power?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> You mean as in innately biological and different in quality to any kind of female will to power?


Yes, that is what I mean. It is what I took cheesethief to mean by 'innate to the male of the species'.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that is what I mean. It is what I took cheesethief to mean.



Fair enough. 



Spoiler



I dunno.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At very best, all you can say is that the evidence is mixed. There are lots of examples of hunter-gatherer societies with a wide mix of organisation and structure, not all of which are male-dominated. We're highly plastic and can produce widely differing societies, which is why I said that more fruitful explanations are likely to be found elsewhere - in this case, I suggest in the invention of property.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At very best, all you can say is that the evidence is mixed. There are lots of examples of hunter-gatherer societies with a wide mix of organisation and structure, not all of which are male-dominated. We're highly plastic and can produce widely differing societies, which is why I said that more fruitful explanations are likely to be found elsewhere - in this case, I suggest in the invention of property.



"Will to power" always struck me as a very masculine* concept.

* - not male


----------



## Poot (May 3, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> My mum taught us all to cook and bake from a very early age. She never made us breakfast or cups of tea after we were able to fend for ourselves. Glad she did that a s it made us all more independent and not entitled about whose 'job' it was to feed and water you - it was a case of if you want something, make or fetch it for yourself. So we did. Same wirh things like laundry. Didn't realise til i went to university that some offspring treat their mums like skivvies.
> The one downside to this is that i am a terrible host who rarely offers guests refreshments
> ETA oops must be going senile. I must have been thinking of another thread, or I'm thinking of another exchange earlier in tje thread


I realised last night that I am a _terrible _feminist. 

I watched something on television with my daughter last night, where the woman came home from work and her husband had made dinner. So far so normal, right? And my daughter said 'she didn't say thank you' and I said 'what?' and she said 'he made dinner for her and she didn't say thank you'. And I did think that perhaps she meant on a normal, human, gratitude level, she should have said thank you. But no. In our house if Mr P ever cooks (Mother's Day and perhaps another 3 times a year) I make such a fuss that it became apparent (after a bit of probing) that my daughter thinks that men are not supposed - on what I can only assume to be some weird genetic level - to have to cook. It is in some way beneath them. 

Obviously I put her straight, and explained that I am simply a better cook. (I am!) But I was very disappointed. And I don't think Youtube's helping much, either. I'm going to spend most of this weekend trying to unpick whatever patriarchal tangle has made its way into the heads of BOTH of my children.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> "Will to power" always struck me as a very masculine* concept.
> 
> * - not male


It strikes me as a highly culturally conditioned concept. Status-striving is a common feature in social primates (among both males and females). I definitely see status-striving as a typically human attribute, but it is one that applies to both men and women. The masculinisation of particular forms of it, if that is what is happening, seems to me to be culturally shaped. 

/end derail.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It strikes me as a highly culturally conditioned concept.



Well, yeah, it's gender, innit.  It all relates to qualities found in both sexes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, yeah, it's gender, innit.  It all relates to qualities found in both sexes.


Yes, that's the basic point.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that's the basic point.



Maybe cheesethief will clarify what was meant...

I'm a bit dozy this afternoon - took a while to see your point.


----------



## scifisam (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> From looking at at the pack design, the logo (which has been updated and shows substantial differences in the case of the pink pack(, even the compression artefacts, these are different products made at different times, probably for different territories, and for different market segments.  Though tbf they may be on sale concurrently, since plasters have a massive shelf life.
> 
> It's not like the case with the cereal where it really does appear to be a "his and hers" version of the same product (on the same shelf, same basic product description and pack size etc.).  It seems to be more of a generic "look, gendered plasters!" pic.



No, they are sold together side by side in chemists', at big supermarkets and in pound shops. 

They are not simply different pack designs and it's a bit weird you trying to claim they are.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

scifisam said:


> No, they are sold together side by side in chemists', at big supermarkets and in pound shops.
> They are not simply different pack designs and it's a bit weird you trying to claim they are.



That sounds like a lot of places carrying those two product lines side by side.
Was that picture one of yours, and where did you take it (I mean of them being sold side by side)?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 3, 2019)

Poot said:


> I realised last night that I am a _terrible _feminist.
> 
> I watched something on television with my daughter last night, where the woman came home from work and her husband had made dinner. So far so normal, right? And my daughter said 'she didn't say thank you' and I said 'what?' and she said 'he made dinner for her and she didn't say thank you'. And I did think that perhaps she meant on a normal, human, gratitude level, she should have said thank you. But no. In our house if Mr P ever cooks (Mother's Day and perhaps another 3 times a year) I make such a fuss that it became apparent (after a bit of probing) that my daughter thinks that men are not supposed - on what I can only assume to be some weird genetic level - to have to cook. It is in some way beneath them.
> 
> Obviously I put her straight, and explained that I am simply a better cook. (I am!) But I was very disappointed. And I don't think Youtube's helping much, either. I'm going to spend most of this weekend trying to unpick whatever patriarchal tangle has made its way into the heads of BOTH of my children.


My mum was a feminist for sure, but a lot of her actions to make her offspring less entitled and more independent were purely practical ones, as she had been diagnosed with MS when we were still quite young and she knew she couldn't be some kind of Shirley Conran Superwoman. We would need to step up for necessity's sake.
She never managed to persuade us to darn socks and shirts though, so we were quite scruffy kids.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

Of course, those could just be film promo packs for those recently-released films Frozen and Star Wars.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> Of course, those could just be film promo packs for those recently-released films Frozen and Star Wars.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


>


Apology accepted.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> Apology accepted.



I think you misconstrued my post there.  But I find it quite inspiring that you have learned how to use a computer.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think you misconstrued my post there.  But I find it quite inspiring that you have learned how to use a computer.


No, I understood it perfectly.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> No, I understood it perfectly.



Well done, dear.


----------



## Thora (May 3, 2019)

It's pretty frustrating that even on threads about feminism their are men arguing about how it's really not that bad.  Same as on the threads about gender pay gap and male design - lots of men saying it's not that bad/men have it bad too/my boss is a woman.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

Thora said:


> It's pretty frustrating that even on threads about feminism their are men arguing about how it's really not that bad.



It's unlikely to happen on threads about football tbf.


----------



## scifisam (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> That sounds like a lot of places carrying those two product lines side by side.
> Was that picture one of yours, and where did you take it (I mean of them being sold side by side)?



Yes, it is a fair few places.

Has your scepticism finally been satisfied by Santino now or do you want someone to come and sit in your living room with two identical packs and a receipt?


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yes, it is a fair few places.
> 
> Has your scepticism finally been satisfied by Santino now or do you want someone to come and sit in your living room with two identical packs and a receipt?



Santino's post was relating to a different product.  I was talking about that specific picture (as a very tangential side point), as should have been evident to anyone with a reading age over 8, but I'll concede that I misjudged the audience in this case.


----------



## scifisam (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Santino's post was relating to a different product.  I was talking about that specific picture (as a very tangential side point), as should have been evident to anyone with a reading age over 8, but I'll concede that I misjudged the audience in this case.



Santino was the one who posted the original pic, as you'd be able to tell if _you _could read, you rude bastard. And does it matter that they're not precisely and exactly the same product? The point stands that there are different plasters in gendered boxes.


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2019)

I'm sorry if through your own error you have felt patronised.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Santino was the one who posted the original pic, as you'd be able to tell if _you _could read, you rude bastard. And does it matter that they're not precisely and exactly the same product? The point stands that there are different plasters in gendered boxes.



Yes.  My point was exactly that what he had posted was a picture of plasters in gendered boxes.


----------



## scifisam (May 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes.  My point was exactly that what he had posted was a picture of plasters in gendered boxes.



...That you didn't believe were really gendered boxes or existed at the same time in the same shops. Everyone else can see what you wrote, you know, no point in pretending that's all you said.


----------



## mango5 (May 3, 2019)

It's really flipping tedious watching 8ball take their turn struggling with the idea that equivalent products are frequently gendered and often more costly.
And seeing other posters continuing with little to contribute than historical class analysis showing that (some) men have it rough too 
  It's as if Gender Capitalism is something FabricLiveBaby! dreamed up. (it's not Google it) 
friendofdorothy looks like your middle-aged woman's invisibility cloak has followed you online


----------



## Edie (May 3, 2019)

Purely out of interest, has anyone here heard anything about the big feminist strikes that the article that butchers posted? Heard about it in the news, or via word of mouth or women’s groups. 

(Asking because I’m notoriously shit for keeping up with the news. I actively ignore it if I’m too upset or stressed cos it scares me, and I often don’t have time either. So could have just past me by).


----------



## JudithB (May 3, 2019)

mango5 said:


> It's really flipping tedious watching 8ball take their turn struggling with the idea that equivalent products are frequently gendered and often more costly.
> And seeing other posters continuing with little to contribute than historical class analysis showing that (some) men have it rough too
> It's as if Gender Capitalism is something FabricLiveBaby! dreamed up. (it's not Google it)
> friendofdorothy looks like your middle-aged woman's invisibility cloak has followed you online


You know what they say, those minor annoyances like sexism can be sorted out after the revolution


----------



## JudithB (May 3, 2019)

Edie said:


> Purely out of interest, has anyone here heard anything about the big feminist strikes that the article that butchers posted? Heard about it in the news, or via word of mouth or women’s groups.
> 
> (Asking because I’m notoriously shit for keeping up with the news. I actively ignore it if I’m too upset or stressed cos it scares me, and I often don’t have time either. So could have just past me by).


No but some of the feminist groups might know. Are you on twitter?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 3, 2019)

Edie said:


> Purely out of interest, has anyone here heard anything about the big feminist strikes that the article that butchers posted? Heard about it in the news, or via word of mouth or women’s groups.
> 
> (Asking because I’m notoriously shit for keeping up with the news. I actively ignore it if I’m too upset or stressed cos it scares me, and I often don’t have time either. So could have just past me by).


No. Please tell me more.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not really tho is it. the great majority of men under feudalism or capitalism haven't and don't really get much chance to control or own what they want.


 and what about the women under the control of those men under feudalism or capitalism. What about them?

I'm fed up of hearing of oppressed men.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 4, 2019)

mango5 said:


> friendofdorothy looks like your middle-aged woman's invisibility cloak has followed you online


 I'm hoping it will prove to be my super power - Invisible middle aged Harridan! able to sneak right under the nose of men anywhere completely unnoticed...


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Winot from now on I will only ever be able to think of ties as ‘colourful textile phalluses hanging round their necks’, and it will make me silently laugh




My sister pointed out that some beards, especially the goatee variety, actively point down towards the groin, like a penis signpost.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> My sister pointed out that some beards, especially the goatee variety, actively point down towards the groin, like a penis signpost.
> 
> View attachment 169770


Not sure how effective those beards are at signposting to the penis but some I think some of those definitely mark the wearer as a prick.


----------



## tim (May 4, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Hey, Jude. Don't be afraid, to start your own thread.


Don't be obscure


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy 

The Van Dyke one is an actual arrow though...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Not sure how effective those beards are at signposting to the penis but some I think some of those definitely mark the wearer as a prick.


How would you react to a man saying the equivalent about a woman's appearance? Fuck's sake.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> No but some of the feminist groups might know. Are you on twitter?


Nah. It was more to see how many women here had even heard of them cos I hadn’t (but then I’m not very political).

But look at this(!): in Spain in 2018, more than 5 million women went on strike about sexism, about equality, about sexual assault, under the slogan  “If we stop, the world stops”. Which is pretty fucking cool (I googled and found this: More than 5m join Spain's 'feminist strike', unions say).

So that’s interesting cos it’s interesting (our Spanish sisters  ). But it’s also interesting cos I’ve never heard about it, nor have you etc. Heard of #metoo not heard of that, I’m not sure what that means (it’s late I’m tired now).


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 4, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How would you react to a man saying the equivalent about a woman's appearance? Fuck's sake.


Really? Am I not allowed an opinion?  I would not be so rude to say it to the beard wearer himself.  The culture of trimming facial hair is a fashion and says something about the wearer in my (usually unvoiced) opinion. 

Men have had no problem at all in commenting my own appearance, audibly and to my face on, no matter how rude, untimely or unwelcomed. I've been called all sorts of things - Whoar look at the tits on that! slag! Lezzer! Sexy! fat cow! cheer up love it my never happen! ugly bitch!  Women have their appearance assessed and commented on - all the time.

I thought I was being a rather gentle about male facial fashions in caparison.


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> My sister pointed out that some beards, especially the goatee variety, actively point down towards the groin, like a penis signpost.
> 
> View attachment 169770



I’m torn between the Rap Industry Standard and the Imperial Napoleon
III. 

It’s not just beards, though.  So many men sport no beard at all yet still insist on having chins *and* noses that point downwards directly toward their genitals.

*Everything* is about their penis - they’re obsessed!


----------



## scifisam (May 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> I’m torn between the Rap Industry Standard and the Imperial Napoleon
> III.
> 
> It’s not just beards, though.  So many men sport no beard at all yet still insist on having chins *and* noses that point downwards directly toward their genitals.
> ...



Yes, that's what people were saying. 

Why are you trolling this thread?


----------



## mojo pixy (May 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm fed up of hearing of oppressed men.



That's it then lads, just suck it all up and shut your mouths.
Life is good, with a penis. Women say so, and women are always right.

I may be retiring from these boards today.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 4, 2019)

Oh. My. Days.


----------



## weepiper (May 4, 2019)

For fuck's sake lads, it's a thread specifically about feminism and why women aren't talking about feminism on urban. Why not start your own threads about problems men face? No-one is stopping you.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> That's it then lads, just suck it all up and shut your mouths.
> Life is good, with a penis. Women say so, and women are always right.
> 
> I may be retiring from these boards today.


This is totally proportional.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> For fuck's sake lads, it's a thread specifically about feminism and why women aren't talking about feminism on urban. Why not start your own threads about problems men face? No-one is stopping you.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

Let’s not get into a fight where men feel attacked and women feel aggrieved that they do. That’s pointless and boring.

Let’s talk about whether talking about the ascent of individual women as feminism has been damaging or helpful or a mix of both? I think the arguments that liberal feminism damaging cos it advances neoliberalism by giving it the veneer of progressive advancement. (I’m never a hundred percent sure what neoliberalism is but I’ve used the word).

I’m not totally convinced. Smells a bit of ‘stay in your place’ or saying we can’t celebrate women’s achievements- especially when for so many years we were in the silent background.


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2019)

Edie - that might have been worth a new thread rather than tacking onto this one.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 4, 2019)

I don’t think a female scientist doing well is what they’re getting at tbf. It’s more to do with having women as PM for example - as a direct result of May’s policies women are dying. And she dares to wear a t-shirt claiming to be feminist? Man or woman at the top, it doesn’t move us on overall.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> Edie - that might have been worth a new thread rather than tacking onto this one.


But I think it’s linked to what I’ve been talking about isn’t it?


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> But I think it’s linked to what I’ve been talking about isn’t it?



Oh, sure. I just think it deserves a thread focussing on that point particularly.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> I don’t think a female scientist doing well is what they’re getting at tbf. It’s more to do with having women as PM for example - as a direct result of May’s policies women are dying. And she dares to wear a t-shirt claiming to be feminist? Man or woman at the top, it doesn’t move us on overall.


Science (along with politics, the media, the arts, pretty much all else) was a Default Man dominated thing. And science- and ideas about how the world works- and design and technology and stem and a world by and for Default Man is very much what we’ve been talking about?


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Science (along with politics, the media, the arts, pretty much all else) was a Default Man dominated thing. And science- and ideas about how the world works- and design and technology and stem and a world by and for Default Man is very much what we’ve been talking about?



I think the arts hasn’t been quite so DM-dominated for a while (in terms of a mental picture of what an artist looks like, I mean), but that would be my only quibble.  

This also touches heavily on that thread about so much stuff basically ending up designed for a different (more physical and statistically average) kind of “Default Man”.

As well as relating to a whole bunch of political stuff.  Too big for just one thread to itself, really.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Science (along with politics, the media, the arts, pretty much all else) was a Default Man dominated thing. And science- and ideas about how the world works- and design and technology and stem and a world by and for Default Man is very much what we’ve been talking about?



Isn't that the other threat, though?  'Feminism and a world designed for men'


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Isn't that the other threat, though?  'Feminism and a world designed for men'



Still a good topic.  Though could go a bit “P&P”, so phrasing the OP carefully would help.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Isn't that the other threat, though?  'Feminism and a world designed for men'


Oh am I getting my threats/threads muddled up? Sorry. I suppose I used the example of scientists cos they weren’t obviously “in power” like politicians or CEOs but they have power (in ideas and design) that still exists and is real? That’s kind of what I’m trying to say.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2019)

There’s a big difference between the importance of increasing female representation in STEM and having a (lone) woman in a position of political power.  The former is about opportunities for women generally, the latter is just about who the boss is and does nothing for wider opportunity.  After all, Elizabeth I was the unchallenged ruler of an empire with the power to do whatever she wanted over 400 years ago, but that hardly spoke to general female emancipation, did it?


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

So my point is, maybe there is purpose in celebrating individual women, to change the Default Male status quo, in a way that isn’t just about propping up neoliberalism.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> So my point is, maybe there is purpose in celebrating individual women, to change the Default Male status quo, in a way that isn’t just about propping up neoliberalism.



I certainly think so.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> There’s a big difference between the importance of increasing female representation in STEM and having a (lone) woman in a position of political power.  The former is about opportunities for women generally, the latter is just about who the boss is and does nothing for wider opportunity.  After all, Elizabeth I was the unchallenged ruler of an empire with the power to do whatever she wanted over 400 years ago, but that hardly spoke to general female emancipation, did it?


Absolutely, and I do get the point that
there’s no point legalising abortion, if the majority of women can’t afford even basic healthcare let alone a termination. Or that wage inequality is meaningless without a living wage because your still hand to mouth. That the underlying *structure* has to be changed to make true equality meaningful.

I guess as a woman I wonder that even if that happened, we had a Revolution to get rid of capitalism and provide a living wage and healthcare access, whether men would still be in charge. I’m just cynical.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Absolutely, and I do get the point that
> there’s no point legalising abortion, if the majority of women can’t afford even basic healthcare let alone a terminal. Or that wage inequality is meaningless without a living wage because your still hand to mouth. That the underlying *structure* has to be changed to make true equality meaningful.
> 
> I guess as a woman I wonder that even if that happened, we had a Revolution to get rid of capitalism and provide a living wage and healthcare access, whether men would still be in charge. I’m just cynical.



I suppose it depends on whether you think it's an inevitable part of the human condition that all societies everywhere have always been and will always be patriarchal.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> I suppose it depends on whether you think it's an inevitable part of the human condition that all societies everywhere have always been and will always be patriarchal.


Capitalism didn’t invent the subordination of women


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Capitalism didn’t invent the subordination of women



No, but that's not the quite the same point. It's hard to see how true equality can exist under capitalism, whereas the end of capitalism offers opportunities for it. But I think it's important we don't take it for granted, or that we think it's pointless working to improve things in the meantime.  The end if capitalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for perfect equality.  But we needn't wait for perfection to bring about improvements.  Whereas, having an ultimate goal of equality under capitalism is a fool's errand.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> I suppose it depends on whether you think it's an inevitable part of the human condition that all societies everywhere have always been and will always be patriarchal.



Not all societies everywhere have always been patriarchal. So it’s not inevitable.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Not all societies everywhere have always been patriarchal. So it’s not inevitable.



I agree.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 4, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> That's it then lads, just suck it all up and shut your mouths.
> Life is good, with a penis. Women say so, and women are always right.
> 
> I may be retiring from these boards today.


See ya


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> See ya


That post by mojo pixy just made me laugh  Here we are trying to have a talk about the structural oppression of women and how our labour is exploited, and then there’s _that_ post lol.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> friendofdorothy
> 
> The Van Dyke one is an actual arrow though...



Points-to-the-Dick Van Dyke


----------



## mango5 (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Not all societies everywhere have always been patriarchal. So it’s not inevitable.


Not inevitable in terms of the human condition, but seemingly inevitable under overwhelmingly dominant global Capitalism, and certainly a minority of societies historically.
It's why a society accommodating non-default man, or a society designed by/for women is the preserve of artists (Gramsci mentioned some examples upthread).  imo the latter is a thought experiment largely useful as a distraction from material reality.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Not inevitable in terms of the human condition, but seemingly inevitable under overwhelmingly dominant global Capitalism, and certainly a minority of societies historically.
> It's why a society accommodating non-default man, or a society designed by/for women is the preserve of artists (Gramsci mentioned some examples upthread).  imo the latter is a thought experiment largely useful as a distraction from material reality.




So we’re back to the necessity to dismantle capitalism. I’m all for that, but how on earth do we go about it.


----------



## mango5 (May 4, 2019)

Ain't going to happen  There won't be equality until it's enforced by environmental collapse and everyone's lives will be shitter than now. Even then it's a long shot cos those top-of-the-pyramid fellas have 99% of the global population by the short and curlies. We know how that turns out for women every time


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Ain't going to happen  There won't be equality until it's enforced by environmental collapse and everyone's lives will be shitter than now. Even then it's a long shot cos those top-of-the-pyramid fellas have 99% of the global population by the short and curlies. We know how that turns out for women every time


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Not sure how effective those beards are at signposting to the penis but some I think some of those definitely mark the wearer as a prick.


What a cunt.


----------



## campanula (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I’m all for that, but how on earth do we go about it.


patiently, incrementally, laterally. Within the limits of our capabilities. While I recognise the limiting restrictions of  patriarchal power, I have not felt totally powerless myself. After all, I have had an enormous and influential role as a parent, to raise my  children, however hopelessly mediated, to be  different, better  people than my own parents....particularly my embittered and abusive father. The shaping of young minds, through daily interaction has been a fundamental aspect of my own competence and sense of power. Solidarity, co-operation, mutuality, empathy...these are sometimes dismissed as self-indulgent and even smug modes of being...but networks of support, small scale neighbourhood autonomy, local actions, friendships, families, communities...while they can be divisive and easily exploited, I find they are also maneagable, accessible and have always held me up when the bureaucratic fumbling of parliamentary politics is just a distant pfffft.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

campanula said:


> patiently, incrementally, laterally. Within the limits of our capabilities. While I recognise the limiting restrictions of  patriarchal power, I have not felt totally powerless myself. After all, I have had an enormous and influential role as a parent, to raise my  children, however hopelessly mediated, to be  different, better  people than my own parents....particularly my embittered and abusive father. The shaping of young minds, through daily interaction has been a fundamental aspect of my own competence and sense of power. Solidarity, co-operation, mutuality, empathy...these are sometimes dismissed as self-indulgent and even smug modes of being...but networks of support, small scale neighbourhood autonomy, local actions, friendships, families, communities...while they can be divisive and easily exploited, I find they are also maneagable, accessible and have always held me up when the bureaucratic fumbling of parliamentary politics is just a distant pfffft.




As you say, all that humdrum daily grind of raising up the kids, making choices about how the pennies are spent, all the emotional labour that holds families and extended social groups together, all that falls largely to the women. And yet the power structures are controlled by the men/Default Man/ the patriarchy.

Qualifier: not all men, not all women etc.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> What a cunt.


What?


----------



## mango5 (May 4, 2019)

On a side note I really dislike the way that people who get the shitty end of the stick in society are the ones who are expected to come up with solutions from a position of low power and resources and will therefore have a far harder job to get anything agreed  let alone done


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> What a cunt.




Erm... 

What’s the issue.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

mango5 said:


> On a side note I really dislike the way that people who get the shitty end of the stick in society are the ones who are expected to come up with solutions from a position of low power and resources and will therefore have a far harder job to get anything agreed  let alone done




Well yes, but of course those who hold power don’t see it as a problem. So they’re not much minded to bring the changes.


----------



## mango5 (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Erm...
> 
> What’s the issue.


He caught sight of himself in the mirror


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Erm...
> 
> What’s the issue.


Misandrist gendered insults.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

mango5 said:


> He caught sight of himself in the mirror


Hohoho


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Sue said:


> What?


Look at the post for context.


----------



## mango5 (May 4, 2019)

Surely all these het-up or po-faced fellas can tell all the beard/penis stuff is just harmless banter


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Look at the post for context.


I did. friendofdorothy thinks the style of some men's facial hair makes them look like dicks. Matter of personal preference surely so not sure why it's pissed you off so much. Very strange.

(FTR, I don't like man buns, pink stuff or mullets. Are those acceptable preferences to have or do they make me a cunt too? Maybe start a thread on whatever you're on about?)


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Sue said:


> I did. friendofdorothy thinks the style of some men's facial hair makes them look like dicks. Matter of personal preference surely so not sure why it's pissed you off so much. Very strange.
> 
> (FTR, I don't like man buns, pink stuff or mullets. Are those acceptable preferences to have or do they make me a cunt too? Maybe start a thread on whatever you're on about?)


If posters dish out gendered insults in this manner they can expect to eat a few up too.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Sue said:


> I did. friendofdorothy thinks the style of some men's facial hair makes them look like dicks. Matter of personal preference surely so not sure why it's pissed you off so much. Very strange.
> 
> (FTR, I don't like man buns, pink stuff or mullets. Are those acceptable preferences to have or do they make me a cunt too? Maybe start a thread on whatever you're on about?)


You never struck me as misandrist Sue. 
Trashpony, FOD and mango5 do repeatedly.


----------



## weepiper (May 4, 2019)

Prick is not equivalent to cunt in strength or connotation and you know it. Boring.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Prick is not equivalent to cunt in strength or connotation and you know it. Boring.


I don't know it.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

It ain't for women to decide on the impact on men when they insult them using gendered terms.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> If posters dish out gendered insults in this manner they can expect to eat a few up too.


Is 'dick' really gendered? Personally I use it for both men and women. And as insults go, it's pretty mild, no? Which not start a thread or poll and see what others think?


TopCat said:


> You never struck me as misandrist Sue.
> Trashpony, FOD and mango5 do repeatedly.


 I'm not but as you seem to have some unusual views on this, whatever.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 4, 2019)

.... 

MISANDRY!!


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It ain't for women to decide on the impact on men when they insult them using gendered terms.


I really can't tell if you're on the windup or not.


----------



## scifisam (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It ain't for women to decide on the impact on men when they insult them using gendered terms.



Are you incapable of reading thread titles?

And do you really think that someone using an insulting word about someone else is the same as you directly calling them a cunt? I don't believe you - you're not that incredibly thick.


----------



## Poot (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> You never struck me as misandrist Sue.
> Trashpony, FOD and mango5 do repeatedly.


Please feel free to give evidence to back this up or, alternatively, please feel free to fuck off.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Misandrist gendered insults.



Bants, man! Get over yourself, cant take a joke? Honestly, the male sense of humour ffs (or lack of har har)! Next thing we know we won’t be able to make any jokes about this stuff at all, it’s pc gorn mad I tell you!

Etc ad infinitum.

Not nice, is it, the relentless normalising of the assumption that simply by virtue of your sex somehow you’re a target for easy joshing, that because you identify as a fe/male certain blanket claims and assumptions will be made about you and the way you live, feel, function, operate, interact. And those assumptions will be smuggled into the otherwise apparently mutually respectful conversation in such a way that you’re A) not able to respond in anger without being accused of overreacting or B) you have to ignore it or otherwise be the one who disrupts the conversation.



I’m so so sick of this bullshit. And I’m also bored of the assumption that sensible sane clever women won’t occasionally find it ironically  amusing to throw the curve ball back in the general direction from whence it came.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It ain't for women to decide on the impact on men when they insult them using gendered terms.




Um... just to say, women have been putting up with this exact bullshit for so long. Not saying you’re a particular culprit TopCat and actually you’re right to call it out. But you could have done so without throwing back another insult, and a sexualised gender specific one at that. That was a prick move.

But why is it incumbent on women to always always always suck it up and take the higher ground, be nice, sugar and spice.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> Please feel free to give evidence to back this up or, alternatively, please feel free to fuck off.


Feel free to do what you want. Don't expect me to do what you say.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Um... just to say, women have been putting up with this exact bullshit for so long. Not saying you’re a particular culprit TopCat and actually you’re right to call it out. But you could have done so without throwing back another insult, and a sexualised gender specific one at that. That was a prick move.
> 
> But why is it incumbent on women to always always always suck it up and take the higher ground, be nice, sugar and spice.


It's the hypocrisy that sometimes grates.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and hence are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman. Bit harder to dish out the insults without their hypocrisy being clear for all to see. 
But the thread starter made it clear this was a thread for women without penises. Hence the utterly predictable misandrist outbursts.


----------



## Thora (May 4, 2019)

Poor old men.


----------



## Poot (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and hence are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman. Bit harder to dish out the insults without their hypocrisy being clear for all to see.
> But the thread starter made it clear this was a thread for women without penises. Hence the utterly predictable misandrist outbursts.


You've said things like this at least twice without providing any evidence. If I were a sceptical type I might assume that you were here to disrupt the thread. So I will ask again that you provide evidence of these 'misandrist outbursts' please so that we can discuss it.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and hence are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman.


'And hence' is generally taken to mean 'therefore' or 'as a consequence of' which makes your sentence read:

'I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and therefore are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman.'

Did you really mean to imply transwoman are blokes..?


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> You've said things like this at least twice without providing any evidence. If I were a sceptical type I might assume that you were here to disrupt the thread. So I will ask again that you provide evidence of these 'misandrist outbursts' please so that we can discuss it.


Well asking is better that demanding. I have just done 12 hours shift so will do you a multi quote in the morning.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Sue said:


> 'And hence' is generally taken to mean 'therefore' or 'as a consequence of' which makes your sentence read:
> 
> 'I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and therefore are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman.'
> 
> Did you really mean to imply transwoman are blokes..?


No I don't. I see them as transwoman. Certain women on this thread see them as blokes.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

I could have worded it better Sue .


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I could have worded it better Sue .


Yes. Kind of ironic though eh, given you're pulling up people on this thread for their use of terminology. 

Anyway, back to the thread.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Sue said:


> Yes. Kind of ironic though eh, given you're pulling up people on this thread for their use of terminology.
> 
> Anyway, back to the thread.


Well mine was a genuine mistake and the terminology usage I waded in against was considered and deliberate and is part of a clearly discernible set of attitudes as shown by their posts. But anyway.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and hence are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman. Bit harder to dish out the insults without their hypocrisy being clear for all to see.
> But the thread starter made it clear this was a thread for women without penises. Hence the utterly predictable misandrist outbursts.




It’s not misandry. Really it isn’t. 

Take a step back. Really, please take a step back.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Well mine was a genuine mistake and the terminology usage I waded in against was considered and deliberate and is part of a clearly discernible set of attitudes as shown by their posts. But anyway.




A clearly discernible set of attitudes? 


You clearly discern a set of attitudes on this thread? 

Like maybe women finding themselves in general agreement with each other becomes some kind of anti-men agenda?

Blimey mate, if you really are seeing a commonality amongst women as a clearly determined misanthropic attitude then I really do think you need to have a bit of a think about how you feel about women.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Feel free to do what you want. Don't expect me to do what you say.




Because men have no need to justify their perceptions while women must?


Ffs so sick of this shit.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I could have worded it better Sue .



What would you have said had you worded it better?


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> It’s not misandry. Really it isn’t.
> 
> Take a step back. Really, please take a step back.


Sorry how would you react if I told you in such terms that something written was not sexist?


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Because men have no need to justify their perceptions while women must?
> 
> 
> Ffs so sick of this shit.


Where have I asked women to justify their perceptions?


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> What would you have said had you worded it better?


It wasn't that off. The points stand.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> A clearly discernible set of attitudes?
> 
> 
> You clearly discern a set of attitudes on this thread?
> ...


I think much on the thread is interesting. Edie put up a lot of though provoking stuff. The OP making it clear from the start though that this thread was for issues pertaining to women without penises rather set the tone. 

It's noticeable that many trans accepting women posters on Urban ain't on this thread. In fact many have left because of similar bigotry.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Sorry how would you react if I told you in such terms that something written was not sexist?




I’d say something like “mate, that’s pretty sexist, maybe you want to go back and rethink that”

Rather than throwing another gender specific insult into the mix.

Were you really truly so deeply insulted that the best you could muster was an angry to the point of incoherence throwback insult?

If you noticed the irony of inconsistency, just say so. Why turn it into some kind of contest,

I made a joke, friendofdorothy responded with another joke, you took offence. This is the shit women put up with every. single.day without comment, with gritted teeth, with rolling eyes and deep annoyance bordering on fury.

And somehow, lo and behold, here we are on a thread about feminism having to deal with the hurt feelings of a man who feels that a sexist joke is a personal insult.

If you’ve got a point to make about goose and gander , tit for tat, either orther, please go ahead and make the point, because actually, this shit is all part of the larger debate. But ffs spare me your hurt feelings.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Where have I asked women to justify their perceptions?




It’s implied by your apparent assumptions.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I’d say something like “mate, that’s pretty sexist, maybe you want to go back and rethink that”
> 
> Rather than throwing another gender specific insult into the mix.
> 
> ...


I took nothing a a personal insult. It was a misandrist attack on men not me. I called FOD a cunt to highlight the point and to discuss it. I wasn't the first poster to bring it up but they were ignored.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> It’s implied by your apparent assumptions.


That's really paper thin.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I took nothing a a personal insult. It was a misandrist attack on men not me. I called FOD a cunt to highlight the point and to discuss it. I wasn't the first poster to bring it up but they were ignored.




What if called you a cunt then. How does that proceed debate.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2019)

Ironic that TopCat has just referred to a customer as a cunt on his other thread. 

Anyway, having spent a very long week at work dealing with lots of this shit -- and fucking hell, it's tiring, wondering which bits and how and how often to pick people up on this stuff when you're in a new job -- I'm out for the moment. But ffs.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> What if called you a cunt then. How does that proceed debate.


Well find something I have actually written (rather than "implied by my apparent assumtions" and away you go.


----------



## Winot (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Well find something I have actually written (rather than "implied by my apparent assumtions" and away you go.



None of this has anything to do with the thread topic, does it?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Well find something I have actually written (rather than "implied by my apparent assumtions" and away you go.




You’ve made no argument, though. Everything has been implied, from “cunt” thorough all the posts following that.

“Misandrists” “transphobic” and so on.

How does any of this implied woundedness have reference to feminism?


----------



## Poot (May 4, 2019)

Yeah. This was an interesting thread when it was about feminism. Now that it's all about TopCat it's quite boring to be honest. I think I'll go, too.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> Yeah. This was an interesting thread when it was about feminism. Now that it's all about TopCat it's quite boring to be honest. I think I'll go, too.




And so it goes.

The discussion shut down, women drifting away, opting out because a man has thrown his woundedness into the mix.

Ffs.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> And so it goes.
> 
> The discussion shut down, women drifting away, opting out because a man has thrown his woundedness into the mix.
> 
> Ffs.


Quoted for posterity.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Quoted for posterity.




Right on!


----------



## scifisam (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I think certain feminists have become quite comfortable in slagging blokes and hence are distrustful at best and utter arses at worst towards transwoman. Bit harder to dish out the insults without their hypocrisy being clear for all to see.
> But the thread starter made it clear this was a thread for women without penises. Hence the utterly predictable misandrist outbursts.



That second paragraph just isn't true. She didn't want to focus too much on the trans debates, that's all. I think transwomen have more to talk about than just being trans, don't you?


----------



## scifisam (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Quoted for posterity.



Why?


----------



## campanula (May 4, 2019)

Pfffft is a reasonable response to disruptive, pointlessly combative shite or even whatevs.



SheilaNaGig said:


> And yet the power structures are controlled by the men/Default Man/ the patriarchy.


But yep,   it is ever present, always there, ubiquitous, normalised...on every sneaky level.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

scifisam said:


> That second paragraph just isn't true. She didn't want to focus too much on the trans debates, that's all. I think transwomen have more to talk about than just being trans, don't you?


Her words identified quite clearly her attitudes towards transwoman and thus set the tone of the debate.


----------



## Edie (May 4, 2019)

Meanwhile... I’m still reading that massive fucking link butchers put up. It’s so big my phones categorised it as a book! You can all thank me later  

(Personally I’d ignore this bullshit. It’s just noise).


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Her words identified quite clearly her attitudes towards transwoman and thus set the tone of the debate.


Shut up for a while, you embarrassing prick.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

Santino said:


> Shut up for a while, you embarrassing prick.


Fuck off.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

Edie said:


> Meanwhile... I’m still reading that massive fucking link butchers put up. It’s so big my phones categorised it as a book! You can all thank me later
> 
> (Personally I’d ignore this bullshit. It’s just noise).



Yes, it’s this kind of disruptive white noise that distracts from the more important debate. But also it’s this kind of minutiae that we’re  up against in the daily grind. So it is worth challenging. Not every time, but sometime you find a person (man and/or woman) who goes “oh, yeah... I think I see now”.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Fuck off.



Seriously? 

Ffs


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Ffs


Yes seriously.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Yes seriously.




Mate...!


----------



## colacubes (May 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Yes seriously.


Mate. Step away. You’re embarrassing yourself.


----------



## baldrick (May 4, 2019)

This is how every thread about feminism ends, with a man kicking off because we're not talking about men with sufficient reverence.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 4, 2019)

And maybe that’s why we can’t get any further with this problem: because it’s not just threads on here, is it, it’s the way it goes everywhere.


----------



## weltweit (May 4, 2019)

baldrick said:


> This is how every thread about feminism ends, with a man kicking off because we're not talking about men with sufficient reverence.


Just stick to your guns and don't engage, most people get bored if they are not responded to.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

baldrick said:


> This is how every thread about feminism ends, with a man kicking off because we're not talking about men with sufficient reverence.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

I don't mind being called a cunt. I like cunts - cunts are lovely, warm, welcoming and creative. No insult taken.

I had no idea men on here were so delicate. I thought genitalia based insults /language have proved to the norm on all urban threads. If you're not called a cunt here at sometime, it is unusual. 



mango5 said:


> Surely all these het-up or po-faced fellas can tell all the beard/penis stuff is just harmless banter


 no sense of humour... I'd be rich if I had a pound for everytime that was said about feminists.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I don't mind being called a cunt. I like cunts - cunts are lovely, warm, welcoming and creative. No insult taken.
> 
> I had no idea men on here were so delicate. I thought genitalia based insults /language have proved to the norm on all urban threads. If you're not called a cunt here at sometime, it is unusual.
> 
> no sense of humour... I'd be rich if I had a pound for everytime that was said about feminists.



Yeah, TBH I don't have anything against genital-based insults - man, that sounds so formal  Cunt may the "strongest" word but dickhead, prick etc are used really frequently, and they're all used for men and women IME. Don't know why Topcat seems to have assumed that everyone on here dislikes those swearwords. I mean, like you say, this is _urban_, it's fucking weird not to swear here.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

I met some inspiring young women tonight who neatly link the 'othering' of migrants / queer oppression/ womens oppression/ capitalism/ XR / saving the environment as all fighting the system that oppresses us all. I'm going to try and hang out with them more - they were full of hope that the system could and will change (no I don't know how yet)


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I mean, like you say, this is _urban_, it's fucking weird not to swear here.


Fuck yes! it was late I'd had a few drinks I was feeling in a whimsical mood, but eh fuck it I still think some of those beard fashions look very silly.

I had no idea in expressing such a notion would be taken as dissing the whole male gender. Please remember that not all people with beards have penises.

Prick is a very mild insult imo. I say sod and bugger a lot and mean no insult to people with or without penises who like those sexual practices. I don't use cunt as an insult - because I love cunts. Of course it is the queer tradition to take insults and use them as a badge of honour. Queer, faggot, yes I am a fucking ugly old dyke!  and proud of it.  I've been a lesbian too long to worry about upseting cis het men - they have never worried about upsetting me. Do I want them Cis het men as my allies - (some of my best friends are, etc) but it depends on whether they whine all the time...

Is swearing a feminist issue?  Making women responsible for taking care of everyone's feelings and emotional wellfare certainly is.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Fuck yes! it was late I'd had a few drinks I was feeling in a whimsical mood, but eh fuck it I still think some of those beard fashions look very silly.
> 
> I had no idea in expressing such a notion would be taken as dissing the whole male gender. Please remember that not all people with beards have penises.
> 
> ...



+1

Swear words aren't chosen logically, on the basis of disliking or disparaging the item that is the other meaning of the word (bastard might be an exception). I mean, fucking is one of my favourite swear words and also one of my favourite activities  Doesn't stop me using fuck in a negative way.


----------



## mango5 (May 5, 2019)

I almost never swear on here. I had to gird myself to join the 'fuck off Gromit' crowd upthread when no other phrase seemed right. I haven't joined in the penis/beard lolz either cos it doesn't amuse me  although I do find the responses a useful example of social double standards.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

It’s just a poster going off on one. We all call each other far worse all the time on here and TC is a long-tenured poster.

On another thread a while back I called a long-standing male poster a cunt (in one of those knockabout threads wear it happens) and got a right pearl-clutching response about my misogynistic ways.

I think it might actually have been friendofdorothy that talked him down.

tl;dr version:  it’s fine, it’s just TC having a a wobble and we all have them sometimes


----------



## mango5 (May 5, 2019)

Did you miss the bit about female posters being accused of misandry on a thread about feminism? Are we not supposed to react to that?  To connect individual examples to the big picture?

I am sick and tired of the kind of "leave it, he's not worth it" advice which allows such nastiness to be normalised.  This set of exchanges offers a good answer to the thread title; if/where they exist, the feminist discussions have been encouraged to fade away.  I am not at all sorry to contribute to the discomfort by taking my turn at not letting things lie.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Fuck yes! it was late I'd had a few drinks I was feeling in a whimsical mood, but eh fuck it I still think some of those beard fashions look very silly.



It’s hard to tell where the edge of whimsy is with these threads.  I ran with it, then second-guessed myself.

Where was the pic from, btw?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> It’s hard to tell where the edge of whimsy is with these threads.  I ran with it, then second-guessed myself.
> 
> Where was the pic from, btw?



Which pic? The beards? I just googled for “goatee beard”.

Doing it again, I find that it comes from here.

https://beardoholic.com/goatee-styles/

Actually looks like a pretty good guide for anyone wanting to grow a goatee.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Which pic? The beards? I just googled for “goatee beard”.
> 
> Doing it again, I find that it comes from here.
> 
> ...



My apols - I mixed up your initial pic with friendofdorothy ’s response.

“Rap Industry Standard” made me lol. If I went to barbers I’d be tempted to ask for one to see if they knew what the hell I was talking about.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> My apols - I mixed up your initial pic with friendofdorothy ’s response.
> 
> “Rap Industry Standard” made me lol. If I went to barbers I’d be tempted to ask for one to see if they knew what the hell I was talking about.




According to google image it is actually a thing! Although, my previous search probably locked in some kind of algorithm.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Mate. Step away. You’re embarrassing yourself.


I've banned him off this thread for a week.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Did you miss the bit about female posters being accused of misandry on a thread about feminism? Are we not supposed to react to that?  To connect individual examples to the big picture?
> 
> I am sick and tired of the kind of "leave it, he's not worth it" advice which allows such nastiness to be normalised.  This set of exchanges offers a good answer to the thread title; if/where they exist, the feminist discussions have been encouraged to fade away.  I am not at all sorry to contribute to the discomfort by taking my turn at not letting things lie.


 Yes agree.

Was it weepiper who wrote the list of typical male responses on threads like this (who ever it was can you repost it - it was spot on - please?) - because I think we've had every single whatabouty/ insult / derail that you listed. This why we don't have many feminist threads. Cis het men keep trying to close them down. What are they so scared of?  Macho nastiness is the fucking norm on the internet. I don't like it and I'm fed up of it.

Misandry because of a minor insult? don't make me laugh. As women we are never allowed a joke at the expense of men? I was brought up in the tradition of jokes about silly female drivers /ditzy girls / mother in laws, etc -  women were both oppressed, stereotyped *and laughed at*. Women were the joke. So am I not allowed the occasional drunken joke about a beard? Fuck that! I'll laugh at your little beard all I want. Does that oppress men - does that stop men getting a job, does that get them wrong treatment in hospital.  No it fucking doesn't. (if I'm wrong and it does - please go start your own fucking thread)

Femininism in my experience as someone said is anything that 'distinguishes a woman from a doormat' its not one unified doctrine, it has no leader, no offical spokesperson. It does not preclude the left, the poor or trans or anyone.  51% of the world population have been or are oppressed /discrimated against due to our biology and I would like to talk about that.  We are nowhere near being post feminist yet.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

I think someone should start a thread about taking the emotional load / care giving / smoothing  masculine egos etc


----------



## trashpony (May 5, 2019)

In answer to your original question JudithB, this is why we don’t have threads on feminism. Because a lot of men on urban have so little respect for women that they tell us we’re doing it wrong, get angry and tell us to shut up. 

I’d rather talk about feminism in places where men aren’t policing our speech tbh 

Love from your friendly neighbourhood misandrist


----------



## weepiper (May 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> In answer to your original question JudithB, this is why we don’t have threads on feminism. Because a lot of men on urban have so little respect for women that they tell us we’re doing it wrong, get angry and tell us to shut up.
> 
> I’d rather talk about feminism in places where men aren’t policing our speech tbh
> 
> Love from your friendly neighbourhood misandrist


Don't forget 'talk over our heads like we're not even here'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

So Topcat has been banned from this thread for a week but can still read it and is making sure you all know he is by liking posts? 

editor Lazy Llama is there a reason why posters banned from a thread can still read and 'contribute' by liking posts? Surely that in some way defeats the purpose of a thread ban? People can still intimidate and harrass.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> And so it goes.
> 
> The discussion shut down, women drifting away, opting out because a man has thrown his woundedness into the mix.
> 
> Ffs.



I’ve been thinking about this a bit.

It’s an example of one of the ways in which women are co-opted and coerced into supporting the old systems and channels.

 Conversation, everyone is getting along, there’s some low level flirting and joshing...

A woman says something a bit outre, perhaps some overly colourful language or an out and out piss take of one of the blokes (depending on the company, choose the point on the spectrum accordingly)

There a slight pause for the reaction, drawing in of breath, muttered “ooh!”s or slap down response banter. The men in particular will step in to indicate the parameters and boundaries that have been breached. 

But here’s the thing: some of the women will take their cue from the male response, will learn from this, it will add it to the sum of their knowledge and understanding about what is and is not acceptable for the men.

For some women, it will be about battle lines and frontiers, where to tackle the deeper issue, for others it will be about what they need to stay away from, be quiet about. But some of those women will actually stand with the men. They don’t want to be scolded, teased, have the piss taken out of them, or be considered The Enemy by men, so instead they agree with the men, support them, side with them for the sake of safety.

Even now, I encounter women even quite young women who seem to be very supportive of the patriarchy and men’s behaviour at the expense of their own. And they seem to feel as righteous as the men do about this stuff. They seem to feel that because they understand and support men, they’re somehow more than “just” a woman.

I encounter this kind of insidious female support for the patriarchy more frequently than I’d like to. It was pretty common when I was younger (I was guilty of it myself to some extent, which is why I recognise it) but I’d have hoped it was less common now than it is.

So a man crying “sexism” on a feminist thread looks to me a lot like a man falling into a default setting of trying to identify and locate and support the women who might support the patriarchy. I suspect that men don’t even realise they’re doing it. 


Qualifier not all men not all women etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

...It's like..._'I'm still reading...just you wait till my ban is up, I'll be back' _


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...It's like..._'I'm still reading...just you wait till my ban is up, I'll be back' _



So banning isn’t enough when somone says something you don’t agree with which no one else agreed with it either and thought it was silly?


----------



## Lazy Llama (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> editor Lazy Llama is there a reason why posters banned from a thread can still read and 'contribute' by liking posts? Surely that in some way defeats the purpose of a thread ban?


That’s the way the thread-ban works in the software. It just blocks posting. 
This is a public forum so they could read it without even being registered.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> So banning isn’t enough when somone says something you don’t agree with which no one else agreed with it either and thought it was silly?



Given you don't know the answer to the actual question I have asked I don't know why you bothered to post that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

Lazy Llama said:


> That’s the way the thread-ban works in the software. It just blocks posting.
> This is a public forum so they could read it without even being registered.




Ah I see. Makes sense now. Thanks for answering.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Given you don't know the answer to the actual question I have asked I don't know why you bothered to post that.



I don’t recall responding to a question.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> So banning isn’t enough when somone says something you don’t agree with which no one else agreed with it either and thought it was silly?



He did a more than say something people disagreed with and it wasn't just "silly." And yeah, it would be nice if thread banning actually meant thread banning, but if the software doesn't allow that then that's that.

People could read it without being registered but they couldn't like posts, so it is a bit different.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

I don’t care if he’s reading and liking. He’ll be back in a week anyway and be free to read like or comment to his heart’s content then.

He’s still part of Urban even if he’s disrupted the thread. And he has a right to share his opinion. There are also people reading the thread who never comment, some of them never ever post. It’s the way of a bulletin board.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> I don’t recall responding to a question.


Do you really have nothing better to do than this silly dance on this thread? 

You didn't answer the question I asked because you actually didn't know the answer.

I'll answer yours though. Yes I think that when someone is banned from a thread it would be better that they also couldn't read it until their ban is up. This isn't a comment especially about what TC has or hasn't posted on this thread. But this situation today and the fact he can still like posts woke me up to the fact that it can happen at all. I didn't know it could.

I think that would be a useful way of helping people step away from bunfights for their own good and also that those left on the thread don't have to put up with passive aggressive _sly-kes._

I do though understand Lazy Llama 's answer and can see why it doesn't work in public forums especially as people can read anyway without being a logged in member. At  least though they wouldn't be able to like posts though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> He’s still part of Urban even if he’s disrupted the thread. And he has a right to share his opinion.



Has anyone said anything to the contrary? 

ETA. If you don't like the fact he has been banned from the thread you could make that clear to the mods. Make a case for the decision to be overturned etc.

I don't like the way you have tagged this onto what I have posted about people being banned from threads and being able to read them as if the point I have made in anyway means TC isn't _'still part of Urban even if he’s disrupted the thread. And he has a right to share his opinion. ' _Nothing I have posted comes close to meaning that.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

Aggression and anger and how we are socialised to express it deal with it or communicate about it seems to be a a very gendered suject.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone said anything to the contrary?


----------



## Edie (May 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> In answer to your original question JudithB, this is why we don’t have threads on feminism. Because a lot of men on urban have so little respect for women that they tell us we’re doing it wrong, get angry and tell us to shut up.
> 
> I’d rather talk about feminism in places where men aren’t policing our speech tbh
> 
> Love from your friendly neighbourhood misandrist


Where do you do that outside of urban? I’d quite like to try that.



SheilaNaGig said:


> I’ve been thinking about this a bit.
> 
> It’s an example of one of the ways in which women are co-opted and coerced into supporting the old systems and channels.
> 
> ...


Im definitely like this sometimes. Not wanting to be looked at as man hating or be seen as The Enemy by men. Tbf I think I’ve spent a lot of years making excuses for men when excuses shouldn’t of been made. On the other hand, I do genuinely like men and I do often feel protective of them, I worry about boys doing worse in school (especially my boys ) and male suicide and knife crime and all those male issues. We’ve talked about this on another thread I know. 

I don’t want feminism to be seen as being opposed to men, but it needn’t. Feminism should hopefully be about re-structuring society in a way that’s beneficial to both women _and_ men.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone said anything to the contrary?
> 
> ETA. If you don't like the fact he has been banned from the thread you could make that clear to the mods. Make a case for the decision to be overturned etc.
> 
> I don't like the way you have tagged this onto what I have posted about people being banned from threads and being able to read them as if the point I have made in anyway means TC isn't _'still part of Urban even if he’s disrupted the thread. And he has a right to share his opinion. ' _Nothing I have posted comes close to meaning that.



Huh?


I have no issue with him being banned from the thread. Not sure how you got that from what I posted tbh.

And if you feel insulted or slighted by what I wrote, then I apologise for that. It wasn’t my intention. I agree you never said he wasn’t part of Urban. I had no intention of implying that you meant that. Not even sure how you interpreted that from my post.


ETA


I could put a much larger gap between the two paragraphs in my post if you like. 

The two ideas were not both related to your post, they were both related to my own thinking. One thought following the other. A bit like this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Huh?
> 
> 
> I have no issue with him being banned from the thread. Not sure how you got that from what I posted tbh.
> ...




Not insulted nor slighted Sheila, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being intrepreted as saying those things. My point was a general one really just using this situation as an example as I didn't know that it was possible before and obviously had never thought about it too deeply.

Gonna leave this now as it's a disruption.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2019)

Sheila, you saying he has a right to post his opinion could be read as saying that you disagree with him being banned, just so you know - I know that's not what you meant but that's where the misunderstanding lies


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2019)

This thread is in danger of failing the Bechdel test.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


>


Hush too.


----------



## spanglechick (May 5, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This thread is in danger of failing the Bechdel test.


So sorry sir.


----------



## campanula (May 5, 2019)

I am more comfortable discussing (and dissing) a vaguely non-specific entity known as 'the patriarchy, because it primarily equates with power...but feel less inclined to be confrontational to individual men (a mix of being cowardly but also socialised from birth to put other people's needs before my own). But, when I initially discovered feminist politics, it was this very personal sphere (the personal is the political) where, as well as being fucked over by The Man, we were also fucked over by the man...who abused us, beat us, raped and scared us (while the Yorkshire Ripper and Cambridge rapist were terrorising women, we marched to 'reclaim the night', created refuges. We ascribed the right, for ourselves, to some autonomy and personal space.
I guess I took my eye off the ball for a bit - although feminism was never homogenous, I struggled to recognise some of the priorities of a 21C sisterhood...and was, I admit, perfectly content with my relationships with men in my life (admittedly, not many cos I am shy and anti-social) - my boys, partner, son-in law (although ex) and children's father(s)...yet not for one second do I think we are in a post-feminist world.  I can say, with some certainty, that many of our achievements have happened when we have had a degree of female autonomy, without male input. It is a whole heap easier for me to express my thoughts, ideas, when I don't have to struggle with my embedded instincts to back away, not make a fuss or risk humiliation from some political theorist who is testing my political purity...terminology and ready to leap righteously aboard to...win the fucking argument.
In other words, to be perfectly honest, it would probably suit me if the men would kindly fuck off for a bit...although I don't expect this to happen, nor am I pointing fingers (overmuch)...but ya know, the idea of being supportive...


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 5, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Sheila, you saying he has a right to post his opinion could be read as saying that you disagree with him being banned, just so you know - I know that's not what you meant but that's where the misunderstanding lies




Noted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This thread is in danger of failing the Bechdel test.



Yeah, silly little things that we are, can't even do feminism right.


----------



## trashpony (May 5, 2019)

The more I get involved in feminism, the more depressed I get. The more I read stories about women and girls who have been trafficked and prostituted, raped as spoils of wars, watched their sisters die in childbirth and cut in childhood, murdered in utero for being female, have no access to clean and safe toilet facilities because they get raped and sexually assaulted, the more I realise we live in a world where women are hated. When I am hated. Me. Purely because I was born as a woman. 

And it's not enough for men to say that they don't do that stuff. Other men do. Other men kill two women a week in the UK. Other men shout at women in the street and grope them on the tube and assault them in bars. 

The only way we will change the status quo is if men stand up and say it's not okay. And tell other men that it's not okay. But as long as they're caught up in defending themselves from perceived attack - telling women that_ they're _not like that and hang on what about this and I think you've got this bit wrong, nothing will ever change. NOTHING. 

Women hold up half the sky. We really need men to start giving a shit when their side is attacking our side.


----------



## Edie (May 5, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This thread is in danger of failing the Bechdel test.


What does this mean?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> What does this mean?


It means he is really clever and hahaha we don't know we are born.
Bechdel test - Wikipedia


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the apex of the thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

Well if a man says so it must be true.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the apex of the thread.


What are you trying to achieve?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I’ve been thinking about this a bit.
> 
> It’s an example of one of the ways in which women are co-opted and coerced into supporting the old systems and channels.
> 
> ...


 You make some really good points. Having not lived with a man forever I feel I'm less familiar with some of the behavoiur you talk about. It always surprises me when women come out with sexist rubbish or tolerate terrible behaviour from men. But I understand what you are saying. 



SheilaNaGig said:


> So a man crying “sexism” on a feminist thread looks to me a lot like a man falling into a default setting of trying to identify and locate and support the women who might support the patriarchy. I suspect that men don’t even realise they’re doing it.


 I think you are being generous when you say men don't realise they are doing it. I'm sure there are loads of posters who do it on purpose. 



SheilaNaGig said:


> Qualifier not all men not all women etc.


 yes of course.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the apex of the thread.



The point at which almost all women and most of the men reading it think oh for fuck's sake please stop making a feminism thread about men?


----------



## Sue (May 5, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The point at which almost all women and most of the men reading it think oh for fuck's sake please stop making a feminism thread about men?


Nadir more like.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, silly little things that we are, can't even do feminism right.


Who was blaming you, either individually or as a group?  It just is what it is.  TC has a lot of the blame for it.


----------



## Edie (May 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It means he is really clever and hahaha we don't know we are born.
> Bechdel test - Wikipedia


Ah I see. Thing is quite honestly I know kabbes and I trust his motive, and it will be in support of the women talking here and in frustration that the discussion has been pushed towards being focused on men (esp individual men). I bet you.

I’m still interested in talking about how society could be structured better for women. Come the revolution or come whatever tbf. I’m wondering if a big shift might come when automation means that the prospect of even nearly full employment becomes ridiculous. Then, the decision will be ‘everyone works a three or four day week’ or there’s some kind of Universal Income. I’m wondering if that might give time & opportunity for caring for neighbours and children and the elderly in a way that could be recognised or recompensed better? 

(If this is a really stupid idea then go gently, at least I’m trying to suggest stuff!).


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

campanula said:


> I am more comfortable discussing (and dissing) a vaguely non-specific entity known as 'the patriarchy, because it primarily equates with power...but feel less inclined to be confrontational to individual men (a mix of being cowardly but also socialised from birth to put other people's needs before my own). But, when I initially discovered feminist politics, it was this very personal sphere (the personal is the political) where, as well as being fucked over by The Man, we were also fucked over by the man...who abused us, beat us, raped and scared us (while the Yorkshire Ripper and Cambridge rapist were terrorising women, we marched to 'reclaim the night', created refuges.


 Yes. I think many posters here are a bit to young to remember the everyday sexism of police and media that lead to a murderer not being caught for years and more women attacked and killed. Its worth repeating about all this stuff. I still hear men saying of course 'they' are not like that personally,  as if that means its its not true of other men, of the police, of the systems of justice etc. Why don't I hear more men saying 'what is the issue? 'what is womens experience of that' and  'how do we fight that too'



campanula said:


> I can say, with some certainty, that many of our achievements have happened when we have had a degree of female autonomy, without male input.


 Yes at the very first womens conference in the uk in 71 I heard the women had to leave to get away from men who were controlling the agenda and sit together outside in order to talk about stuff they wanted to voice.

Perhaps a serious discussion about feminism simply isn't possible on an open forum? 



campanula said:


> In other words, to be perfectly honest, it would probably suit me if the men would kindly fuck off for a bit...although I don't expect this to happen, nor am I pointing fingers (overmuch)...but ya know, the idea of being supportive...


 Perhaps the men of urban can simple never shut up or stop interupting long enough. Bet one of them will pop up soon to say they can  

*disclaimer* not all men not all women etc (thanks SheilaNaGig!)


----------



## baldrick (May 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> The more I get involved in feminism, the more depressed I get. The more I read stories about women and girls who have been trafficked and prostituted, raped as spoils of wars, watched their sisters die in childbirth and cut in childhood, murdered in utero for being female, have no access to clean and safe toilet facilities because they get raped and sexually assaulted, the more I realise we live in a world where women are hated. When I am hated. Me. Purely because I was born as a woman.
> 
> And it's not enough for men to say that they don't do that stuff. Other men do. Other men kill two women a week in the UK. Other men shout at women in the street and grope them on the tube and assault them in bars.
> 
> ...


This. So much this. The older I get, the more I think Greer was right when she said women have very little idea how much men hate them.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> I’m still interested in talking about how society could be structured better for women. Come the revolution or come whatever tbf. I’m wondering if a big shift might come when automation means that the prospect of even nearly full employment becomes ridiculous. Then, the decision will be ‘everyone works a three or four day week’ or there’s some kind of Universal Income. I’m wondering if that might give time & opportunity for caring for neighbours and children and the elderly in a way that could be recognised or recompensed better?.


 yeh! why not! Its a lovely idea.

There used to be talk about how increasing wealth and mechanisation allowing everybody to work part time, back in the 70s. Before Thatcherism routed the wealth to the top of society and pissed our North sea oil wealth up the wall and destroyed the power of unions to demand any conditions.

I can't imagine such a change happening but hey I couldn't imagine the fall of the Belin Wall or the public social acceptibility of homosexuality happening in my lifetime either, but they did. Things can change - how can we make any change happen the way it can suit the most people?

Families, the concept of marriage, ideas of parenting have all utterly changed in my life time too.

Who was it who said something about 'being the change'?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

baldrick said:


> This. So much this. The older I get, the more I think Greer was right when she said women have very little idea how much men hate them.


Not right about everything  -but right about that. Reading the _Female Eunuch_ transformed my teenage self's ideas. 

I questioned why women were being told to stay indoors at night before the Yorkshire Ripper was caught rather than men. It seemed publically acceptible that male sexuality was essentially based on abusing women and girls eg Gary Glitter, Saville, Hugh Hefner.

*disclaimer* not all men not all women etc


----------



## Edie (May 5, 2019)

baldrick said:


> This. So much this. The older I get, the more I think Greer was right when she said women have very little idea how much men hate them.


But _why_?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> But _why_?


Very good question - why do they hate us? this is at the essence of feminism. Indiviuals may love each - but the systems still reinforce that 'hatred'

I used to think it was about control of female behaviour.

On a more one -one level has anyone had a man chat them up/court them -  only to turn utterly hateful, even violent if turned down or rejected? is this the essence of that hate? seems to be about possession to me.  I've ideas but no answers - anyone else?

*Disclaimer* not all men not all women etc


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Sue said:


> Nadir more like.



Thanks for pointing things out for the... less perceptive in the class.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> Thanks for pointing things out for the... less perceptive in the class.


Give it a fucking rest you tedious bore.


----------



## baldrick (May 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> But _why_?


I don't know. That's a great question.

I assume it's necessary in some way, in order for men to hold onto their sense of superiority and feel justified in it. For patriarchy to work, women have to be 'other'. We can't be seen as fully human or the whole edifice comes down. There's no reason why you should treat fellow humans in such an unequal way is there, not really. So for men to feel ok about taking a place in society that isn't really theirs, they need a bullshit reason to justify it.

Maybe.


----------



## Sue (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> Thanks for pointing things out for the... less perceptive in the class.



Always a pleasure to help you out, 8ball.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

Sue said:


> Always a pleasure to help you out, 8ball.



I do tend to forget how some struggle with sarcasm.

I’m sure kabbes is feeling suitably chided for his egregious misogyny.

Appalling stuff.  Bechdel indeed!


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

I've thought about this question a lot over the years and whilst it most definitely is about control, power, narcissism and the joy/privilege of that for some I always do wonder just how much it has to do with actually hating and resenting what it is to be a 'man' and their own condition too for others?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> But _why_?


fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

If it's true for some it can't be _total_ bollocks or balls IMO....and what about what can be the more unconcious, indoctrinated and reinforced nature of bigotry...the fact that people can believe they aren't prejudiced but actually are if they explore their associations and biases?


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all.



Yeah, well you’re wrong.


----------



## Sue (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> I do tend to forget how some struggle with sarcasm.


Maybe with a bit more work you'll master it yet.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.


I think social media is good evidence that Greer is onto something.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, well you’re wrong.


No one will think the less of you for stopping posting. You can simply stop without needing to win a point.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.


May be, but how do we still explain the levels of hassassment, rape, domestic abuse, coercive control, leading to the fact that 2 women on average are murdered a week in this country? There is a level of hate here that was easy to see reflected in the media, policing and law.

And what about the common experience:


friendofdorothy said:


> has anyone had a man chat them up/court them -  only to turn utterly hateful, even violent if turned down or rejected? ...



*Disclaimer* not all men not all women etc


----------



## Edie (May 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.


I kind of agree. It doesn’t feel like hate, but it feels like men think they are owed something by women. Something they’re entitled to. And for some men if they don’t get that thing (what? respect or deference or sex or _something_) then they get nasty. Now that’s an exceedingly common experience for women. Ubiquitous I’d say. 

Sometimes it’s as simple as a man will talk over you and you stop speaking and they carry on (my ex does this utterly routinely I’ve noticed), to the unspoken threat that a man can always get nasty if you turn him down once too often, to men who just take what they want with violence. It’s not hate unless they are denied but it’s hate very quickly if they are. I’ve seen that. And he can be being jovial right up til that point, or again afterwards. My ex once caught a cab up from town from drinking to slap me round the back of my head cos I wasn’t answering my phone (I’d _genuinely_ not heard it it was on silent) and then he got the same cab back (he’d asked it to wait!!!). That’s entitlement. He felt _entitled_ to be answered.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 5, 2019)

ffs Edie How horrible 

What do you think was behind him becoming that 'entitled' and understand his entitlement to mean in that situation and behaviour? Because from where I am sitting that certainly wasn't love or respect...


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2019)

Sue said:


> Maybe with a bit more work you'll master it yet.



Yes, judging the degree of cognitive function in your audience seems to be the trick.


----------



## baldrick (May 6, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.


Then how do you explain male violence towards women?

If it's not hate fuelling fgm, rape, murder, DV, etc etc then what is it?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I think what Greer said is bollocks. I've thought about it pretty hard before and it doesn't ring true at all. Men and women both need each other in a basic reproductive sense, and when you need someone you can resent them sometimes - that works both ways of course. Beyond that, I really don't think Greer's assertion is right at all. Some men hate women, sure, but as a general and generalisable statement, something containing an essential truth, I think it's total balls. On this and a few other things, I don't think Greer has much of a clue.




I used to think it was bollocks. I now understand that it’s true.

I’m reluctant to say this, but I’m going to : I can appreciate that objectively it seems like it can’t possibly be true, but once you have experienced it subjectively, there is not doubt, none at all, that men really do hate women. And it shocks me over and over again: every time I’m reminded of it or made to face it again, it shocks me again.


ETA Shocked in the sense that it’s a shocking thing to experience, not because I’m surprised in any way.


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2019)

baldrick said:


> Then how do you explain male violence towards women?



On average men are a little more violent, so at the extreme end of the curve (and the extreme end of the violence), men are hugely more represented.  Just like how men suffer a lot more violence from men than from women. 

The overall majority of men aren't being violent towards anyone, but if you take the proportion of humans generally who commit violent acts, most of them (almost all) are men.

I don't personally think Greer was entirely wrong, tbf, there's a huge amount of culturally-embedded misogyny, but male violence towards women can to a large extent just be explained by... male violence.

Imo, disclaimers etc.


----------



## 8115 (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes, judging the degree of cognitive function in your audience seems to be the trick.


There's a discussion about men hating women and someone has just spoken about something quite deep and you feel the need to come back with this? Seriously?


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2019)

8115 said:


> There's a discussion about men hating women and someone has just spoken about something quite deep and you feel the need to come back with this? Seriously?



Sometimes multiple conversations go on at once.  You'll get the hang of it.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> May be, but how do we still explain the levels of hassassment, rape, domestic abuse, coercive control, leading to the fact that 2 women on average are murdered a week in this country? There is a level of hate here that was easy to see reflected in the media, policing and law.
> 
> And what about the common experience:
> 
> ...




And I really do feel it as a noticeably different thing when I meet a man who genuinely and sincerely and deeply does admire and  respect women. I guess my default setting is a kind if instinctive wariness, which is then confounded when the... spite...? isn’t there.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> On average men are a little more violent, so at the extreme end of the curve (and the extreme end of the violence), men are hugely more represented.  Just like how men suffer a lot more violence from men than from women.
> 
> The overall majority of men aren't being violent towards anyone, but if you take the proportion of humans generally who commit violent acts, most of them (almost all) are men.
> 
> ...




But even if you've never experienced male violence, the underlying nastiness is there


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 6, 2019)

We've been talking about the nature, nurture and causes of the need for 'control/being controlling' here at home tonight because of this conversation...

I think anxiety is a large part of it...anxiety and a lack of self esteem...a need to feel in control, focused, transformed and projected...


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> But even if you've never experienced male violence, the underlying nastiness is there



I was just dealing with baldrick ‘s question.  In terms of a kind of default underlying nastiness, what kind of proportion of men would you say that was coming from?


----------



## Athos (May 6, 2019)

I don't think I'm personally well acquainted with any men who hate women. But I am with a hell of a lot who are utterly contemptuous of them ‐ seeing women as lesser beings, good only for fucking and waiting on them.  And it's a vicious cycle, the more they are contemptuous, the easier to justify dominating, and the more they dominate, the easier it is to hold women in contempt.


----------



## kabbes (May 6, 2019)

I don’t know about hate.  Contempt is closer.  But most of all it seems to me that the complete commodification of people that exists these days is simply manifested as men seeing women as objects to be used rather than fully realised human beings.  Mind you, I doubt the objectification itself is new, even if its social origins may have changed.

The hate visible on social media is less surprising when you see social media as being such a battleground of this personal commoditisation — individuals selling themselves and their features, not connecting to the multiple layers of the other.  It’s all I-It, not I-Thou.  In a medium where others are objects to be consumed, it’s not surprising that some people will react to an object they don’t like with disgust and anger.


----------



## Poot (May 6, 2019)

Maybe the contempt is because in practically all of those cases, a woman actually holds a little bit of power over those men? If they really didn't care about us, they would ignore us. The fact is that the most hate-driven acts are reserved for partners or people who rebuff advances or women who hold actual positions of power - famously female politicians suffer most. Any rebuffed sexual advance, any dawning realisation that you care deeply for someone, that means you are in some sort of weaker position. That person has power.

I don't believe Germaine Greer. I know some lovely men who I really don't think hate me. But I hold no position of power except in the lives of a tiny handful of people and that frustrates them, but moreso the men I think. I think other women probably see more contempt because they hold more power, though. It backs up what others are saying about control, for sure.

But then what? We have a choice of having no power or being hated? I mean, obviously it's more nuanced than that but still...


----------



## Manter (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Very good question - why do they hate us? this is at the essence of feminism. Indiviuals may love each - but the systems still reinforce that 'hatred'
> 
> I used to think it was about control of female behaviour.
> 
> ...


Yes. Regularly. Still. In person and online. And I am fat, middle aged and plain. Which goes on the emphasise yet again that it’s power not sex that’s at stake.

And as has been pointed out before, the easiest way to diffuse is to say you have a husband waiting for you. Some one else’s possession seems easier for men to handle than free to say no.


----------



## Manter (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> I was just dealing with baldrick ‘s question.  In terms of a kind of default underlying nastiness, what kind of proportion of men would you say that was coming from?


This is impossible to answer. In a group of ten men, if only one hates you that can still get you seriously hurt, physically or emotionally. If 5, 7, 9 hate you but only one does anything about it, the result is the same. If one hates you and 9 silently disapprove of him, as a woman, the outcome is the same. 

What women need to feel safe and cared for in society is for all the other men to speak out. To shout down the pervs and leerers on the street, to blacklist that mate who gets pissed and tries it on with women in bars- refuse to socialise with them, don’t invite them to stuff, to laugh at not with men who make sexist jokes or personal remarks. Make the low level shit women have to deal with have a serious social cost.


----------



## Winot (May 6, 2019)

I don’t *think* many of my male friends hate women but it’s undeniable (from their actions) that many men do. And because I have chosen to have nothing to do with men who obviously hate women, I have no insight into why they do. 

But when I look at times when I have behaved in a way that isn’t wholly respectful towards women, I can get some insight - that it’s something to do with feeling threatened, that something you have could be taken away. 

So yes, I think it’s to do with power. Fragile ego and self doubt plus patriarchal power structure = misogyny.


----------



## Poot (May 6, 2019)

All of the above is true but also I would like to draw attention to the fact that men don't seem to realise how scary they can be without even trying sometimes. You don't even need to threaten us, the threat is already there. I'm thinking in particular of occasions when I've been running alone and been accosted. Just don't do it. Don't say anything. Leave me alone. Why does the sight of a woman running raise male dander so much? As soon as it happens, the spell is broken, there is no longer a sense of freedom and they've won. It's shit.


----------



## Athos (May 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> Maybe the contempt is because in practically all of those cases, a woman actually holds a little bit of power over those men? If they really didn't care about us, they would ignore us. The fact is that the most hate-driven acts are reserved for partners or people who rebuff advances or women who hold actual positions of power - famously female politicians suffer most. Any rebuffed sexual advance, any dawning realisation that you care deeply for someone, that means you are in some sort of weaker position. That person has power.
> 
> I don't believe Germaine Greer. I know some lovely men who I really don't think hate me. But I hold no position of power except in the lives of a tiny handful of people and that frustrates them, but moreso the men I think. I think other women probably see more contempt because they hold more power, though. It backs up what others are saying about control, for sure.
> 
> But then what? We have a choice of having no power or being hated? I mean, obviously it's more nuanced than that but still...



Perhaps that's the tipping point?  Those men hold all women in contempt, such that they feel hurt, threatened, and/or enraged by any with power over them (be it power to rebuff sexual advances, power as a boss, greater intelligence, etc.).  And that's when it bubbles over into naked hatred.


----------



## Athos (May 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> This is impossible to answer. In a group of ten men, if only one hates you that can still get you seriously hurt, physically or emotionally. If 5, 7, 9 hate you but only one does anything about it, the result is the same. If one hates you and 9 silently disapprove of him, as a woman, the outcome is the same.
> 
> What women need to feel safe and cared for in society is for all the other men to speak out. To shout down the pervs and leerers on the street, to blacklist that mate who gets pissed and tries it on with women in bars- refuse to socialise with them, don’t invite them to stuff, to laugh at not with men who make sexist jokes or personal remarks. Make the low level shit women have to deal with have a serious social cost.



Absolutely this. In the past, whilst I've been quite happy to whack blokes I've seen e.g. groping women, I've been complicit by turning a blind eye to the lower-level stuff by mates - sexist comments etc.  Increasingly, I'm trying not to.


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2019)

Thanks all for the responses to that one.


----------



## Red Cat (May 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Perhaps that's the tipping point?  Those men hold all women in contempt, such that they feel hurt, threatened, and/or enraged by any with power over them (be it power to rebuff sexual advances, power as a boss, greater intelligence, etc.).  And that's when it bubbles over into naked hatred.



It's quite fragile this kind of masculinity, it's a defence, but a collective defence, socially sanctioned, encouraged since birth, and the social context is one in which the fragile, the weak, the vulnerable, the dependent, is projected into femininity, to be kept far away, except when it can be controlled and used. Any cracks and they're so frightened, so humiliated, it tips it over into hate and sometimes violence in order to shore it up again.


----------



## Thora (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> Sometimes multiple conversations go on at once.  You'll get the hang of it.


Why do you keep posting on feminism threads just to shit all over them?  You're coming across as a total dick recently.


----------



## Manter (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> It's quite fragile this kind of masculinity, it's a defence, but a collective defence, socially sanctioned, encouraged since birth, and the social context is one in which the fragile, the weak, the vulnerable, the dependent, is projected into femininity, to be kept far away, except when it can be controlled and used. Any cracks and they're so frightened, so humiliated, it tips it over into hate and sometimes violence in order to shore it up again.


It strikes me- in a number of contexts- that its ‘easy’ to be nasty- violent, spiteful, angry. That slipping down to the nastiest stuff within us is easy and yet on some level we all know that the right way is the harder route of being kind and thoughtful. So there is shame tangled up in there too. So shame, and fear, and power (over someone usually physically smaller as well as social constructs of masculinity) and so on make a toxic brew.


----------



## Sue (May 6, 2019)

I was talking to one of my best friends about this recently. He's a gay man and was basically saying that all his friends are either gay men or women as he find the way many straight men act to be quite toxic. (The straight men he does socialise with tend to be the partners of his female friends.) Not sure that this adds much to the mix but thought it was interesting to hear this stuff from a slightly different viewpoint.


----------



## Athos (May 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> It strikes me- in a number of contexts- that its ‘easy’ to be nasty- violent, spiteful, angry. That slipping down to the nastiest stuff within us is easy and yet on some level we all know that the right way is the harder route of being kind and thoughtful. So there is shame tangled up in there too. So shame, and fear, and power (over someone usually physically smaller as well as social constructs of masculinity) and so on make a toxic brew.



I'm not even  sure society does teach boys that being kind and thoughtful is the right way!   I don't think there is that shame, and, if anything, that makes the brew even more toxic.


----------



## Winot (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> Sometimes multiple conversations go on at once.  You'll get the hang of it.



I’ve asked the mods to thread ban you and I suggest others do the same.


----------



## Red Cat (May 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm not even  sure society does teach boys that being kind and thoughtful is the right way!   I don't think there is that shame, and, if anything, that makes the brew even more toxic.



I think shame is absolutely part of the picture, not shame over having done something morally wrong, but shame over weakness, losing control. I think shame and humiliation are very tightly bound.


----------



## Athos (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think shame is absolutely part of the picture, not shame over having done something morally wrong, but shame over weakness, losing control. I think shame and humiliation are very tightly bound.



Yes, I think the shame/humiliation of being subordinate to a woman, is much stronger in many men than any shame they feel about mistreating women.

Eta: I've known blokes who've cheated on their wives just to prove to their mates they're not 'under the thumb.'


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think shame is absolutely part of the picture, not shame over having done something morally wrong, but shame over weakness, losing control. I think shame and humiliation are very tightly bound.



Yes. I think this is also where the anxiety and self esteem comes into it. How men deal with that or not is pivotal IME.


----------



## trashpony (May 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, I think the shame/humiliation of being subordinate to a woman, is much stronger in many men than any shame they feel about mistreating women.
> 
> Eta: I've known blokes who've cheated on their wives just to prove to their mates they're not 'under the thumb.'


I think we've seen some evidence of that on this thread.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't think I'm personally well acquainted with any men who hate women. But I am with a hell of a lot who are utterly contemptuous of them ‐ seeing women as lesser beings, good only for fucking and waiting on them.  And it's a vicious cycle, the more they are contemptuous, the easier to justify dominating, and the more they dominate, the easier it is to hold women in contempt.





kabbes said:


> I don’t know about hate.  Contempt is closer.  But most of all it seems to me that the complete commodification of people that exists these days is simply manifested as men seeing women as objects to be used rather than fully realised human beings.  Mind you, I doubt the objectification itself is new, even if its social origins may have changed.
> 
> The hate visible on social media is less surprising when you see social media as being such a battleground of this personal commoditisation — individuals selling themselves and their features, not connecting to the multiple layers of the other.  It’s all I-It, not I-Thou.  In a medium where others are objects to be consumed, it’s not surprising that some people will react to an object they don’t like with disgust and anger.




Thank you to the men who are making these honest posts.


You both say “it’s not hate, it’s contempt” and I know the difference and I can understand why it’s important to differentiate them, especially during a discussion like this. 

But when I’m standing there and I’m receiving existential contempt or hate or sneering rejection from a fellow human being, and that human being is similar in many respects to all the others who’ve expressed generalised disdain or disrespect or dislike towards me, and that’s being expressed in any number of subtle or extreme ways, and it’s the _n_th time of the day, in a lifetime of it, it’s quite hard to step back and differentiate the nuances. To be honest, it all starts to feel pretty hateful, like a great big black blob of hateful behaviour and attitude.

So I’m prepared to accept that Greer was perhaps a little hyperbolic in her assessment, but given that it was the first time someone had identified and named the problem - the problem of males hating on females as a generalised foundation behaviour - then I’m going to allow it.

It’s engendered a lot of useful and necessary discussion, this being one of them.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> Maybe the contempt is because in practically all of those cases, a woman actually holds a little bit of power over those men? If they really didn't care about us, they would ignore us. The fact is that the most hate-driven acts are reserved for partners or people who rebuff advances or women who hold actual positions of power - famously female politicians suffer most. Any rebuffed sexual advance, any dawning realisation that you care deeply for someone, that means you are in some sort of weaker position. That person has power.
> 
> I don't believe Germaine Greer. I know some lovely men who I really don't think hate me. But I hold no position of power except in the lives of a tiny handful of people and that frustrates them, but moreso the men I think. I think other women probably see more contempt because they hold more power, though. It backs up what others are saying about control, for sure.
> 
> But then what? We have a choice of having no power or being hated? I mean, obviously it's more nuanced than that but still...




I too know really lovely men. I really do love men. Some of my favourite people on the planet are men. And I feel deeply loved by many men. But sometimes, when I see or hear their attitudes and behaviours towards women they don’t know, I realise that it’s a bit of the “Some of my best friends are...” thing : they love me because they know me, I’ve somehow passed a test of some kind and been accepted despite being a woman.

I know men who don’t really like other men, because they really prefer the company of women, because they find toxic masculinity anathema.

I also know men who claim (and believe themselves) to be feminists who are plainly misogynists.


----------



## Looby (May 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> All of the above is true but also I would like to draw attention to the fact that men don't seem to realise how scary they can be without even trying sometimes. You don't even need to threaten us, the threat is already there. I'm thinking in particular of occasions when I've been running alone and been accosted. Just don't do it. Don't say anything. Leave me alone. Why does the sight of a woman running raise male dander so much? As soon as it happens, the spell is broken, there is no longer a sense of freedom and they've won. It's shit.



Yes!
Me and my friends have decided to stop going to a bar/live music place for a while that we really love because the atmosphere in there the last few times has been off and weird. 

We went a few months ago and there were a group of men on the dance floor that were just getting a bit too close. We’re pretty good at looking out for each other so we formed the wall, kept them away from the friends they seemed to be targeting and all that and it struck me just how natural and normal it felt to have to do that. We’ve learned after 20 odd years of going out that you make the wall to keep the creeps out. 

Then we went there over Easter and there was a bloke there who was staring and leering and eventually did the ‘smile love’ thing. We were trying to dance and have fun but being watched like that made us all uncomfortable. We asked him to leave us to enjoy our night and he got funny and went to grab the back of my arm as I turned away. I snarled at him not to touch me and he skulked away, probably because I was several inches taller and several stones heavier so he wasn’t going to take me on just to creep on my friends. 

Then another bloke who was very drunk or high or something started hanging around us. He didn’t talk, just placed himself between us looking angry and slightly intimidating. He was above us on the stairs for a while and ‘accidentally’ spilled some beer on us. I told the bouncer as I was leaving that he was spilling beer, being weird and could he just keep a bit of an eye. He laughed and said most of their customers were drunk and weird. 

Five minutes after I left he roughly put his arm around my friend, grabbed her neck and was pulling her hair and had to be dragged off her and out of the bar. She was terrified  and very upset. 

So we’re not going back for at least a while. It’s not the creepy shitheads that are staying away, it’s us. We lose again.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Very good question - why do they hate us? this is at the essence of feminism. Indiviuals may love each - but the systems still reinforce that 'hatred'
> 
> I used to think it was about control of female behaviour.
> 
> ...




It’s possession, and also pride, and other stuff too.

I was going out with a famous man, and we were out one night. My fella was surrounded by a group of people who were keen to spend time with him and I was over here at the bar, just enjoying the music and hanging out on my own. This chap came over and started to chat me up. I was trying to gauge the right moment to tell him “no thanks”. Too soon and they accuse you of being arrogant and up yourself, too late and they accuse you of leading them on.

So I judged the moment alright and he was pretty cool with it, and he stuck around for a bit of chat, to save some face I suppose, to indicate that he could take it or leave it really. So he asked me who I was here with, and I said “my boyfriend” and then he asked “so where is he then?” And I vaguely indicated in the general direction of my fella, who was still surrounded by fans. So the chap who was talking to me did a quick checklist calculation in his head, looked at me, and over there, and at me again: he was trying to work out if my boyfriend was one of the fans (in which case why was I standing over here all calm and collected) or the famous bloke. He worked it out and he said “What. Your boyfriend is F-?” to which I said “Yes”. And he really kicked off. His face went grim and furious and he took a step back and then he pulled himself up to full height and he started shouting and waving his arms around, loud enough that someone came over to check I was alright (I had my back against the bar).

I’m still not entirely sure why my having a famous boyfriend made him so angry at me. He was shouting “Why the fuck didn’t you tell me!”

Was he worried he’d stepped on the shoes of a more powerful man? Was he angry that I’d withheld information (but was I supposed to announce it?).

That man did nothing to indicate that he had anything in his heart but good positive feelings towards me, right up to the moment he switched to rage and fury and contempt, and probably he went home feeling something related to hate for me. Because he felt... what? Humiliated? Not because I’d turned him down but because I was going out with someone famous. I can’t even say it was someone that he himself admired: that’s possible but I have no way to be sure.


----------



## Red Cat (May 6, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> It’s possession, and also pride, and other stuff too.
> 
> I was going out with a famous man, and we were out one night. My fella was surrounded by a group of people who were keen to spend time with him and I was over here at the bar, just enjoying the music and hanging out on my own. This chap came over and started to chat me up. I was trying to gauge the right moment to tell him “no thanks”. Too soon and they accuse you of being arrogant and up yourself, too late and they accuse you of leading them on.
> 
> ...



Because I don't think it's women that they feel humiliated by but an internal perfect man that they always fall short of, that then gets projected into women as the humiliators. Abusive men who are often paranoid are clearly tormented by internal fantasies, the actual real live woman has very little to do with what they imagine about her when they're in these states of mind.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> It strikes me- in a number of contexts- that its ‘easy’ to be nasty- violent, spiteful, angry. That slipping down to the nastiest stuff within us is easy and yet on some level we all know that the right way is the harder route of being kind and thoughtful. So there is shame tangled up in there too. So shame, and fear, and power (over someone usually physically smaller as well as social constructs of masculinity) and so on make a toxic brew.




Why is it harder to be kind and thoughtful?

What makes it so?

Is it harder for everyone or only for those who’ve been conditioned in a certain way during childhood?

Is this really harder to be kind than it is to be nasty, or is that an artefact of toxic masculinity, patriarchy and /or capitalism / add in possible systemic cause here...?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Because I don't think it's women that they feel humiliated by but an internal perfect man that they always fall short of, that then gets projected into women as the humiliators. Abusive men who are often paranoid are clearly tormented by internal fantasies, the actual real live woman has very little to do with what they imagine about her when they're in these states of mind.




Yes, I think that’s largely true. Looking back, I can see that it was a very salutary experience, it taught me a lot about how and why men feel the way they do.

I think it also freed me in a very deep way from thinking I was the problem, that I had to be a more conventionally pleasing woman.

It’s definitely a very powerful memory for me, and happened at a time in my life when a lot of my internal structures were being remodelled.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, I think the shame/humiliation of being subordinate to a woman, is much stronger in many men than any shame they feel about mistreating women.
> 
> Eta: I've known blokes who've cheated on their wives just to prove to their mates they're not 'under the thumb.'




Yuck.


----------



## Red Cat (May 6, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Yes, I think that’s largely true. Looking back, I can see that it was a very salutary experience, it taught me a lot about how and why men feel the way they do.
> .



I mean, these are broad sweeping generalisations I'm making, and every person's internal dramas will be different and more complex than I'm painting, but I think there's a lot more going on than just the surface social stuff, and that this is just some of it.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

8ball said:


> I was just dealing with baldrick ‘s question.  In terms of a kind of default underlying nastiness, what kind of proportion of men would you say that was coming from?




A dangerously high number.

Part of the problem here is that good number of men either don’t recognise it in themselves, or won’t.

And as Manter said, if one man in the room has a deep rage and contempt towards women it’s kind of irrelevant to know the number of men present who a)dislike b)are scared of or c)enjoy the company of ...



Given some of your posts on this thread, 8ball , I’m not sure how honest /disingenuous your question is.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I mean, these are broad sweeping generalisations I'm making, and every person's internal dramas will be different and more complex than I'm painting, but I think there's a lot more going on than just the surface social stuff, and that this is just some of it.




Not all men not all women etc.....

This is part of the problem with having this discussion. It’s absolutely necessary, I reckon, for men to hear this stuff, and to be a part of the conversation too, so we shouldn’t have it in isolation.  But so often, as we’ve seen over and over again, on here and in our own lives, it gets mired down in the details and cul de sacs, or in the issues of a man saying over and over “You’re wrong because...”

And over and over, we have to add in the caveats, qualifiers, disclaimers and exit routes.

We’re not talking about every single man and every single encounter ever, we’re talking about a huge deep problem that affects most of us - men and women, cis and trans - in very significant ways, most of the time.

There will always be exception. but it really is a general experience, and it’s generally true, so we have to speak in generalities.


----------



## Sue (May 6, 2019)

Looby, that's really shit, if not (sadly) unusual. 

I posted on the pissed off thread (I think) a while go about being out with a friend and some bloke who wouldn't leave us alone. My point -- that you should be able to say 'not interested' and the guy should, with good grace, leave you to it -- was lost in the discussion about how we should've poured a drink over the guy's head or that maybe we hadn't been clear enough that we weren't interested and other such macho/'victim' blaming rubbish. I was quite disappointed at some of the posts from people who I thought were better than that.

Also interesting to ponder that in this situation, it turns out they thought all along that you were ugly and probably a lesbian* or whatever. 

*So for a lot of men, this seems to be the ultimate insult. Is it because there obviously must be something wrong with you if you're not into men or that you must be a lesbian because you're so unattractive that you wouldn't be able to find a man even if you wanted one or what? (I'm sure some on here have pondered this way more than I have -- interested in your thoughts.) It always makes me laugh anyway -- I'm not into women but being 'accused' of being a lesbian like it's the worst thing ever just seems utterly bizarre. (FWIW, as a woman with short hair working in a very male field, people are often surprised when they discover I'm straight as they've assumed otherwise.)


----------



## weepiper (May 6, 2019)

Looby that's horrible. And deeply unfair. The management of that place is failing its female customers.


----------



## trashpony (May 6, 2019)

You’re either a fucking slag/an ugly bitch or a lesbian when you turn down a bloke  I don’t know why lesbian is said in the same breath as insults either. Weird isn’t it? 

And actually there is a relief in getting older that my days of the sort of experiences that Looby describes are behind me (plus I don’t really go out anymore). 

But it is so wearing. When you’re out with your friends and you see a man coming over and you don’t know if he’s going to smile and turn away when you say thanks but no thanks or if you’re going to get a mouthful of abuse or worse. You can never really relax; you’re always slightly on guard.


----------



## campanula (May 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> We have a choice of having no power or being hated?



Yes, this is exactly so (for me).  And, I think, for quite a lot of working class people (including, of course, men) who have been cruelly let down by wage stagnation, lack of opportunity, even the ability to survive day to day. Naively, I used to believe that if only mens and women's lives were not forced to run on such separate trajectories, all would be so much better. Like walking a mile in someone else's shoes, having no opportunity to step out of a pre-ordained role (caring, nurturing, looking inwards for women, providing, being out in the world for men), we would have some ground for recognition and acceptance of the particular burdens we carry. Of course, this was hopelessly nitwittish and a bit deluded...but on some level at least, within the bounds of my relationships, a certain equality in our roles did allow for a more generous  acknowledgment of societal expectations.
Although my early forays in feminism occured, in a differently precarious time (Greenham Common occupied months and years of my life), before 'society' was reduced to a scary mob and workers became just units of profit...bur it seems to me, that hate is not the motivating factor in male violence and suppression, but fear, shame and a sneaky belief that, buried in our biology (whether we even glance in the direction of child-bearing or not),  we are simply immune to the pressures of being a breadwinner, provider, the steady foundation.
In my heart, I want to dismiss segregation by gender, race, belief because it makes us  small and disconnected...but without common cause, it seems hard to find places to stand in solidarity.


----------



## Red Cat (May 6, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Not all men not all women etc.....
> 
> This is part of the problem with having this discussion. It’s absolutely necessary, I reckon, for men to hear this stuff, and to be a part of the conversation too, so we shouldn’t have it in isolation.  But so often, as we’ve seen over and over again, on here and in our own lives, it gets mired down in the details and cul de sacs, or in the issues of a man saying over and over “You’re wrong because...”
> 
> ...



It wasn't really a disclaimer about not all men, I don't think all men are like this, but more a qualifier or note of caution in relation to claims about how individual psychology intersects with social dynamics/structures.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> It wasn't really a disclaimer about not all men, I don't think all men are like this, but more a qualifier or note of caution in relation to claims about how individual psychology intersects with social dynamics/structures.




Again I agree with you. I’m always hoping and indeed aiming to tease out the specific “why? how? when?” in the men I know. I have known a great many Lost Boys, and I’ve loved them deeply, sometimes disastrously.

It has to be said though that a huge degree of the damage done to them is a result of this whole toxic knotty issue of the patriarchy.


 But yeah,  these clarifications are important.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

campanula said:


> bur it seems to me, that hate is not the motivating factor in male violence and suppression, but fear, shame and a sneaky belief that, buried in our biology (whether we even glance in the direction of child-bearing or not),  we are simply immune to the pressures of being a breadwinner, provider, the steady foundation.




I liked all of your post. I’d be interested to know more about this bit: could you expand a bit please campanula ?


----------



## campanula (May 6, 2019)

Ah, a bit tangled, though, Sheila, because I am never too sure where the boundaries of self and society intersect...but it can't have evaded notice that the 'traditional' womanly attributes of caring,  nursing, educating are both lower paid and professionally disregarded...while childcare, whether voluntary or paid, is still very lowly indeed. As I have spent my entire life in a 'caring' role, I have certainly also internalised a sense of my utter lack of importance...yet at least 3 people simply would not even exist without my literal and metaphysical labour...2 of which are male. And not just child-rearing either, but a lifetime of youthwork, social work, voluntary work and political committment has left me in no doubt that my social value  is valid...yet it has been a struggle to be seen as anything other than an accessory to make capital run smoothly. And sadly, this dismissal of 'women's work has been corrossive and diminishing... to an extent, it is not even seen as 'women's work but as 'service'  work...an increasing employment sector given manufacturing (and many traditionally 'masculine') jobs are vanishing.
When it suited the whims of Capital to ensure  childbearing did not diminish the value of productive members of the workforce, the stay at home caretaking model was simultaneously sentimentalised and disempowered...but a nation of unpaid carers quite literally held the future  in their hands. The 'mother' archetype is both nurturing and monstrous. No-one personifies evil more than the murderous woman who subverts all natural law and order. Whore Madonna, Eve/Lilith, both sides of the same coin.


----------



## campanula (May 6, 2019)

So, my political ideas were shaped by a very personal struggle for recognition (this was the 70s) which was eventually superceded  (for me) by the far-reaching changes being inflicted upon working class communities under Thatcher. For the longest time, I felt  local and immediate feminist battles were well on their way to being overcome...and I was, I admit, falsely cheered by the  general respect for miner's wives, female strikers, and in my own work, the wider recognition given to domestic violence, broadening opportunities for education...although never, for a moment, did I think that equality of opportunity was becoming available on a global level.
And I was dismayed by  a vague feeling that self-actuality was basically a  push to consume and merit was decided by wealth and material status. Plus, the 'freedom' to take up careers failed to seem like such a bargain when we still had to do all the other shit as well. Then,  what felt like a reversal came when other, (younger, more educated ) women dismissed my entire being as unambitious, undemanding, basically a drag. So yeah, I believe feminism is necessary, vital and a wholly valid part of a wider class struggle for parity and justice but is still deeply rooted in the personal interactions of daily life... plus, you have to play the hand you are dealt because it is a long process, not a series of discrete events.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Everything you say....

I wish I could express my thoughts with such eloquence.


----------



## campanula (May 6, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I wish I could express my thoughts with such eloquence.



But you do...with wit and humanity


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yes. Regularly. Still. In person and online. And I am fat, middle aged and plain. Which goes on the emphasise yet again that it’s power not sex that’s at stake.
> 
> And as has been pointed out before, the easiest way to diffuse is to say you have a husband waiting for you. Some one else’s possession seems easier for men to handle than free to say no.


 I've done that before now - my husband the tall heavyweight boxer, of course.  There is absolutely no point in saying my female partner is waiting for me, even now.


----------



## Looby (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've done that before now - my husband the tall heavyweight boxer, of course.  There is absolutely no point in saying my female partner is waiting for me, even now.


I once used a bouncer boyfriend to get a bloke out of my house who was showing signs of not being willing to go. I hadn’t really  thought this through and he got pissy that I was cheating on my ‘boyfriend’ but he did leave.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 6, 2019)

Sue said:


> Also interesting to ponder that in this situation, it turns out they thought all along that you were ugly and probably a lesbian* or whatever. :rolleyes:
> 
> *So for a lot of men, this seems to be the ultimate insult. Is it because there obviously must be something wrong with you if you're not into men or that you must be a lesbian because you're so unattractive that you wouldn't be able to find a man even if you wanted one or what? (I'm sure some on here have pondered this way more than I have -- interested in your thoughts.) It always makes me laugh anyway -- I'm not into women but being 'accused' of being a lesbian like it's the worst thing ever just seems utterly bizarre. (FWIW, as a woman with short hair working in a very male field, people are often surprised when they discover I'm straight as they've assumed otherwise.)



Actually being a lesbian is no defence at all, no protection, it only makes them more interested 'Can I join in?' 'Can I watch' etc. And it can be dangerous. I've certainly legged it in the past.

Being middle aged and menopausal helps enormously I'm finally become invisible to men and it is liberating! I can drink in a straight pub with friends and no one cares, no one interupts me and no one is predatory to me. Men have no idea how much mental energy women have to waste on defending them selves against this sort of shit.


----------



## Manter (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've done that before now - my husband the tall heavyweight boxer, of course.  There is absolutely no point in saying my female partner is waiting for me, even now.


I long for the day when ‘I don’t want to’ is enough


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> I long for the day when ‘I don’t want to’ is enough


Yes!


----------



## Sue (May 6, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Actually being a lesbian is no defence at all, no protection, it only makes them more interested 'Can I join in?' 'Can I watch' etc. And it can be dangerous. I've certainly legged it in the past.
> 
> Being middle aged and menopausal helps enormously I'm finally become invisible to men and it is liberating! I can drink in a straight pub with friends and no one cares, no one interupts me and no one is predatory to me. Men have no idea how much mental energy women have to waste on defending them selves against this sort of shit.



Interesting though I guess my point was more whether you're a lesbian or not, for some guys 'accusing' you of being so is THE most insulting thing they can think of to say. And it's interesting because for the women I know -- mainly straight -- it's really not an insult at all but this doesn't seem to even cross their minds...


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 6, 2019)

Sue said:


> Interesting though I guess my point was more whether you're a lesbian or not, for some guys 'accusing' you of being so is THE most insulting thing they can think of to say. And it's interesting because for the women I know -- mainly straight -- it's really not an insult at all but this doesn't seem to even cross their minds...




I think that rather than being an insult (although they do mean it as such) what they’re really saying is “Well it’s not that you don’t want *me*, obviously, is it: it must be because you don’t fancy any man at all”.

Shame and humiliation again, I suppose. It’s easier for them to believe that you’re a lesbian than that you’d not want to fuck them.

“Frigid” is the other one: meaning “It’s not that you don’t want me, it’s that you are incapable of having sex with anyone at all”.

“Stuck up bitch” means “Your standards are unrealistically high”, again a way to say “It's not me, it’s you that’s the problem here”.







Manter said:


> I long for the day when ‘I don’t want to’ is enough



When I was young and naive and still a virgin, I spent an entire night saying “Because I don’t want to” to a bloke.

 But why won’t you sleep, with me?

Because I don’t want to.

 But why don’t you want to?

Because I don’t.

 But why?

Why do I need to have a reason other than not wanting to?

 But that’s not a reason! Why won’t you sleep with me?

All night long. I was staying over at a mate’s place, and her fella’s mate was the one who was bothering me. All night long, til the sun came up.


ETA
Added to which, I was 15 and he was in his early twenties...


----------



## Balbi (May 7, 2019)

Placeholder post that this thread is fascinating, and everyone who isn't being a deliberate wrecker carry on please


----------



## weepiper (May 7, 2019)

I thought this was an interesting Twitter thread. Certainly very familiar to my experience.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 7, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I think that rather than being an insult (although they do mean it as such) what they’re really saying is “Well it’s not that you don’t want *me*, obviously, is it: it must be because you don’t fancy any man at all”.
> 
> Shame and humiliation again, I suppose. It’s easier for them to believe that you’re a lesbian than that you’d not want to fuck them.


Strangely a lot of blokes still beleived that even though you were a lesbian you still might fuck with them, after all they have seen porn movies about that...


----------



## Athos (May 7, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Strangely a lot of blokes still beleived that even though you were a lesbian you still might fuck with them, after all they have seen porn movies about that...



I've said it before on these boards, but I do think porn is playing an increasing role in some if this. A lot of it is outright abusive, and, whereas my generation got an understanding of what sex is actually like before the online porn explosion, this stuff is formative for a lot of young men.  To the extent that I overheard some lads in their early 20s at football the other day, and it seems they pretty much expect a random sexual encounter to involve anal sex, and culminate in cumming on a woman's face (and that's no exaggeration). Now I may be wrong, but I suspect that's not what young women are after.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Strangely a lot of blokes still beleived that even though you were a lesbian you still might fuck with them, after all they have seen porn movies about that...


My daughter and her g/f have had fucking shedloads of hassle from straight men, wanting to 'join in' etc. 



SheilaNaGig said:


> I can appreciate that objectively it seems like it can’t possibly be true, but once you have experienced it subjectively, there is not doubt, none at all, that men really do hate women. And it shocks me over and over again: every time I’m reminded of it or made to face it again, it shocks me again.



Yep. It gets increasingly wearisome and I wish it would just fuck off. 



SheilaNaGig said:


> And I really do feel it as a noticeably different thing when I meet a man who genuinely and sincerely and deeply does admire and  respect women. I guess my default setting is a kind if instinctive wariness, which is then confounded when the... spite...? isn’t there.


Same - I've absolutely loved loads of your posts on this thread SheilaNaGig 



Manter said:


> What women need to feel safe and cared for in society is for all the other men to speak out.


This.  My fella recently read Everyday Sexism by Laura Bates and was shocked by it. It really opened his eyes to what he, as one of the most gentle men you could ever meet, had just not picked up on at all in other men. Now aware, he is always looking for ways to express that/pass it on to other men.


----------



## trashpony (May 7, 2019)

I love swimming, but I’m sick of the sexist behaviour in British pools | Ellie Mae O’Hagan

Thought this was interesting


----------



## weepiper (May 7, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I love swimming, but I’m sick of the sexist behaviour in British pools | Ellie Mae O’Hagan
> 
> Thought this was interesting


I recognise that 'must overtake' mentality from commuting on a bike. Lots of men will push in front at traffic lights only for me then to sit up their arse frustrated because they're riding slower than I want to.


----------



## trashpony (May 7, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I recognise that 'must overtake' mentality from commuting on a bike. Lots of men will push in front at traffic lights only for me then to sit up their arse frustrated because they're riding slower than I want to.


I notice it driving a lot (having never overtaken anyone on a bike  ). I realised that a lot of men will look over to see who’s driving when i overtake, overtake back and then slow down. I don’t know if those blokes do it to other men but it’s very obvious that men* look when they’re being overtaken and women typically don’t. 

* can we take it as a given that it’s not all men? It gets boring typing it out but please assume it’s implicit in my posts.


----------



## Poot (May 7, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I notice it driving a lot (having never overtaken anyone on a bike  ). I realised that a lot of men will look over to see who’s driving when i overtake, overtake back and then slow down. I don’t know if those blokes do it to other men but it’s very obvious that men* look when they’re being overtaken and women typically don’t.
> 
> * can we take it as a given that it’s not all men? It gets boring typing it out but please assume it’s implicit in my posts.


Hi viz is very much my friend, I find. A cursory glance and people assume I mean business and don't fuck me around. I'm not a slow, dithery driver but I have been tailgated before but NEVER in hi viz. For a while I thought I was imagining it but I'm definitely not.


----------



## cheesethief (May 7, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I love swimming, but I’m sick of the sexist behaviour in British pools | Ellie Mae O’Hagan
> 
> Thought this was interesting


She's not alone in her annoyance - as a bloke whose knees will no longer take the stress of jogging, I've recently started swimming regularly for the first time in about 30 years. It's definitely other blokes who are the most annoying. I tend to pootle along in the slow lane, and every so often some twat starts swimming in it too quickly & overtaking everyone, despite the faster, middle lane being all of 6 feet to the left. I wish I could say the generalisation was misplaced, but the reality is that the most annoying people in the pool are almost always men...


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2019)

Men in swimming pools   I got THIS close to punching one of the selfish twats full in the head when I was going regularly. Complete disregard for everyone else who has also paid to swim, lane-hogging cunts they are.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 7, 2019)

sojourner said:


> Men in swimming pools   I got THIS close to punching one of the selfish twats full in the head when I was going regularly. Complete disregard for everyone else who has also paid to swim, lane-hogging cunts they are.



This this this this this this this. 



This.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 7, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I thought this was an interesting Twitter thread. Certainly very familiar to my experience.





Nagging is more work... Yes! 

I hate this. 

Please would you do this thing that needs doing every week anyway, that I usually do, but I’d really like it if it became your chore rather than mine, or just can we share the chore.

Okay, sure.

Please would you do it then? 

I was just going to.

Okay, but when? Because I asked you three days ago.

Just remind me and I’ll do it.

I’m reminding you. Please do it! 

Stop nagging me, I was going to do it!

But why can’t you just do it without me having to ask you? 

What’s the issue? Just ask me and I’ll do it!

But I don’t want to have to ask you to do it! We both use it, so why is it my responsibility?

It’s not you’re responsibility though, you’ve taken responsibility for it! Just leave it and I’ll do it!

But you don’t do it, unless I ask you to do it!

So what’s the problem? If I do it when you ask me, why are you getting all in a tizzy about it?

Because A I don’t want to have to ask you every single time, I want you to just do it without being asked, and B I hate that I’m forced to nag you when I do ask!

I’m not forcing you to nag me, you just nag me anyway!

Aargh!

Calm down.....

Don’t fucking tell me to calm down!


----------



## Manter (May 7, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Nagging is more work... Yes!
> 
> I hate this.
> 
> ...


Oh god yes all of this.


----------



## Edie (May 7, 2019)

Three things I’m really fucking glad of. I’ll never live with a man and have to do his housework again (cos I could never be fucked with nagging by and large I just did it), I’ll never have to go out to bars/clubs and experience that absolute bollox hounding of drunk men who don’t know when to stop coming on to you, and (touch wood) I’ll never be afraid in my own home again. Fuck. All. That. Shit.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 7, 2019)

Edie said:


> Three things I’m really fucking glad of. I’ll never live with a man and have to do his housework again (cos I could never be fucked with nagging by and large I just did it), I’ll never have to go out to bars/clubs and experience that absolute bollox hounding of drunk men who don’t know when to stop coming on to you, and (touch wood) I’ll never be afraid in my own home again. Fuck. All. That. Shit.




Yep.

I’ve also decided that I’ll never ever share a front door with a man again. Ever. It’s just not worth it.

Like you, I usually ended up just doing the chores myself, it felt like far less work than trying to negotiate him into pulling his weight.

Just recently, I just fucked it off for a few days so the kitchen looked like a student common room and he actually said “What’s going on? Are you on strike or something?”

And when he *does* do any of it, he virtue signals like he’s in the Big Top, hoovering around my feet while I’m trying to write, offering to mop my room when I’m napping, and (much more subtle, this one) leaving all the cleaning materials on display so I know he’s done some cleaning and then I have to clear up after him doing the cleaning.

And of course the announcements “I’m going to do it.... I’m doing it.... I did it..... Remember when I did it?...”. Whaddyawant, a medal? I do this shit every single week, year in year out, without comment, whilst doing all my other stuff too.




Okay, so what can we actually do to change this?

Apart from vowing never to live with a man again, I mean.




Standard disclaimer not all men not all women etc.

trashpony I know you said “please take it as read that the usual disclaimers apply” but maybe we need an acronym or symbol to indicate it. 

NAMNAW


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 7, 2019)

Edie said:


> Three things I’m really fucking glad of. I’ll never live with a man and have to do his housework again (cos I could never be fucked with nagging by and large I just did it), I’ll never have to go out to bars/clubs and experience that absolute bollox hounding of drunk men who don’t know when to stop coming on to you, and (touch wood) I’ll never be afraid in my own home again. Fuck. All. That. Shit.




Being afraid in my own home. That is a terrible thing.

I was on the phone to the cops, they’d called to say they were about to release him without charge. I’d been so happy, so relaxed, since they arrested him and at that moment, alone in an empty house, when they said they were about to release him, I ran and hid in a closet, in an empty house. The fear was so huge and so complete that I had to hide in an empty house, in my own home.

I never ever want to experience that again,


----------



## trashpony (May 7, 2019)

I do feel hugely liberated at choosing not to live with a man again. Well apart from my beautiful son [emoji3590]It’s not just about men tbh, I don’t want to live with anyone. This is my house. I don’t have to negotiate with anyone. 

I have never been afraid of coming home physically but I’ve felt the dread of being in an emotionally abusive relationship. Just never want to be in that position ever again


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 7, 2019)

Reading all these experiences I feel like I lucked out. 

My dad was an absolute fucking cunt and left me with a whole heap of mental health problems leading to a lifetime of on-off antidepressants. 

My husband is a wonder (although ocassinally we nag each other). 

My dad is still a cunt. 


Right now, aim doing the emotional labour for my mum "WHY DO YOU LET HOIM TREAT YOU LIKE THAT?" as well as my own damage "why did your parants treat you like that?"

I'm 36 years old. 




Women suffer.....


----------



## spanglechick (May 7, 2019)

One of my upper sixth came to see me last week because she and her boyfriend kept blowing up about him worrying about her too much and her wanting to put down some boundaries.  And as I was explaining all these ways of being heard, this “man whispering” that we all need to do in order to outfox men’s instinctive reaction to feel offended and shut down or get shouty, I said to her that I felt like a bad feminist, because she *should* be able to say “I don’t need looking after like you think I do. I was capable before we met.” and just be heard.  

But sometimes it’s undeniably expedient to find a different way of delivering the message.  A way that doesn’t challenge his ego.  I know I find it useful. Interestingly, also in the office was a male colleague who said afterwards that he didn’t think it was a bad thing, that he recognises that women have these better communication skills (namnaw) and he’s grateful when his partner has used them on him.  

Because of course he is.  Because he doesn’t have to learn or change himself.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> One of my upper sixth came to see me last week because she and her boyfriend kept blowing up about him worrying about her too much and her wanting to put down some boundaries.  And as I was explaining all these ways of being heard, this “man whispering” that we all need to do in order to outfox men’s instinctive reaction to feel offended and shut down or get shouty, I said to her that I felt like a bad feminist, because she *should* be able to say “I don’t need looking after like you think I do. I was capable before we met.” and just be heard.
> 
> But sometimes it’s undeniably expedient to find a different way of delivering the message.  A way that doesn’t challenge his ego.  I know I find it useful. Interestingly, also in the office was a male colleague who said afterwards that he didn’t think it was a bad thing, that he recognises that women have these better communication skills (namnaw) and he’s grateful when his partner has used them on him.
> 
> Because of course he is.  Because he doesn’t have to learn or change himself.



They're so lucky to have you.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 7, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> One of my upper sixth came to see me last week because she and her boyfriend kept blowing up about him worrying about her too much and her wanting to put down some boundaries.  And as I was explaining all these ways of being heard, this “man whispering” that we all need to do in order to outfox men’s instinctive reaction to feel offended and shut down or get shouty, I said to her that I felt like a bad feminist, because she *should* be able to say “I don’t need looking after like you think I do. I was capable before we met.” and just be heard.
> 
> But sometimes it’s undeniably expedient to find a different way of delivering the message.  A way that doesn’t challenge his ego.  I know I find it useful. Interestingly, also in the office was a male colleague who said afterwards that he didn’t think it was a bad thing, that he recognises that women have these better communication skills (namnaw) and he’s grateful when his partner has used them on him.
> 
> Because of course he is.  Because he doesn’t have to learn or change himself.




Oh ffs!

I was going to make a post similar to this myself tbh.

You’ve said everything I would have said.

I’d add, though, that this fragility is yet another way to keep us silent and, I suppose, in our place, compliant with his wishes to be left alone to keep on doing it his way.

Like that thing when they can’t do the washing/hoovering/shopping etc. as well as you can so you end up either doing it anyway, or supervising it (more nagging), or picking up the dropped stitches afterwards (interfering) . When it comes to doing stuff they want to do, they’re perfectly capable. It’s infuriating. And they claim not to be manipulative.

One of my favourite ridiculous stories is about a young man who would stay in my house for extended periods of time when things were rough elsewhere, rent free. The arrangement was that he could have the spare room when he needed it and treat it as his own, but he had to leave it properly clean so I could use it as a guest room in his absence. Ha! Of course he’d just shove all his muck under the bed and into the closet etc. The one time he did the hoovering in there, he had the brilliant idea that, in order to ensure that he would make the effort the next time, he’d hide the Hoover in his room, so he’d not have to drag it up the stairs in future. The mystery of the disappearing Hoover was only solved when he next came to visit.

Because, you see, he’d no notion that the housework was actually done by human intervention in the rest of the house.

Oh! A lodger who eventually moved out and later admitted that it wasn’t til he was in his own place that he realised that someone had actually been providing loo paper, salt, bin liners, cleaning products....

I must add that none * of the women who lived in my house behaved in this way, and almost all the men did. The ones that didn’t had stories of sisters, previous girlfriends or indeed their mothers who had taught them the essentials.

* correction: there was one.

The thing is though that my sisters and I were dragged up and neglected, we weren’t taught or trained. We had chores and responsibilities, which we hated and rebelled against, but we weren’t taught to cook sew clean mop floors fold laundry handle the housekeeping budget etc. and yet we’ve ended up as good housekeepers.

How is it that women learn and men don’t?

namnaw...





I must say it’s good to get this off the chest and share stories but it doesn’t get us anywhere!


Why are there these differences and how can we change the status quo?



ETA I’ve found that men who’ve been in prison or the army are much better at keeping house and so forth.


----------



## trashpony (May 8, 2019)

Judge gives man who punched and bit his girlfriend suspended sentence and tells him “mind how you go” 

I guess the judge thinks that Stacey Booth should brush up on her man whispering technique 

Judge tells boyfriend convicted of coercive control there are 'plenty more fish in the sea'


----------



## Edie (May 8, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Judge gives man who punched and bit his girlfriend suspended sentence and tells him “mind how you go”
> 
> I guess the judge thinks that Stacey Booth should brush up on her man whispering technique
> 
> Judge tells boyfriend convicted of coercive control there are 'plenty more fish in the sea'


Absolutely 100% why it’s not worth going to the police. I can’t imagine the  burden of proof she and the police must of needed to get that cunt to admit that he bit her on the arm when she saw her family, or sleep deprived her to conduct his paranoid interrogations, or bent her fingers back as punishment. 

You can almost hear the judges paternalistic approval of a young man turning his life around under his guidance, mistakes made for sure, but a brighter future ahead. And the woman? Completely irrelevant. I’d like words with both the boyfriend and the judge in this case. They need some sense talking into them.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 8, 2019)

I've given up "man whispering".  It's too exhausting constantly trying to work out how to say things without bruising his ego or offending him.  Now I just say what I want.  I've had a few sulks and hurt looks, but I'm past caring.


----------



## campanula (May 8, 2019)

Grief, I have lived in  decent safety for so many years, it is (almost) possible to forget that this sort of shit goes on. Where do we start? I know that most of the abusive behaviour  happened in the first 16 years of my life (a catalogue of sexual bullying and ferocious beatings) that when it came down to my adult autonomy, I wasn't even slightly afraid of anything dished out by a non-family member (because I was free of the years of childish vulnerability and nothing, short of being repeatedly raped or battered into a coma could possibly be worse than what I had already survived. My own instincts, to fail to flinch away and even get the fists in first, saved me from the sort of daily, commonplace abuse I saw while working for Women's Aid...because fear is the trigger...and it can go any way...and grows like a tumour.
Anyway, I have been with the same  man for over 35 years now, with no corrosive rages, violence or distress for at least the last 25 years (but eyes have been blacked and weapons raised in the past). I also know, with every fibre of my being, that my boys, now men grown, have never, ever raised a hand in anger against a smaller, weaker being - although my walls and doors bear witness to tumultuous adolescent anger... fury inflicted on an inanimate object rather than vulnerable flesh and bones.
So yep, I think 'man whispering' is both needed and valid...and should be part of our arsenal and power rather than some conciliatory giving in. Like any struggle, nothing will be freely given - it must be taken by whatever means are at our disposal.

My sister cycles from one abusive relationship to another and cannot seem to break the circle. She will drop her eyes and flinch, even when no violence is intended because the fear is so deeply impressed. Men who had not been violent or controlling  at first, seemed to be under a self-prophesying spell, almost invariably falling in with her expectations. This is a difficult pattern to disrupt...but we must, to save ourselves, even if fleeing is the only solution. There are more people choosing to remain single than at any time in history...at least in the UK. Also, it is noticeable than married men live longer than single ones...while married women do worse than single women, dying earlier...so the benefits of partnering are really unequal.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Being afraid in my own home. That is a terrible thing.
> 
> I was on the phone to the cops, they’d called to say they were about to release him without charge. I’d been so happy, so relaxed, since they arrested him and at that moment, alone in an empty house, when they said they were about to release him, I ran and hid in a closet, in an empty house. The fear was so huge and so complete that I had to hide in an empty house, in my own home.
> 
> I never ever want to experience that again,


 I'm sorry to hear this, but I thank you for being brave enough to write it. 

There are far too many male posters who think because they might be decent enough personally that all men are. Fear of male violence at the hands of those we know, as well as strangers in the street, never leaves most women.

I've suffered violence at the hands of a woman, but at least we were a similar build so I could defend myself.

NAMNAW of course.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 9, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've given up "man whispering".  It's too exhausting constantly trying to work out how to say things without bruising his ego or offending him.  Now I just say what I want.  I've had a few sulks and hurt looks, but I'm past caring.


Being a lesbian I've never quite honed those man whispering skills - soothing male egos isn't something I have to do very often.  Probably why I don't think twice about being insulting about beards, ha ha.  

Being older helps too - I can be that rude old woman now, which is more fun.


----------



## spanglechick (May 9, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm sorry to hear this, but I thank you for being brave enough to write it.
> 
> There are far too many male posters who think because they might be decent enough personally that all men are. Fear of male violence at the hands of those we know, as well as strangers in the street, never leaves most women.
> 
> ...


One of the things I keep coming back to is knowing that a proportion of the men I know and like and trust, a significant minority of these men have harassed, assaulted, abused women.  

They may have cussed out a woman who turned them down / date raped their college girlfriend / grabbed someone’s tit on a lads’ night out / leered at schoolgirls out of a car window... mathematically it’s got to be somewhere above ten percent of men.  If every woman has a raft of #metoo stories, it can’t plausibly be less than that.  

And I don’t know what the answer is because I know why they’re keeping quiet.  If I were them I would do too...

But it leaves us knowing that our fear of “some men” includes those men who are sending us a different story.  And because of that silence, society gets to pretend that these men are rare aberrations.  Men get to pretend that their friend who was acquitted of rape was innocent.  That the men who hurt women aren’t their friends and family.  

The whole lie makes me feel physically sick.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 9, 2019)

A lot of hard truths on the last few pages; I've never been physically violent to a woman but I'll put my hand up to some of those behaviours outlined by SheilaNaGig about household jobs (parts of that conversation though ). I've read posts by Poot, weepiper, spanglechick and others on this and other threads re: roles within relationships; the unfair division of labour; living with depressed/uncommunicative/angry men; the effects on marriages & children & I recognise myself in some of it.

Many men don't recognise their violence as violence_: _physical presence, tone, volume, slamming doors, punching walls, calling a woman a cunt in the middle of an otherwise fairly non-confrontational thread.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 9, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> They may have cussed out a woman who turned them down / date raped their college girlfriend / grabbed someone’s tit on a lads’ night out / leered at schoolgirls out of a car window... mathematically it’s got to be somewhere above ten percent of men.  If every woman has a raft of #metoo stories, it can’t plausibly be less than that.
> 
> And I don’t know what the answer is because I know why they’re keeping quiet.  If I were them I would do too...
> 
> ...


So often said of serial killers - he seemed so ordinary, so polite, so nice, so good to his mother... how can you tell?

NAMNA mothers etc


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 9, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> A lot of hard truths on the last few pages; I've never been physically violent to a woman but I'll put my hand up to some of those behaviours outlined by SheilaNaGig about household jobs (that conversation though ). I've read posts by Poot, weepiper, spanglechick and others on this and other threads re: roles within relationships; the unfair division of labour; living with depressed/uncommunicative/angry men; the effects on marriages & children & I recognise myself in some of it.
> 
> Many men don't recognise their violence as violence_: _physical presence, tone, volume, slamming doors, punching walls, calling a woman a cunt in the middle of an otherwise fairly non-confrontational thread.


thanks for being honest.


----------



## scifisam (May 9, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm sorry to hear this, but I thank you for being brave enough to write it.
> 
> There are far too many male posters who think because they might be decent enough personally that all men are. Fear of male violence at the hands of those we know, as well as strangers in the street, never leaves most women.
> 
> ...



Yes, I was once sexually assaulted by a woman but it wasn't as scary because I was more capable of fighting her off. Also despite being out for twenty years that only happened once, whereas sexual assaults by men have happened to me on a far more regular basis, a couple of times on the tube when literally doing nothing other than standing there.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 10, 2019)

liked in sympathy.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 10, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> One of the things I keep coming back to is knowing that a proportion of the men I know and like and trust, a significant minority of these men have harassed, assaulted, abused women.
> 
> They may have cussed out a woman who turned them down / date raped their college girlfriend / grabbed someone’s tit on a lads’ night out / leered at schoolgirls out of a car window... mathematically it’s got to be somewhere above ten percent of men.  If every woman has a raft of #metoo stories, it can’t plausibly be less than that.
> 
> ...




Me too, spanglechick . I often feel nauseated when I have to stop and pay attention to it.

For years and years I just turned the volume down on my own feelings about this stuff, because walking around in a rage isn’t good for anyone.

The #metoo thing woke me up again, and I was enraged by it but when I stopped being angry, I felt sick at the truth of it. One of the worst moments was seeing my nieces and goddaughters post up #metoo on their Facebook feeds, and I knew that nothing I’d done in my life was enough to have protected them or changed it so it wouldn’t happen to them.


I’ve told this story before: I was at a gig and I got groped really badly. It was more of an assault really. I turned and walloped the guy, and then I walloped him again, and then I was grinding my fist into his face, so of course he was then rescued from the crazy lady by his mates and I was taken out of the crowd. My mate (a man) came with me and we went to stand outside with the smokers. My friend asked what had happened, offered to go find the bloke, asked me if I wanted to report it. I was venting, shouting and letting go of the anger. Then this man standing over to one side said “There’s always one, isn’t there” and I lost my shit.

“But it’s not one, is it. It’s all of you! I’d guarantee that every single woman you know has been on the receiving end of this bullshit for her entire life, and a good number have been raped assaulted or beaten in their own homes. So who’s doing it? It’s not one bloke going up and down the country, is it. “There’s always one...” bullshit! It could be you, or your mates. How do you know it’s not? And it probably is you because none of you seem to know the effects of your behaviour, you could have coerced or bullied a woman without even realising it, because you’re all a bunch of pricks! [turning to my mate] For all I know, you’ve treated women like shit at some point, how do I know you’ve not, when I’ve been treated like shit by so many of you?” And as I paused for breath this guy pushed past me and muttered “Fucking feminist!” To which I replied “I rest my case”.


And I’d add NAMNAW , because it’s true, but we have to act and behave as if it *is* all men and all women, because this nonsense of saying “it’s not me so it’s not an issue” has to change. 

If you’re a women, it’s an issue even if it’s never happened to you.

If you’re a man it’s your issue, because nothing we’ve said or done over the decades had made this stop. So men have to talk to each other about this bullshit.

The reason women’s discourse hasn’t put a stop to it is exactly because men don’t listen to, don’t respect, don’t believe, don’t give weight to, don’t hear, what women say. If you’re going to talk over us in a conversation at the dinner table (and you do) why the fuck would you listen to us anywhere else?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 10, 2019)

Men interrupting women during verbal exchanges:

How often are women interrupted by men? Here's what the research says.

http://time.com

Language Ideologies: Do Women Really Talk More Than Men?

There is loads and loads on this.


----------



## JudithB (May 13, 2019)

Some might find this interesting to watch/listen to - the first 20 mins are a bit Terfy, but at 25:20 it gets into what many have been talking about above


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 13, 2019)

I skipped the first 25 mins (can't face it) and it is about about how feminism hasn't had any effect at all in stopping sexual violence, and rape or in improving conviction rates. 
then at 30 mins they start talking about his critique of a gillette advert (Which advert?)

snips:
She says: there is no way of talking about male violence with out men going 'but I'm one of the good guys, why are you talking to me?'   .... we never get past that defensiveness ...  what is it that can't be heard? what is it about women pointing to male violence that men cannot hear ...
to which he replies: that's hard for me to get around... are you talking about me being violent? ....what proportion of the violence is male?   (doesn't this prove her point?)

'men are default humans ....  so their crime is seen as default human crime'  ...... ......just for one second try to pretend this is not all about you.  .... there is a problem with a a certain type of masculine conditioning. . .  it gets excused. Women are dealing with a massive amount of trauma it is not acceptable. We want it to stop.   Women can't enforce. It men need to talk to men. 

He gets back to talking about trans rights at 55mins (sorry I have no time to hear the whole thing, now)
NAMNAW etc


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 14, 2019)

Whenever I get the chance I ask my men friends:

When was the last time you had a proper conversation about feminism, sexism, misogyny, gendered products, all that etc?

Some of them will fess up to “never” or “very rarely” or “a really long time ago”. Some admit they’ve never ever had a conversation about it with anyone.

And then if they say “Oh yeah, I do talk about this stuff” I’ll say “And when was the last time you spoke with a man about it? Do you discuss it with your mates?” invariably they admit that they’ve rarely or never talked about sexism and misogyny when men, only with their women friends, sometimes with their sons.

So then I ask them “Please, it’s time for you to be taking about this with each other. Women are sick to death of talking about it and nothing changing. Please talk to each other about this shit; please step up.”


----------



## Miss-Shelf (May 14, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Whenever I get the chance I ask my men friends:
> 
> When was the last time you had a proper conversation about feminism, sexism, misogyny, gendered products, all that etc?
> 
> ...


On the back of a friends comment on facebook on IWD this year about very few people identifying as feminists in UK,  I asked a load of people randomly in my address book,  because I thought 'nearly everyone I know identifies as a feminist'

in that random selection,  which was more female and NB than male,  only one male came back and said 'yes' [and I know he's always said he was a feminist since the '80's],  a few males came back and said 'yes I suppose so...what does it mean,  though?'  and some said they'd never been asked before


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Whenever I get the chance I ask my men friends:
> 
> When was the last time you had a proper conversation about feminism, sexism, misogyny, gendered products, all that etc?
> 
> ...


I think one of the many reasons this doesn't happen is that men often don't have friends at all - or not in the way most women understand them. 

I found this article had some very uncomfortable points to make...

How Men Became "Emotional Gold Diggers" — Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 14, 2019)

I’ve seen that article, maybe even on here somewhere.

I’d agree that a lot of men don’t seem to have men friends. Fortunately, a lot of the men I know do have a good strong close circle of mates, but that’s mainly by virtue of the work they do, not necessarily because they’re switched on well rounded people. It’s an artefact, it’s a necessity, it’s not a result of personal development and emotional health.

Emotional health arises from their work circumstances and the attendant close relationships with men, not the other way around.

ETA It occurs to me that I see more close friendships between working class men and those with less money than between more affluent and middle class men.


And I see a great many men all around me - in other friendship groups, those I see through my work  and connected with my women friends - who are exactly as described in the article. (The husband of a friend did actually say to me, as pointed out in the article “Yeah, I don’t need to see anyone for this: I have a wife”. And for shame, at the time I only saw it as a compliment, not as a sign of anything being wrong.)


My brother is quite a lot younger than his three older sisters (I’m the oldest at 10 years older than he, my sisters are two and three years younger) and he also has a younger sister. As a result he’s comfortable with women. He often laments that the male friends he made at university (in America, where he’s lived since) have drifted away and do not maintain their friendships at all. When our Dad died recently, only one of his male friends made themselves available to him. It was heartbreaking to see.



One of the results of that emotional gold digging thing in the article is that once again, women are unable to act freely; we are tethered to the relationship, to the home, to the family in ways that bar us from our own personal endeavours. If we go ahead and do it anyway the fallout is ridiculous: the house is a fucking tip when we get home, there’s resentment on all sides because of our physical&emotonal attention is being held elsewhere, there’s little or no psychic and physical space for use to write/paint/study/build/make stuff, there is endless interruption and distraction due to demands for food, love, attention, and there’s also sabotage: the unconscious or deliberate intention to get us away from our work and have us turn once again towards the needs of the family. NAMNAW


And for little or no regard, reward, acknowledgement or honour.


killer b  While I’m sorry that you’re feeling uncomfortable about some of the things you’re reading (see, automatic habitual emotional support there...) I’m also really glad that you’re allowing yourself to feel uncomfortable. Too often, for reasons that are either/or/and/also subtle and obvious, men find themselves bumping up against reactions and feelings that make then uncomfortable..... and then they turn away from that, so there is no change. You’re *meant* to feel uncomfortable! Because it’s constricting and stupid! When we feel discomfort, that’s a sign that we need to make some kind of change.







As an aside, now that this thread has gone a bit quiet, I’m wondering if any men are still reading it. That’s not an invitation to jump in btw. It may well be a reflection of my own patriarchal tendencies: if a man isn’t responding am I talking at all...


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2019)

I'm reading with interest.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 14, 2019)

Miss-Shelf said:


> On the back of a friends comment on facebook on IWD this year about very few people identifying as feminists in UK,  I asked a load of people randomly in my address book,  because I thought 'nearly everyone I know identifies as a feminist'
> 
> in that random selection,  which was more female and NB than male,  only one male came back and said 'yes' [and I know he's always said he was a feminist since the '80's],  a few males came back and said 'yes I suppose so...what does it mean,  though?'  and some said they'd never been asked before






Etc.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 14, 2019)

Yep, I'm reading.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> killer b While I’m sorry that you’re feeling uncomfortable about some of the things you’re reading (see, automatic habitual emotional support there...) I’m also really glad that you’re allowing yourself to feel uncomfortable. Too often, for reasons that are either/or/and/also subtle and obvious, men find themselves bumping up against reactions and feelings that make then uncomfortable..... and then they turn away from that, so there is no change. You’re *meant* to feel uncomfortable! Because it’s constricting and stupid! When we feel discomfort, that’s a sign that we need to make some kind of change.


Yeah, I learned a while ago (although I don't always pay attention) that the discomfort is often a sign you should be interrogating something more thoroughly rather than looking away. 

My partner's recent serious illness has highlighted how much I normally rely on her for emotional support - and of course the few friends I have spoken to in her absence are all women. How do you start creating emotionally connected relationships with other men at 41 though? Or how do you change long-standing friendships which rotate around conversations about music and arguments about politics into something more rounded and nourishing? 

(apols if this turns the thread into one about MEN/ME, but I guess the flipside of how to tackle our over-reliance on women's emotional labour is how to help men take on some of the burden...)


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> Yeah, I learned a while ago (although I don't always pay attention) that the discomfort is often a sign you should be interrogating something more thoroughly rather than looking away.
> 
> My partner's recent serious illness has highlighted how much I normally rely on her for emotional support - and of course the few friends I have spoken to in her absence are all women. How do you start creating emotionally connected relationships with other men at 41 though? Or how do you change long-standing friendships which rotate around conversations about music and arguments about politics into something more rounded and nourishing?
> 
> (apols if this turns the thread into one about MEN/ME, but I guess the flipside of how to tackle our over-reliance on women's emotional labour is how to help men take on some of the burden...)




This isn’t a ghetto, and that’s a question that occurred to me too, of course: how do men go about improving  their existing relationship and forming new ones in adulthood.


But look what you did there killer b : you’ve framed that as “how can women help men do things”. When you could have said “Right I’m off to start a new thread” or it could have been phrased “I’d be interested to know a few opinions from women about what men need to think about when starting this work...”

Not having a go, just pointing out how the status quo is so easily maintained.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2019)

I didn't mean to frame it as a question to women - as you said, men are also reading the thread...


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 14, 2019)

I'm reading it. Genuinely reluctant to do anything beyond that.

ETA in terms of posting on the thread, not in life


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2019)

I'm also not sure if it _should_ be a separate thread. Rather it could be an opportunity for men to discuss their side of this equation, instead of simply reading and learning about the women's side. 

I think reading and learning is important, but there is a danger of holding back too much - we should be participating in an active conversation about how we change things, not simply mute nodding along. Appreciate this is a difficult balance to strike though.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 14, 2019)

Okay, so what is it that you feel that y’all need in order to develop better healthier friendships with your mates?

What’s getting in the way of open honest emotional exchanges with your men friends?

In what ways is it difficult to start new friendships?

What would you like your friendships with men to be like?


----------



## xenon (May 14, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Whenever I get the chance I ask my men friends:
> 
> When was the last time you had a proper conversation about feminism, sexism, misogyny, gendered products, all that etc?
> 
> ...



Another bloke reading.

TBH I don't really have conversations IRL like that with anyone. Not in that proper conversation way. Quite probably my life is a bit disfunctionaal on some levels, maybe it's the norm... it is what it is. I do argue / put my opinion out there if a mate says something I consider to be a bit off, sexist, biggotted etc. That's just part of not wanting to be associated as in agreeing with it, feeling wound up because you haven't stood up for something. Not to say that I'm the enlightened one and beyond reproach. More that IME it's unusual for someone in my circle of friends / aquaintences to broach political subjects like this.

/withdraws to the gallery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> We've got to 'ugly women are lucky because men will still pay to put their penis in them' already?



Men who pay for sex are far uglier.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> For the record, from what I read about UBI, I believe the trial had run its course, as opposed to that it had "failed" as such.  That finding we were talking about earlier being that, unsurprisingly, stopping hassling people about getting a job does not in itself lead to them getting a job.
> 
> More interestingly to me (and the journalism could equally have been framed as such), it suggests that the only result of hassling people to get a job is making them unhappy and creating costly bureaucracy.



Bureaucracy's aim is not to create efficient, helpful systems, it's to perpetuate itself, and to increase its hold on power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

Supine said:


> Companies are very conscious about their public appearance. This is a way (one of the ways) that things can hopefully improve the situation.  Name and shame



Even better when it's a big company that makes a massive deal about its own "corporate social responsibility". Shell have kicked themselves in the arse more than a few times on this - make a big deal (for which read "massive advertising spend") about what they're doing for the "little people", then get caught fucking over women employees in terms of equal pay.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I do see it as different. Yes there is obscene inequality in the world and its something thats needs to change. But I don't accept we need to solve the issue of the inequalities of global capitalism before we can can consider why whether the man sitting next to us at work gets paid more than we do.



Start local, act global.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Okay, so what is it that you feel that y’all need in order to develop better healthier friendships with your mates?
> 
> What’s getting in the way of open honest emotional exchanges with your men friends?
> 
> ...


these are big and chewy questions. I'll give them some thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

seventh bullet said:


> Nope.  I was talking about _my_ experience of posting here over many years, and being many times on the receiving end of such arguments, feeling intimidated, being punched and pounded into the ground and humiliated,  spending days, weeks licking my wounds, and following from killer b's post about pulling theory rank.  And don't presume to know anything about me, although being patronised and condescended to, being told what you think...



You started as an impressive, erudite poster - something some long-departed _arschloche_ didn't like - and came out the other side even more so. 



> ...indeed being told what you're capable of thinking  is something you have to put up with when you're from a poor, uneducated working class background.



Which makes showing someone that their arguments hold no water, even sweeter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> The problem for me with saying that everything is structural and the only answer is to undo capitalism... is that as kabbes has said, that’s going to take a good while.  In the meantime, In actually quite short timescales, working within capitalism, advances have been made.
> 
> Some oppressed groups have been helped by changes that weren’t about undoing the whole structure.  Now those changes have often only benefitted some sections of the oppressed group... but not always and that doesn’t make them meaningless anyway.



I've been having a running argument for over a year now, with a Momentum/Alliance for Workers Liberty member, who insists that structural change NOW should be the only political ambition/target for Labour in govt. He can't understand why relatively "local", or even basic grassroots community change sets an example that can bring about change. Yes, it's long-termist, and no, it doesn't bring down capitalism, but most of these ideologues haven't thought through the consequences of dismantling capitalism "overnight" as opposed to dismantling it slowly. Personally, I prefer the route that doesn't see people in developing countries possibly starving. I prefer the route that gives people the tools and training to look after themselves, to self-govern without an intermediary "ruling class".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

TopCat said:


> What a cunt.



Bet you've got a goatee, or have had one in the past.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Why?



He thinks he's hypocrisy-hunting.


----------



## sojourner (May 14, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> at 30 mins they start talking about his critique of a gillette advert (Which advert?)


friendofdorothy  - the advert was this Gillette #MeToo razors ad on 'toxic masculinity' gets praise – and abuse  and eventually got pulled due to the massive negative (male) reaction.  

It's been replaced now by one that features a young white m/c male, with a voiceover saying 'Don't be intimidated by him... by her...by them...', relating to a male boss figure, a young woman in the gym, and a queue of Asian blokes outside a club. This advert is hugely fucking offensive, in so many ways, but yet replaced the one that was really positive


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (May 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm also not sure if it _should_ be a separate thread. Rather it could be an opportunity for men to discuss their side of this equation, instead of simply reading and learning about the women's side.
> 
> I think reading and learning is important, but there is a danger of holding back too much - we should be participating in an active conversation about how we change things, not simply mute nodding along. Appreciate this is a difficult balance to strike though.


I think the real point is that it's not all that useful for men to discuss these things with women. It would be useful if they discussed it with each other and their sons etc...
I've said it before but I'll say it again, men can see just as plainly as we can how their conditioning around masculinity affects them and their relationships. You lot need to start fixing it.
Discussing it with other oppressed groups will help you further your understanding (so let's have a conversation, feminists can learn from it too and we have a vested interest if we are raising men, so let's talk) but to start fixing it you need to be starting the threads, having awkward conversations and challenging yourselves


----------



## mango5 (May 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm also not sure if it _should_ be a separate thread. Rather it could be an opportunity for men to discuss their side of this equation, instead of simply reading and learning about the women's side.
> 
> I think reading and learning is important, but there is a danger of holding back too much - we should be participating in an active conversation about how we change things, not simply mute nodding along. Appreciate this is a difficult balance to strike though.


It absolutely is worthy of a new thread. 
It's certainly not a useful digression any more on a thread about the paucity of feminism threads. As we can see, 'reading and learning' about women's perspective is not a simple skill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2019)

trashpony said:


> You’re either a fucking slag/an ugly bitch or a lesbian when you turn down a bloke  I don’t know why lesbian is said in the same breath as insults either. Weird isn’t it?
> 
> And actually there is a relief in getting older that my days of the sort of experiences that Looby describes are behind me (plus I don’t really go out anymore).
> 
> But it is so wearing. When you’re out with your friends and you see a man coming over and you don’t know if he’s going to smile and turn away when you say thanks but no thanks or if you’re going to get a mouthful of abuse or worse. You can never really relax; you’re always slightly on guard.



Some men have never been faced with being told "no". The petulance and anger is usually a result of this, with a bit of "this is what it's 'manly' to do" thrown in. Childish, dangerous idiots, the lot of them.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

mango5 said:


> It absolutely is worthy of a new thread.
> It's certainly not a useful digression any more on a thread about the paucity of feminism threads. As we can see, 'reading and learning' about women's perspective is not a simple skill.


Oh, I dont think it isn't worthy of a new thread - but I got the impression  that more male contributions to this thread was wanted and I thought that might be a good way of helping them engage. I appreciate it's a difficult thing to balance though, so maybe not.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 15, 2019)

There's an aside here too... The constant battle women face to be heard, and to not to be dismissed, nor their feelings of distress 'splained away or taken as an attack on the men who hold power over us has some very serious consequences.

The distress women face (and is sometimes/often caused by men - my cptsd certainly was) feeds all the way back into how they are treated when it comes to mental health and psychiatry (often at the hands of men).

This tweet popped into my feed the other day (massive content warning for suicide, overdosing, and psychiatric abuse)

Read it and weep about how women are "treated".



The worst medical treatment I've had is psychiatric treatment at the hands of men (the psychiatric field is particularly negligent of women) and some of the best treatment I had was with clinical psychologists (all female).

And this is out of all medical treatment (not just mental health).


----------



## mango5 (May 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> Oh, I dont think it isn't worthy of a new thread - but I got the impression  that more male contributions to this thread was wanted and I thought that might be a good way of helping them engage. I appreciate it's a difficult thing to balance though, so maybe not.


Of course male contributions to the main topic of the thread - Feminism - are welcome.  The point is that feminism and related topics are worthy of _lots more _discussion, but it seems to me that good contributions to thread are not ones which substantially change the subject (especially to a male perspective).  Hence spin-off threads such as Feminism and a world designed for men and Feminism and the Gender Pay Gap. FWIW I was sorry that male posters didn't/don't engage more with the idea of Default Man
(edited for linkfail)


----------



## SheilaNaGig (May 15, 2019)

A podcast about the ongoing legacy of the witch hunts on modern women.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/201...u-on-the-suppressed-truth-behind-witch-hunts/



It’s about 45 minutes with Max Dashu, who writes about suppressed histories with a particular focus on gender. She talks about how the witch hunts impact on current issues around women’s speech, sexuality, and other matters.



About Max Dashu


----------



## Balbi (May 15, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Of course male contributions to the main topic of the thread - Feminism - are welcome.  The point is that feminism and related topics are worthy of _lots more _discussion, but it seems to me that good contributions to thread are not ones which substantially change the subject (especially to a male perspective).  Hence spin-off threads such as Feminism and a world designed for men and Feminism and the Gender Pay Gap. FWIW I was sorry that male posters didn't/don't engage more with the idea of Default Man
> (edited for linkfail)



Maybe a few of us should bugger off over there and continue the discussion killer b has the beginnings of, because yeah - that's a talk I'd like to have.

(also, bugger off used in a friendly context here and not an aggressive one, just to be clear )


----------



## mango5 (May 16, 2019)

You could start the spin-off thread *and* continue to read, contemplate, question, learn and contribute to this thread.  Please don't bugger off, you can do both.


----------



## JudithB (May 16, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> A podcast about the ongoing legacy of the witch hunts on modern women.
> 
> PODCAST: Max Dashu reveals the suppressed truth behind the witch hunts (and the implications for women today)
> 
> ...




That was really interesting. Thanks for posting. 

"Take her, not me!" We still see a lot of that behaviour these days


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> Yeah, I learned a while ago (although I don't always pay attention) that the discomfort is often a sign you should be interrogating something more thoroughly rather than looking away.
> 
> My partner's recent serious illness has highlighted how much I normally rely on her for emotional support - and of course the few friends I have spoken to in her absence are all women. How do you start creating emotionally connected relationships with other men at 41 though? Or how do you change long-standing friendships which rotate around conversations about music and arguments about politics into something more rounded and nourishing?
> 
> (apols if this turns the thread into one about MEN/ME, but I guess the flipside of how to tackle our over-reliance on women's emotional labour is how to help men take on some of the burden...)


I like your honesty.

I still say it would be worth starting your own thread on this. I'd love to hear men what men have to say on this.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

Perhaps - although the thing about stuff like that is that it feels a hell of a lot easier and less exposing to talk about it on ongoing threads than starting a whole new one. I don't have the capacity atm for various reasons, so while I understand it's not quite appropriate for this one I'm not going to start another right now.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2019)

I had 2 younger female family members staying over, and we had one of those heart to heart conversations about feminism. It was truly depressing - they have to put up with exactly the same shit from random men I had to put up 30 years ago.

One who is a MSc student has been told a lab is no place for a 'girl'
The other was grabbed in a sexual way while she was working filming in a club.
They have both encountered everday sexism of men commenting on their appearance in unwelcome/inappropriate ways, especially when exercising.

depressing.

oh and they have been told to 'cheer up love too'


----------



## trashpony (May 16, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I had 2 younger female family members staying over, and we had one of those heart to heart conversations about feminism. It was truly depressing - they have to put up with exactly the same shit from random men I had to put up 30 years ago.
> 
> One who is a MSc student has been told a lab is no place for a 'girl'
> The other was grabbed in a sexual way while she was working filming in a club.
> ...


It never fucking stops. Nothing has changed for the better for women since I was young. There's a bit of fiddling while Rome burns stuff but that's about the sum of it. Gender pay gap! Isn't it awful. Things continue.   Me Too movement! Men increasingly raping and killing women in sex games 'gone wrong' defences. Things continue.   Gender expectations are really harmful for women and men! The proliferation of Princess t-shirts is joined by Strong little man ones. 

Etc


----------



## kabbes (May 17, 2019)

The whole movement seemed to stall right about the time the marketing gurus convinced the world that the Spice Girls somehow represented the epitome of feminism.  I would say that was the moment capitalism really worked out how to monetise feminism directly, rather than just hijack it as a way to double the workforce.  It’s been two steps forward, two steps back since that point.


----------



## Manter (May 17, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Okay, so what is it that you feel that y’all need in order to develop better healthier friendships with your mates?
> 
> What’s getting in the way of open honest emotional exchanges with your men friends?
> 
> ...


This is really interesting. TN has a load of friends from primary school. He used to see them all a couple of times a week because they were all Hull boys living in London. Then weddings, babies, loads moved out of London.... and now he will say he has no friends. Because he doesn’t know how to maintain relationships that aren’t face to face at the football every week, I guess.

But what he will then do is say to me that he ‘needs me’ to help him with emotional stuff. Which I sometimes do because we are in a long term relationship, but sometimes I just don’t have the emotional energy to take on one more person’s shit. But I won’t say ‘not my circus, not my monkey’ and instead do that ego dance spanglechick describes.

(Worth saying he would never ever ever be violent to me- but his anger can still be intimidating. He’s over 6ft, shoulders half as wide again as mine... I don’t know that many men know how much their physicality can intimidate)


----------



## Manter (May 17, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> There's an aside here too... The constant battle women face to be heard, and to not to be dismissed, nor their feelings of distress 'splained away or taken as an attack on the men who hold power over us has some very serious consequences.
> 
> The distress women face (and is sometimes/often caused by men - my cptsd certainly was) feeds all the way back into how they are treated when it comes to mental health and psychiatry (often at the hands of men).
> 
> ...



Problem with that inquest thread is that a lot of what he says is true. There can also be power imbalance, potentially poor practice, etc etc- but if someone is coming in more than 10x a year claiming to have overdosed, absconds without treatment but suffers no ill effect, it isn’t sexist to note there is something else going on. And it says they always attempted to treat what she said had happened before she absconded.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2019)

Manter said:


> This is really interesting. TN has a load of friends from primary school. He used to see them all a couple of times a week because they were all Hull boys living in London. Then weddings, babies, loads moved out of London.... and now he will say he has no friends. Because he doesn’t know how to maintain relationships that aren’t face to face at the football every week, I guess.
> 
> But what he will then do is say to me that he ‘needs me’ to help him with emotional stuff. Which I sometimes do because we are in a long term relationship, but sometimes I just don’t have the emotional energy to take on one more person’s shit. But I won’t say ‘not my circus, not my monkey’ and instead do that ego dance spanglechick describes.
> 
> (Worth saying he would never ever ever be violent to me- but his anger can still be intimidating. He’s over 6ft, shoulders half as wide again as mine... I don’t know that many men know how much their physicality can intimidate)


I hesitate to call it laziness, although it must look like that from the outside. But for the most part I think it _is_ a case of the path of least resistance being followed. Remove the easy option - to lean on you - and sure enough he'd find the wherewithal to make connections elsewhere (or possibly immediately rebound onto another woman...).

IME friendships are formed and maintained out of convenience or necessity, and once you're out of your 20s and all your peers (and you) are busy with families and the like, convenience drops away - so it's often only under the pressure of no longer having the convenient crutch of a romantic partner doing the emotional heavy lifting for you that we look elsewhere.


----------



## Manter (May 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> I hesitate to call it laziness, although it must look like that from the outside. But for the most part I think it _is_ a case of the path of least resistance being followed. Remove the easy option - to lean on you - and sure enough he'd find the wherewithal to make connections elsewhere (or possibly immediately rebound onto another woman...).
> 
> IME friendships are formed and maintained out of convenience or necessity, and once you're out of your 20s and all your peers (and you) are busy with families and the like, convenience drops away - so it's often only under the pressure of no longer having the convenient crutch of a romantic partner doing the emotional heavy lifting for you that we look elsewhere.


I also wonder (this is a semi formed thought, may be bollocks) whether straight men with ‘traditional’ backgrounds lean on female partners because maternal love is a formative care relationship; then boys are taught by society to shut emotions away. So the link to emotional care remains mothers, significant women.... dunno


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2019)

Manter said:


> I also wonder (this is a semi formed thought, may be bollocks) whether straight men with ‘traditional’ backgrounds lean on female partners because maternal love is a formative care relationship; then boys are taught by society to shut emotions away. So the link to emotional care remains mothers, significant women.... dunno


I'm sure that's part of it. Also I wonder if the reason women feel an ongoing necessity to maintain friendships outside of their romantic partnerships is because they aren't able to rely on their romantic partners in the same way their romantic partners rely on them?


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2019)

Maintaining a friendship when it's inconvenient to do so usually requires demonstrating that you care about someone else, even if only through the effort it takes. And men are taught not to allow themselves to look like they care about other men.


----------



## Winot (May 17, 2019)

I’ve hesitated to post in this subject because it sounds a bit ‘I’m all right Jack’ but I have made a number of close male friends since my kids were born that I met solely as a result of having kids. And that the trials and tribulations (and joy) of parenthood has been a binding force in the friendships.


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2019)

Winot said:


> I’ve hesitated to post in this subject because it sounds a bit ‘I’m all right Jack’ but I have made a number of close male friends since my kids were born that I met solely as a result of having kids. And that the trials and tribulations (and joy) of parenthood has been a binding force in the friendships.


#notallmen


----------



## Winot (May 17, 2019)

Santino said:


> #notallmen



Another perspective. Sorry if it doesn’t meet with your approval


----------



## Manter (May 17, 2019)

Santino said:


> Maintaining a friendship when it's inconvenient to do so usually requires demonstrating that you care about someone else, even if only through the effort it takes. And men are taught not to allow themselves to look like they care about other men.


I’m not sure that’s true to lots of men. It’s just what that care looks like. The vulnerability bit of it maybe. 

TN has a friend with quite severe depression and issues with his kids and ex wife; one who has a neuro disorder that will kill him slowly at some point in the next decade or so. I know he cares deeply, he discusses what to do to be supportive with me, at length. That support mostly looks like going to the pub or a football match and saying ‘alright mate’ and then offering extended sporting analogies for coping strategies. It’s quite funny and in some ways quite sweet, and there is quite clearly care there.... but it’s not as, dunno, honest and vulnerable as you may see in female friendships.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2019)

Manter said:


> This is really interesting. TN has a load of friends from primary school. He used to see them all a couple of times a week because they were all Hull boys living in London. Then weddings, babies, loads moved out of London.... and now he will say he has no friends. Because he doesn’t know how to maintain relationships that aren’t face to face at the football every week, I guess.
> 
> But what he will then do is say to me that he ‘needs me’ to help him with emotional stuff. Which I sometimes do because we are in a long term relationship, but sometimes I just don’t have the emotional energy to take on one more person’s shit. But I won’t say ‘not my circus, not my monkey’ and instead do that ego dance spanglechick describes.
> 
> (Worth saying he would never ever ever be violent to me- but his anger can still be intimidating. He’s over 6ft, shoulders half as wide again as mine... I don’t know that many men know how much their physicality can intimidate)



The sad thing - to me - is it's not difficult to educate boys into honest emotional labour. My Mum taught my brothers and me to NOT go the "pat on the shoulder is the limit of emotional display" route through example, and through pointing up the problems of bottling stuff up. Her score was 2 out of 3 (older brother is an aggressive wanker who cheated on and stole from his ex-wife). Given that my Dad, until his late 50s, was an emotional void, I can only (and do) praise her.
Mum taught my sister to be well, frankly, wonderful (she's just completed a degree as she's reached her half century). My sister swears like a trooper, but also constantly - and deliberately gives out a vibe that has meant that in 31 years of child-rearing, she's never had to physically strike any of her 7 kids. The only thing they fear is disappointing Mum! They're all emotionally open, because my sister taught them that sharing problems gets them dealt with. I love going to visit her, not least because the kids (5 of whom are now adult) all come and give me a hug, ask how I am, and genuinely mean it. The first time I visited after Ann passed, I spent a lot of time enveloped in hugs while in conversation, because their way of expressing emotion is through physical contact and talking. 

I think that maybe I was lucky to be raised the way I was. Some stuff was still very much a product of its time, but I was never frightened to show any emotion except anger, and that was because I had an uncontrollable temper as a child, so I held onto anger until I could let it out harmlessly, at least until I saw a child psych who helped me find coping mechanisms.

It's interesting what you say about physicality. My Mum always said that we should stand about 2 arms-lengths from a woman we were talking to, unless they moved closer, because that was the polite thing to do. I hadn't realised until now, what she'd actually done was to try to minimise the sense of threat women might feel (as you know, I'm about 5'10", but both my brothers are well over 6'. Older is 6'3", younger is 6'4") from us


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2019)

Manter said:


> I’m not sure that’s true to lots of men. It’s just what that care looks like. The vulnerability bit of it maybe.
> 
> TN has a friend with quite severe depression and issues with his kids and ex wife; one who has a neuro disorder that will kill him slowly at some point in the next decade or so. I know he cares deeply, he discusses what to do to be supportive with me, at length. That support mostly looks like going to the pub or a football match and saying ‘alright mate’ and then offering extended sporting analogies for coping strategies. It’s quite funny and in some ways quite sweet, and there is quite clearly care there.... but it’s not as, dunno, honest and vulnerable as you may see in female friendships.



Not helped by the fact that most media representations of male "closeness" tend to rely on exactly those stereotypes, for as long as I can remember. Emotional honesty and vulnerability - except in extremis - are edited out of the male "experience" in visual media. A media studies paper I read years ago argued that once audio and then visual media were available, they were very good tools to keep women and men in their gender boxes, and to program people for certain roles. We - as western human beings  - may be wiser to the ways of the media, but we're still programmed through it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 17, 2019)

Is this thread public? Who can see it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Is this thread public? Who can see it?



I think so yes. This isn't a private/members forum like others that require a post count is it?


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I think so yes. This isn't a private/members forum like others that require a post count is it?


I thought Politics was open to all, even non-members, and this is lumped in with that


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 18, 2019)

Still deliberating whether to post or not but I deffo won't be doing on a public thread.


----------



## Winot (May 18, 2019)

I’m in Boston and saw this and thought of this thread.


----------



## Edie (May 18, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I thought Politics was open to all, even non-members, and this is lumped in with that


That’s a shame I’d like to hear your pov


----------



## TopCat (May 20, 2019)

Winot said:


> I’ve hesitated to post in this subject because it sounds a bit ‘I’m all right Jack’ but I have made a number of close male friends since my kids were born that I met solely as a result of having kids. And that the trials and tribulations (and joy) of parenthood has been a binding force in the friendships.


Yeah this resonates.  I have life long friendships and some made in recent years. We talk about deep emotional issues all the time, never talk about football or TV or any shallow crap. 
These friendships are always there. They sustain me and remind me never to be too over reliant of GF's or even the relationships with my son and daughter.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Still deliberating whether to post or not but I deffo won't be doing on a public thread.


Why dont we start one in community then,  on what theme did you have in mind?


----------



## JudithB (May 22, 2019)

Hello. I have been on holiday. It looks like I have quite a bit of reading to do, to catch up on the thread.


----------



## mango5 (May 22, 2019)

Hopefully you will also have to read a bundle of spin–off threads for men's responses to this and other related topics, eg ’default man’


----------



## weepiper (May 22, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Hello. I have been on holiday. It looks like I have quite a bit of reading to do, to catch up on the thread.


I'm glad you're back! I wondered if U75 had scared you off


----------



## JudithB (May 22, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Hopefully you will also have to read a bundle of spin–off threads for men's responses to this and other related topics, eg ’default man’


I've just had to do a Scout drop off/Beaver pick up so will spend until Scout pick up, catching up


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 22, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Hello. I have been on holiday. It looks like I have quite a bit of reading to do, to catch up on the thread.


glad you are back - you have given me a good excuse to start to start spin off threads. Amazingly they haven't all descended into shit, yet.


----------



## JudithB (May 23, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Hopefully you will also have to read a bundle of spin–off threads for men's responses to this and other related topics, eg ’default man’


I started reading one of them yesterday evening and I am still catching up.

It is truly a pleasure to have found a group of such intelligent erudite women


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I started reading one of them yesterday evening and I am still catching up.
> 
> It is truly a pleasure to have found a group of such intelligent erudite women


What do you think of the spin off feminist threads?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 27, 2019)

I'm thinking of starting more threads, these are ones I've wanted to start years ago but couldn't face the hassle at the time - what does anyone think of:

feminism - womens bodies, body size, body image 

feminism - clothing, dress and style


----------



## Athos (May 27, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm thinking of starting more threads, these are ones I've wanted to start years ago but couldn't face the hassle at the time - what does anyone think of:
> 
> feminism - womens bodies, body size, body image
> 
> feminism - clothing, dress and style



Whilst I recognise I'm not the target audience for this question, as a man who's enjoyed reading the recent proliferation of feminism threads, I'd be interested in both of those.

Whilst I wouldn't want to start a feminism thread, nor ask or expect anyone else to do so for me, I've often though one on international feminism would be good, too.  And one that looks at the relatively recent push-back against feminism by younger women.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 3, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> What do you think of the spin off feminist threads?


Excellent

I have said this on another thread, I am going to jump back in and therefore risk not knowing the context or nuance of some things stated on the threads as I am finding it difficult to catch up before more is written and discussed. This is all good


----------



## JudithB (Jun 3, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm thinking of starting more threads, these are ones I've wanted to start years ago but couldn't face the hassle at the time - what does anyone think of:
> 
> feminism - womens bodies, body size, body image
> 
> feminism - clothing, dress and style



The first topic is definitely worth interrogating further. The second may take us down the rabbit hole none of us want to fall into

ETA Women are being silenced at incredible rates at the moment, either through expulsion from social media/blogging sites etc, or through fear of being handed to the mob (reminiscent of the "take her, not me" position during the witch trials). This is something that deserves interrogation as a subject. I would value yours and others thoughts on whether this is the place for such an examination?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 3, 2019)

JudithB said:


> The first topic is definitely worth interrogating further. The second may take us down the rabbit hole none of us want to fall into


 I'll start that when I have the energy, thank you for the encouragement. Clothes one might be too 'threads and dreads'



JudithB said:


> ETA Women are being silenced at incredible rates at the moment, either through expulsion from social media/blogging sites etc, or through fear of being handed to the mob (reminiscent of the "take her, not me" position during the witch trials). This is something that deserves interrogation as a subject. I would value yours and others thoughts on whether this is the place for such an examination?


 yes I'm horrified that female mps and such, are getting frequent death and rape threats on social media. How has this been allowed to happen?  New thread _Feminism and the silencing of women_ maybe? please go for it.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 3, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'll start that when I have the energy, thank you for the encouragement. Clothes one might be too 'threads and dreads'.



I need to seek out threads and dreads. 

Bravo on the other conversations you have been starting. (there doesn't appear to be a blowing kiss emoji)


----------



## JudithB (Jun 3, 2019)

I am not sure if I have some wrong permissions or perhaps it is because I have not been as fully engaged as a relative newby should be. Unfortunately I am not being allowed to create a thread called "Feminism and the silencing of women" or "Feminism what can be done to stop women being silenced"

I assume I am not being silenced for asking these questions?

ETA I am going to log off and watch the latest RTD episode. Goodnight from me and goodnight from her


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 3, 2019)

mwah mwah  to you too for getting us going again!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 3, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I am not sure if I have some wrong permissions or perhaps it is because I have not been as fully engaged as a relative newby should be. Unfortunately I am not being allowed to create a thread called "Feminism and the silencing of women" or "Feminism what can be done to stop women being silenced"
> 
> I assume I am not being silenced for asking these questions?
> 
> ETA I am going to log off and watch the latest RTD episode. Goodnight from me and goodnight from her


started for you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whilst I recognise I'm not the target audience for this question, as a man who's enjoyed reading the recent proliferation of feminism threads, I'd be interested in both of those.
> 
> Whilst I wouldn't want to start a feminism thread, nor ask or expect anyone else to do so for me, I've often though one on international feminism would be good, too.  And one that looks at the relatively recent push-back against feminism by younger women.



There's a lot of rhetoric about a push-back against feminism by younger women, but from what I've seen so far - in the media - it's more talked about, as opposed to actually happening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> The first topic is definitely worth interrogating further. The second may take us down the rabbit hole none of us want to fall into
> 
> ETA Women are being silenced at incredible rates at the moment, either through expulsion from social media/blogging sites etc, or through fear of being handed to the mob (reminiscent of the "take her, not me" position during the witch trials). This is something that deserves interrogation as a subject. I would value yours and others thoughts on whether this is the place for such an examination?



I follow a couple of dozen gender-critical professionals on Twitter, nearly half of whom have been banned/expelled for "hate crimes" such as stating biological reality - or in one case, "dead-naming" someone who actually tweeted under their "dead name" (#waxmyballs).
I'm gender-critical, but I don't get attacked - because I'm male. It's blatant silencing of women through the application of institutional misogyny.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a lot of rhetoric about a push-back against feminism by younger women, but from what I've seen so far - in the media - it's more talked about, as opposed to actually happening.



I'm wracking my brain to recall an article I read about how, because women in their 20s in the UK now earn slightly more than men (putative: because of higher academic attainment), many consider feminism an anachronism; it's only when they have/are 'suspected' of being about to have kids (now typically in the early 30s) that the wage gap reverses and widens, that some women become more conscious of inequality (or so the author claimed).


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> I follow a couple of dozen gender-critical professionals on Twitter, nearly half of whom have been banned/expelled for "hate crimes" such as stating biological reality - or in one case, "dead-naming" someone who actually tweeted under their "dead name" (#waxmyballs).
> I'm gender-critical, but I don't get attacked - because I'm male. It's blatant silencing of women through the application of institutional misogyny.


That’s not exactly an unbiased account of what’s happened in every one of those cases, is it?  

The schism in feminism between those inclusive of trans women and those who are not, is an ugly, painful fracture in our sisterhood that is a cause of genuine personal and enduring pain for me and many other feminists. 

Many trans inclusive feminists have left urban altogether because of it.  We have a thread to discuss it on. One which I had to put on ignore because my own emotional distress as while back.  Please, please, I am asking you with my whole heart, can we not reopen these wounds on the new feminism threads?


----------



## CRI (Jun 5, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> That’s not exactly an unbiased account of what’s happened in every one of those cases, is it?
> 
> The schism in feminism between those inclusive of trans women and those who are not, is an ugly, painful fracture in our sisterhood that is a cause of genuine personal and enduring pain for me and many other feminists.
> 
> Many trans inclusive feminists have left urban altogether because of it.  We have a thread to discuss it on. One which I had to put on ignore because my own emotional distress as while back.  Please, please, I am asking you with my whole heart, can we not reopen these wounds on the new feminism threads?


Have avoided feminism discussions here for exactly this reason.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 5, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> That’s not exactly an unbiased account of what’s happened in every one of those cases, is it?
> 
> The schism in feminism between those inclusive of trans women and those who are not, is an ugly, painful fracture in our sisterhood that is a cause of genuine personal and enduring pain for me and many other feminists.
> 
> Many trans inclusive feminists have left urban altogether because of it.  We have a thread to discuss it on. One which I had to put on ignore because my own emotional distress as while back.  Please, please, I am asking you with my whole heart, can we not reopen these wounds on the new feminism threads?



Many gender-critical feminists have left urban too due to those threads, mainly due to being told in very, very angry terms that they weren't trans-inclusive _enough_. I agree with you that it's best left off this thread overall, but I didn't want to leave everyone with the false impression that it's only trans-inclusive people who felt driven out.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 5, 2019)

Not entirely sure this ‘ugly’ or ‘painful’ fracture will ever heal if we all potter along and pretend it’s not happening and don’t actually address it. 

Anyway, saw Budweiser doing stuff for Pride on Twitter with a picture accompanied by the phrase ‘pink for femininity, blue for masculinity’ and I just despair so much. Have we really not moved on from this absolute rubbish?


----------



## Manter (Jun 5, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Not entirely sure this ‘ugly’ or ‘painful’ fracture will ever heal if we all potter along and pretend it’s not happening and don’t actually address it.
> 
> Anyway, saw Budweiser doing stuff for Pride on Twitter with a picture accompanied by the phrase ‘pink for femininity, blue for masculinity’ and I just despair so much. Have we really not moved on from this absolute rubbish?


The whole of pride makes me rage. Corporates sticking rainbow flags on things and making no changes, giving no thought to the issues. But y’know pretty flags!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2019)

Manter said:


> The whole of pride makes me rage. Corporates sticking rainbow flags on things and making no changes, giving no thought to the issues. But y’know pretty flags!


We’re all being encouraged to wear “Ally” badges at work.  Hard-core finance Tories in “Ally” badges.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 5, 2019)

kabbes said:


> We’re all being encouraged to wear “Ally” badges at work.  Hard-core finance Tories in “Ally” badges.



Dear lord.


----------



## Manter (Jun 5, 2019)

Lamppost in a business park. I mean.... seriously.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Dear lord.


I know.  And it’s not even like you can start to explain to them why it’s so horrifying.  I mean, what’s not to like about offering support and acceptance?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 5, 2019)

Manter said:


> Lamppost in a business park. I mean.... seriously.


I got a bottle of Absolut with a rainbow flag on it last year


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 5, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Not entirely sure this ‘ugly’ or ‘painful’ fracture will ever heal if we all potter along and pretend it’s not happening and don’t actually address it.



As difficult as the conversation can get I agree, I also think though that some people clearly feel that they have said all they can and are merely accepting that they disagree, however uncomfortable that disagreement is.

I also think that any man reading this thread who would like to see X, Y or Z threads created to discuss X, Y or Z issue/s need to crack on and create them. Not dump their ideas and preferences here and expect any of us to do the work for them.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 5, 2019)

Might be a bit of reluctance for men on here to start feminism related threads tbh.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 5, 2019)

Pride used to be genuinely empowering, too. I have many happy memories of it, even after it started to get commercialised. 

But this might not be the thread for it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 5, 2019)

> Might be a bit of reluctance for men on here to start feminism related threads tbh.



The sky won't fall in if you do as proven already...

Works of Feminist Theory, Philosophy & History


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 5, 2019)

Patronising much?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 5, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Patronising much?



Well I certainly am not meaning to be.  Equally I could say that this...


> Might be a bit of reluctance for men on here to start feminism related threads tbh.


...implies men are too scared to start such threads for fear of getting 'their heads bitten off' but that would be the worst reading I could have of your post wouldn't it?

That _good will _goes both ways so instead of accusing me of being patronising you could see that my point is a valid one, as proven by the fact a man already has started a thread they wanted to.


----------



## Manter (Jun 5, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Pride used to be genuinely empowering, too. I have many happy memories of it, even after it started to get commercialised.
> 
> But this might not be the thread for it.


Same thing with international women’s day. Email round the firm saying something vaguely supportive about women, no change to the real, structural issues holding us back. Emails from big corporates offering us 15% off stuff they have only persuaded us we need because we are women.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 5, 2019)

Manter said:


> Same thing with international women’s day. Email round the firm saying something vaguely supportive about women, no change to the real, structural issues holding us back. Emails from big corporates offering us 15% off stuff they have only persuaded us we need because we are women.



It's similar, but not the same. Going to Pride used to be a big deal. The first year I went, a huge group of us, we did it as a sort of fancy dress, so that those who weren't out could wear a mask. I didn't wear one but had one as a back-up. Just going was a big statement.

It's good that it's not such a big statement now. It's good that we are genuinely much more accepting of sexualities that aren't straight now. It's a shame that the march itself has become much more difficult to be a part of if you're just a person who happens to be gay.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Well I certainly am not meaning to be.  Equally I could say that this...
> ...implies men are too scared to start such threads for fear of getting 'their heads bitten off' but that would be the worst reading I could have of your post wouldn't it?
> 
> That _good will _goes both ways so instead of accusing me of being patronising you could see that my point is a valid one, as proven by the fact a man already has started a thread they wanted to.


No, that's exactly why I personally am reluctant to post threads. I'm not convinced there'd be much acceptance if I articulated myself badly because I was trying to work something out or didn't know something. Rightly or wrongly it would feel like the firing line. 

That thread Eoin started, it's hardly a topic for debate, is it? "Let's have a list"


----------



## mango5 (Jun 5, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Might be a bit of reluctance for men on here to start feminism related threads tbh.


This thread, entitled 'where are the threads' seems a reasonable place to discuss that.


S☼I said:


> No, that's exactly why I personally am reluctant to post threads. I'm not convinced there'd be much acceptance if I articulated myself badly because I was trying to work something out or didn't know something. Rightly or wrongly it would feel like the firing line.


I hear you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 5, 2019)

S☼I said:


> No, that's exactly why I personally am reluctant to post threads. I'm not convinced there'd be much acceptance if I articulated myself badly because I was trying to work something out or didn't know something. Rightly or wrongly it would feel like the firing line.
> 
> That thread Eoin started, it's hardly a topic for debate, is it? "Let's have a list"



This is urban, people could disagree on the inclusion of certain things on a list too 

Seriously though, is there a particular thread you'd like to start but are concerned about wording the OP 'correctly' ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> That’s not exactly an unbiased account of what’s happened in every one of those cases, is it?



I've made no claim to be unbiased.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Not entirely sure this ‘ugly’ or ‘painful’ fracture will ever heal if we all potter along and pretend it’s not happening and don’t actually address it.
> 
> Anyway, saw Budweiser doing stuff for Pride on Twitter with a picture accompanied by the phrase ‘pink for femininity, blue for masculinity’ and I just despair so much. Have we really not moved on from this absolute rubbish?



Having seen the gamut of their beer glasses identifying "sexualities" which are a combo of sexualities, sexual identities and kinks, I'm not despairing, more "totally fucking bored at capitalism trying to expand into people's lives even more with REALLY shit marketing".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2019)

kabbes said:


> We’re all being encouraged to wear “Ally” badges at work.  Hard-core finance Tories in “Ally” badges.



Fuck me sideways. That sort of thing always has an undercurrent of "...and if you don't wear one, we know where you stand, don't we?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I got a bottle of Absolut with a rainbow flag on it last year



TBF, Absolut have decades of form for leaning into events with their marketing. Annoying, but nowhere near as annoying as a US brewery pushing their piss-weak brew through what is basically shitty pre-event advertising that supposedly illustrates how right-on they are. It's  city.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 5, 2019)

This is a great article on whataboutery: 

Stop asking me ‘what about men?’

(Thanks to sojourner for sharing it)


----------



## Athos (Jun 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> This is a great article on whataboutery:
> 
> Stop asking me ‘what about men?’
> 
> (Thanks to sojourner for sharing it)



The comments =


----------



## Poot (Jun 5, 2019)

Athos said:


> The comments =


Jesus. The comments are *grim*.

Nearly all of them ask what about men


----------



## trashpony (Jun 5, 2019)

Oh good grief, I hadn’t read the comments. 

YEAH but WHATABOUTTHEMEN?? 

The internet is full of bitter incels


----------



## smokedout (Jun 5, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> That’s not exactly an unbiased account of what’s happened in every one of those cases, is it?
> 
> The schism in feminism between those inclusive of trans women and those who are not, is an ugly, painful fracture in our sisterhood that is a cause of genuine personal and enduring pain for me and many other feminists.



Indeed and some men seem to be positively revelling in it, on both sides.  I wonder why?  Can it at least be kept to the existing thread though, as per the wishes of the op.


----------



## wayward bob (Jun 5, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a lot of rhetoric about a push-back against feminism by younger women, but from what I've seen so far - in the media - it's more talked about, as opposed to actually happening.


from my thoroughly middle-aged perspective there's a _massive_ generational disconnect between (committed, dedicated, thought-out) feminist positions, discussions, and solidarity atm.

there's a generational break between second wave feminism (like i was raised in) and modern lib-fem (like my kids observe/subcribe to), and rad-fem that's in fundamental ways unbreachable imho 

i figure one to get ^out from under^ is by getting older. i just feel like i'd really like to offer some help in skirting those hinterlands younger, while you're lining your own stuff up personally.

/grammar, syntax


----------



## sojourner (Jun 6, 2019)

trashpony said:


> This is a great article on whataboutery:
> 
> Stop asking me ‘what about men?’
> 
> (Thanks to sojourner for sharing it)


I got it from baldrick  on this thread  Feminism and the silencing of women


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2019)

Sorry @waywardbob what do you mean?


----------



## Sweet FA (Jun 7, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I got a bottle of Absolut with a rainbow flag on it last year





scifisam said:


> Pride used to be genuinely empowering, too. I have many happy memories of it, even after it started to get commercialised.
> 
> But this might not be the thread for it.


Lil'FA sent me this yesterday:
(She had no idea re: the source film...now got They Live lined up for tomorrow...)


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 8, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Patronising much?


  Ha ha ha! (I'm presuming this is an attempt at humour...)


----------



## Manter (Jun 8, 2019)

I have to say it is good (or at least interesting!) to see this stuff being discussed. Urban has been a bit of a wasteland for discussions on feminism, with some horrible leftie dude-bro stuff going on. Good to see that being challenged.

Most active and ‘lived’ feminism remains the parenting forum


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Manter said:


> Most active and ‘lived’ feminism remains the parenting forum


Understandable since (a) it’s where a lot of the sharp end is met, and (b) politics naturally grows out of personal experience.  But the last thing we want is to ghettoise discussion, not least because about one in five women in the UK will never have children at all, let alone those who haven’t had them yet (or whose children are now grown).  It would be dangerous to present feminism as somehow synonymous with “mothers’ problems” (and dismissible as such to boot).


----------



## Manter (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Understandable since (a) it’s where a lot of the sharp end is met, and (b) politics naturally grows out of personal experience.  But the last thing we want is to ghettoise discussion, not least because about one in five women in the UK will never have children at all, let alone those who haven’t had them yet (or whose children are now grown).  It would be dangerous to present feminism as somehow synonymous with “mothers’ problems” (and dismissible as such to boot).


Thanks for explaining the political implications of current reality that to me 

For those reading who don’t have kids or they have grown up, you are more than welcome on the sofa, and there are many like you on it. You just have to not be a twat and have some interest in the kids and parenting/life issues we chat about.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Manter said:


> Thanks for explaining the political implications of current reality that to me
> 
> For those reading who don’t have kids or they have grown up, you are more than welcome on the sofa, and there are many like you on it. You just have to not be a twat and have some interest in the kids and parenting/life issues we chat about.


But nobody (or as close to nobody as makes no odds — I’m sure the odd person does) without kids is going to take part in that thread.

In fact, you said it yourself.  You have to have an interest in kids.  Why is that a a prerequisite for reading about feminist issues?


----------



## Sweet FA (Jun 9, 2019)

Manter said:


> Thanks for explaining the political implications of current reality that to me
> 
> For those reading who don’t have kids or they have grown up, you are more than welcome on the sofa, and there are many like you on it. You just have to not be a twat and have some interest in the kids and parenting/life issues we chat about.


I use to spend a lot of time on parent/child threads when they were all in n&s. When the parenting forum was set up, and I can't remember why now, I was pissed off. I think I thought that it was a exclusive or ghettoised or something & I stopped reading/contributing. Also that things to do with children weren't all about parenting or something. The sofa seemed to be more of a woman's space so I left it alone. Sulky fucker


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> But nobody (or as close to nobody as makes no odds — I’m sure the odd person does) without kids is going to take part in that thread.
> 
> In fact, you said it yourself.  You have to have an interest in kids.  Why is that a a prerequisite for reading about feminist issues?


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

Boring old women, going on about parenting, can't even discuss feminism in the right place


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Thora said:


> What on earth are you talking about?





Manter said:


> Most active and ‘lived’ feminism remains the parenting forum





kabbes said:


> Understandable since (a) it’s where a lot of the sharp end is met, and (b) politics naturally grows out of personal experience.  But the last thing we want is to ghettoise discussion, not least because about one in five women in the UK will never have children at all, let alone those who haven’t had them yet (or whose children are now grown).  It would be dangerous to present feminism as somehow synonymous with “mothers’ problems” (and dismissible as such to boot).


HTH


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

Nope, doesn't help.  It's bollocks.  It's not a problem, or dangerous, that _mothers _find feminism relevant and discuss it.

Oh god, don't tarnish feminism as something that mothers might be interested in!  How unsexy!  No normal people are going to be interested!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

You’ve missed the point.  A newcomer to the boards interested in discussing feminism couldn’t find that discussion?  Why?  Because it is apparently buried in the parenting thread.  I couldn’t have told you that either.  Nobody could who wasn’t active in the parenting thread.  That’s ghettoising the subject.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 9, 2019)

Not 100% surprising that active feminist discussion might be found in a thread where lots of the participants are women and the men who would otherwise go to shut it down wouldn't even think of clicking on it.


----------



## Looby (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> You’ve missed the point.  A newcomer to the boards interested in discussing feminism couldn’t find that discussion?  Why?  Because it is apparently buried in the parenting thread.  I couldn’t have told you that either.  Nobody could who wasn’t active in the parenting thread.  That’s ghettoising the subject.


Isn’t the point that it isn’t a specific discussion about feminism but that those issues are raised all the time because people talk about their lives on there and it’s relevant to their lives. People on that thread aren’t deliberately having the conversations in a way that excludes others although it’s probably helpful that there are fewer posts telling them they’re wrong. 

Also, the threads appear in new posts so if that’s how you use the boards you can see if there are discussions that you might be interested in joining.


----------



## Manter (Jun 9, 2019)

Looby said:


> Isn’t the point that it isn’t a specific discussion about feminism but that those issues are raised all the time because people talk about their lives on there and it’s relevant to their lives. People on that thread aren’t deliberately having the conversations in a way that excludes others although it’s probably helpful that there are fewer posts telling them they’re wrong.
> 
> Also, the threads appear in new posts so if that’s how you use the boards you can see if there are discussions that you might be interested in joining.


Yes absolutely this Looby. It’s not a thread to debate or educate, it’s a discussion between a load of intelligent men and women about something that is on the front lines of feminism, gender roles, patriarchy, economics and god knows what else. (And it is, basically, mostly, kind- so people can speak, and mess up and get emotional and we all sort of roll with it)
Lived feminism.


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> You’ve missed the point.  A newcomer to the boards interested in discussing feminism couldn’t find that discussion?  Why?  Because it is apparently buried in the parenting thread.  I couldn’t have told you that either.  Nobody could who wasn’t active in the parenting thread.  That’s ghettoising the subject.


You think women should only be allowed to discuss feminism on dedicated feminism threads  as if it's something totally abstract and theoretical and not part of women's actual lives.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Thora said:


> You think women should only be allowed to discuss feminism on dedicated feminism threads  as if it's something totally abstract and theoretical and not part of women's actual lives.


Who said I was trying to say what was allowed?


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

I don't think you know what you're trying to say.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Thora said:


> I don't think you know what you're trying to say.


I’m just pointing out that the *preeminent* thread on feminism being one that is ghettoised (which the parental thread is — it’s about a niche (albeit popular) subject) is not an ideal state of affairs.  Not that it isn’t a natural place to discuss such things (indeed, I agreed it was a natural thing to happen).  Not that it’s not an important feature of parental discussion.  Just that when you reach the point that it is popularly seen as *the* place to go for feminism, that’s less than ideal.


----------



## Manter (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I’m just pointing out that the *preeminent* thread on feminism being one that is ghettoised (which the parental thread is — it’s about a niche (albeit popular) subject) is not an ideal state of affairs.  Not that it isn’t a natural place to discuss such things (indeed, I agreed it was a natural thing to happen).  Not that it’s not an important feature of parental discussion.  Just that when you reach the point that it is popularly seen as *the* place to go for feminism, that’s less than ideal.


It’s not the thread ‘on feminism’. It’s the thread where feminism is lived and breathed, the most feminist thread, the best example of feminism in action.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 9, 2019)




----------



## Manter (Jun 9, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


>


*On these boards at the current point in time


----------



## Thora (Jun 9, 2019)

Parenting is such a niche issue for women.  I mean, you know it happens, but it's so rare to meet a woman who actually does it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 9, 2019)

Manter said:


> *On these boards at the current point in time


no, not that post, just generally


----------



## baldrick (Jun 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> That’s ghettoising the subject.


 Oh please. We're allowed more than one thread on feminism. And frankly, 'ghettoising' the subject to an area where men rarely go is a good thing. We're all really tired of having to explain ourselves.

Fwiw I never go on that thread, but so what, there's plenty of others (now!) I can get involved in. Why shouldn't there be a parenting related feminism discussion?


----------



## Manter (Jun 9, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> no, not that post, just generally


Ah, can’t help with that. Because... yeah


----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2019)

Alright, I’ve said what I thought.  I’ve no interest in arguing it.  If you don’t agree, fine.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2019)

Thought you'd all appreciate this:


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> from my thoroughly middle-aged perspective there's a _massive_ generational disconnect between (committed, dedicated, thought-out) feminist positions, discussions, and solidarity atm.
> 
> there's a generational break between second wave feminism (like i was raised in) and modern lib-fem (like my kids observe/subcribe to), and rad-fem that's in fundamental ways unbreachable imho



I posted this on the Works of Feminism thread. The difference between Liberal Feminsim and Socialist Feminism.. Is this what you mean?

"Back in 70s early 80s it was. Socialst Feminists of that time did deal with some of these issues as part of feminism. Socialization of childcare was one.

Unfortunately Thatcherism / Reaganomics replaced the post war social welfare consensus. So all this went.

More individualist liberal feminism was better able to live with the new neo liberal order. Getting more women into the boardroom as a goal as an example.

Thoughtful article here on the the changes in fortune of socialist feminist ideas. The old socialist feminist ideas are possibly having a resurgence.

Its based on USA but I think relevant .

Also good explanation of the differences and overlap of liberal feminism and socialist feminism.

The Promise of Socialist Feminism "

So I would say for the younger generation the Socialist feminism which was major part of Second Wave feminism in UK is replacing Liberal Feminsim. Possibly.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> One of the things I keep coming back to is knowing that a proportion of the men I know and like and trust, a significant minority of these men have harassed, assaulted, abused women.
> <snip>
> But it leaves us knowing that our fear of “some men” includes those men who are sending us a different story.  And because of that silence, society gets to pretend that these men are rare aberrations.  Men get to pretend that their friend who was acquitted of rape was innocent.  That the men who hurt women aren’t their friends and family.
> 
> The whole lie makes me feel physically sick.


I can't let go of this knowledge either, or the knowledge that some male posters on this site are such abusers. The fear and nausea rise every time they post on feminism related threads. It's a magnificent silencing device


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 20, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I can't let go of this knowledge either, or the knowledge that some male posters on this site are such abusers. The fear and nausea rise every time they post on feminism related threads. It's a magnificent silencing device


hence the need for the Feminism and the silencing of women thread


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)




----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

Desperately seeking light relief


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)




----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

Last one... Probably more for the ‘world designed for men’ thread but better contained here


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 20, 2019)

Also (following on from mango5)


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

On the designer sanitary pads, it's never occurred to me to wonder why superpremium expensive luxury versions don't seem to exist


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 20, 2019)

mango5 said:


> On the designer sanitary pads, it's never occurred to me to wonder why superpremium expensive luxury versions don't seem to exist


does super luxury designer toilet paper exist?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> does super luxury designer toilet paper exist?



It does in Poland. You can get tracing paper type... (like back in the day) or super super absorbant that you pay a fortune for.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> does super luxury designer toilet paper exist?


There's one that's a million quid or something but this I think would be a normal household product for some rich people Hanebisho Luxury Japanese Classic Butterfly Design Toilet Paper

Whereas searching for ”most expensive sanitary pad" shows nothing that special. In fact you're more likely to get things like this Pricey periods: how to save money on sanitary products or stuff about the lifetime cost.
At least toilet roll is taxed as well as sanitary products Archived Petition: Remove the Value Added Tax charged on toilet rolls and make them VAT Exempt.


----------



## Manter (Jun 21, 2019)

I’m not sure where this goes.... Mark Field. 

Violent assault on a woman, caught on film. Terrifying video- I gasped out loud when I watched it. 

And the media is *littered* with people (men) excusing it. 

And that is what women face. Violent public assault, a terrifying level of snarling hatred on the face of a member of government- and  a significant minority saying ‘well, she shouldn’t have been somewhere she wasn’t supposed to be’ ‘what did she expect?’ ‘He’s a hero’ 

The mask slips every so often and I’m horrified by what’s behind it


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 21, 2019)

The most shocking thing about that video is how it lookalike that bloke has done exactly the same before. The ease of motion and muscle memory.


----------



## Athos (Jun 21, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The most shocking thing about that video is how it lookalike that bloke has done exactly the same before. The ease of motion and muscle memory.



Snap. That was the first thing that occurred to me.  Most blokes pause before putting their hands on a woman, even during a fight.  That he so readily did this without missing a beat, with no apparent significant threat suggests to me he's not a stranger to this kind of thing.


----------



## Manter (Jun 21, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The most shocking thing about that video is how it lookalike that bloke has done exactly the same before. The ease of motion and muscle memory.


Yes. Absolutely. His instinctive reaction was to grab a woman by the throat, and slam her against the wall, snarling. I wonder what he does when the cameras *aren’t* watching?


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

Looby said:


> Isn’t the point that it isn’t a specific discussion about feminism but that those issues are raised all the time because people talk about their lives on there and it’s relevant to their lives. People on that thread aren’t deliberately having the conversations in a way that excludes others although it’s probably helpful that there are fewer posts telling them they’re wrong.
> 
> Also, the threads appear in new posts so if that’s how you use the boards you can see if there are discussions that you might be interested in joining.


I am delighted to learn that real lived feminism is alive and well on these boards.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

Manter said:


> It’s not the thread ‘on feminism’. It’s the thread where feminism is lived and breathed, the most feminist thread, the best example of feminism in action.


I may have to seek it out


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

how do you feel about the trans tho judith?? that will really cement your feminist credentials.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

Once again I feel the need to apologise for disappearing. I have been studying feminism via an online course. It has been wonderful and reintroduced me to many feminists I had neglected for a while. The course is in its final weeks and I hope to be more active here once more.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> how do you feel about the trans tho judith?? that will really cement your feminist credentials.


Why is this important?


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

it';s well important if you wanna be considered a real feminist on this site, I didnt make the rules, see TERF thread for more info, thats a thread about feminism. h2h

I sense some hostility off yer post, calm down


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> it';s well important if you wanna be considered a real feminist on this site, I didnt make the rules, see TERF thread for more info, thats a thread about feminism. h2h
> 
> I sense some hostility off yer post, calm down


I think I will decide if I am a real feminist thank you. And yes if you sense some hostility you are not mistaken. 
Back off. 
I don't react well to those I think may be bullies after initial interactions. I do hope I am proved wrong


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

well that's not how real feminisim works is it, the collective decides on whether yer feminist enough by determining whether yer thoughts on 'the trans' is radical enough or you're just pandering to neoliberalism.

I sais I never made the rules.

lol 'bullies' what a joker - you should work on your judgement of people, it's not good to make snap judgements. unless you got paranoia and then everyone is out to get you so working on it wont help


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> well that's not how real feminisim works is it, the collective decides on whether yer feminist enough by determining whether yer thoughts on 'the trans' is radical enough or you're just pandering to neoliberalism.
> 
> I sais I never made the rules.
> 
> lol 'bullies' what a joker - you should work on your judgement of people, it's not good to make snap judgements.


I'm sorry are you telling me what the rules of feminism are? Who are you? What gives you the right to think you can tell me what makes me "enough" of a feminist? Who told you the rules? 
If you are not a bully you very much come across as one
As a feminist I have learned to trust my instincts


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

are you an actual parody?

I thought everyone knew rules of feminism, your position is very unfortunate.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> are you an actual parody?
> 
> I thought everyone knew rules of feminism.


This is the last time I reply to you

I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone else on this thread if I do not want to. I do not want to speak with you as you are coming from a place of hostility. 

Goodbye pengaleng


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

bwarrrrk bwark bwaaark bwaaarrrk

bye, felicia.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> are you an actual parody?
> 
> I thought everyone knew rules of feminism, your position is very unfortunate.


What rules? did I miss the memo too? So what are your rules then?

There are feminists who are not terfs and not every discussion about feminism has to be about trans issues. There are other treads for that.

I'm not sure why are you being so confrontational.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 24, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Why is this important?


trans is the only issue Peng thinks is important maybe?


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

Well that a holiday into stupidity. I am very glad to be back where intellectual conversation is to be had


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> trans is the only is Peng thinks is important maybe?




no; it's just that I get the impression that this is a hot topic among those who are bang into feminism, or is that not the case?

I am not one, you see and was just having a banter regarding this culturally problematic situation. I am sorry that you feel it is confrontational.

no one has really pinpointed any solid rules yet within the movement afaik as a lot of evidence is flimsy and statistics need time to be manipulated. I hope this helps.

regretful regards,

Lil'J

ps- I appreciate you highlighting that not every discussion on feminism needs to be about trans, it really put me in my place.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> no; it's just that I get the impression that this is a hot topic among those who are bang into feminism, or is that not the case?


Only insofar as it encroaches on the rights of the oppressed class of female. But this thread, nor I am certain, is this forum a place where intellectual conversation on the matter can be had. So we'll get back to talking about feminism that is for females over here thanks


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Only insofar as it encroaches on the rights of the oppressed class of female. But this thread, nor I am certain, is this forum a place where intellectual conversation on the matter can be had. So we'll get back to talking about feminism that is for females over here thanks


Umm.  Not sure you get to speak for all of us.  You are entitled to your own views of course, but my feminism is inclusive of my trans sisters, and when I talk, and have talked about feminism, it is from a position of inclusivity.


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

Yes, my feminism includes transwomen too. And sex workers.



JudithB said:


> So we'll get back to talking about feminism that is for females over here thanks



And sorry to pick you up on your language again but it's a bit jarring to see female as a noun used on feminism threads. 

Sorry if this qualifies as cross thread beef...


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2019)

I don't know any feminists who wouldn't include sex workers. I know plenty who think prostitution is harmful to women but none who think the women in question shouldn't be allowed in our gang


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I don't know any feminists who wouldn't include sex workers. I know plenty who think prostitution is harmful to women but none who think the women in question shouldn't be allowed in our gang



I wouldn't call them feminists but they do, and they do exist, sadly. An emerging ugly voice on social media blaming sex workers for the existence of sex work.

edit - no idea about this source but this was one of the first results: Feminism 101: What Is A SWERF? - FEM Newsmagazine (sorry cooking  )


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Umm.  Not sure you get to speak for all of us.  You are entitled to your own views of course, but my feminism is inclusive of my trans sisters, and when I talk, and have talked about feminism, it is from a position of inclusivity.


Define gender to me and then get back to me sister

ETA and then introduce me to trans women who believe cis women have rights that they are going to support us to retain and attain (world wide). I'd be v happy to meet them. The TW I know prefer to be feminist allies


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2019)

Oh well.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

polly said:


> Yes, my feminism includes transwomen too. And sex workers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Females are who females centre. Anything else we centre is out of kindness. Find another rights movement that has to centre any other group before their own. It really is that simple. 

There is nothing wrong with saying we are female, that we still have rights worth fighting for and  please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I don't know any feminists who wouldn't include sex workers. I know plenty who think prostitution is harmful to women but none who think the women in question shouldn't be allowed in our gang



Given a lot in that gang are activly campaigning to take away sex workers livlihoods they probably wont want to join though.

Anyway prob best for its own thread this.


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Females are who females centre. Anything else we centre is out of kindness. Find another rights movement that has to centre any other group before their own. It really is that simple.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with saying we are female, that we still have rights worth fighting for and  please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.



Of course there's nothing wrong with saying we are female. I'm not talking about using the word female as an adjective, but as a noun. It's been adopted by misogynists all over social media - there's even a facebook group called 'Of course you call them females' where women laugh at MRA types. This isn't a trans v GC issue. I'm surprised you don't know about this.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

polly said:


> Of course there's nothing wrong with saying we are female. I'm not talking about using the word female as an adjective, but as a noun. It's been adopted by misogynists all over social media - there's even a facebook group called 'Of course you call them females' where women laugh at MRA types. This isn't a trans v GC issue. I'm surprised you don't know about this.


Trans women are women 

How do we continue to highlight the rights of the subjugated sex that used to be women? We are female and subjugated (or in the UK treated differently if that makes people feel comfortable) because we are the category that can (despite dsds etc etc) produce large gametes. 

I wish it wasn't so, I would much rather we could say women and trans women. But I respect that trans women are women. And in return I ask that they respect that we still have to be able to describe our subjugation.


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Trans women are women
> 
> How do we continue to highlight the rights of the subjugated sex that used to be women? We are female and subjugated (or in the UK treated differently if that makes people feel comfortable) because we are the category that can (despite dsds etc etc) produce large gametes.
> 
> I wish it wasn't so, I would much rather we could say women and trans women. But I respect that trans women are women. And in return I ask that they respect that we still have to be able to describe our subjugation.



Yeah read my post


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

polly said:


> Yeah read my post


I did. Or is there one above it?


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

What do want me to call the sex that is subjugated due to our reproductive capability, or being the only sex that has that capability whether it functions or not?


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> What do want me to call the sex that is subjugated due to our reproductive capability, or being the only sex that has that capability whether it functions or not?



Look, this is a side issue about language and how certain uses of certain words are flags for certain types of people. I find it a bit strange that someone who claims to have been immersing herself in feminist thought hasn't come across this. You can google if you don't like my source because there are plenty of results for this, but here you go - I'm going to eat my dinner now and they will do a better job than me at explaining anyway. I'll be back.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Trans women are women
> 
> How do we continue to highlight the rights of the subjugated sex that used to be women? We are female and subjugated (or in the UK treated differently if that makes people feel comfortable) because we are the category that can (despite dsds etc etc) produce large gametes.
> 
> I wish it wasn't so, I would much rather we could say women and trans women. But I respect that trans women are women. And in return I ask that they respect that we still have to be able to describe our subjugation.



If you want to have this discussion why not have it on the thread that is specifically about that discussion?


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> If you want to have this discussion why not have it on the thread that is specifically about that discussion?


I didn't start it champ


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

I started threads about feminism that political movement that centres females. And I am very proud that I did.


----------



## xenon (Jun 25, 2019)

Transwomen are women but they aren’t female.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I started threads about feminism that political movement that centres females. And I am very proud that I did.



Well clearly some feminists are trans inclusive so if you disagree with that then like I said, there's a thread, which will avoid this one turnig into a bunfight.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

polly said:


> Look, this is a side issue about language and how certain uses of certain words are flags for certain types of people. I find it a bit strange that someone who claims to have been immersing herself in feminist thought hasn't come across this. You can google if you don't like my source because there are plenty of results for this, but here you go - I'm going to eat my dinner now and they will do a better job than me at explaining anyway. I'll be back.


Enjoy your dinner. The simple fact is the class of people who are subjugated due to their producing large gametes is no longer "woman". Trans women ar women, get over it.
Therefore if we need to discuss what that subjugation feels like, is lived in day to day terms, what term can we use? 
If I had started saying cis women I expect it would have been seen as more provocative. 
And there is also the implication that cis women are some how oppressors in trans ideology and I refuse to accept that. 

I do understand what you mean but this is where we are. 

It's not my fault


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Well clearly some feminists are trans inclusive so if you disagree with that then like I said, there's a thread, which will avoid this one turnig into a bunfight.


This is my thread so I suggest you just fuck off out of it and stop trying to make it a bun fight


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> This is my thread so I suggest you just fuck off out of it and stop trying to make it a bun fight



You might not be aware that this issue has caused a lot of upset within urban, which is a site where a lot of people know each other offline and several members have left and friendships broken up because of this debate - on both sides.  So a bit of sensitivity and posting about  it on the thread we all more or less agreed to use to discuss this wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I don't know any feminists who wouldn't include sex workers. I know plenty who think prostitution is harmful to women but none who think the women in question shouldn't be allowed in our gang


Yes I don't think I ever said they would be excluded. 
I do not agree on the statement that sex work is work. I think as I agreed earlier that prostitution is work. But we must never forget it is prostitution. If men were to just throw the money at the woman and not have sex with her I think we can all agree which choice she'd prefer. Women are human beings.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> You might not be aware that this issue has caused a lot of upset within urban, which is a site where a lot of people know each other offline and several members have left and friendships broken up because of this debate - on both sides.  So a bit of sensitivity and posting about  it on the thread we all more or less agreed to use to discuss this wouldn't go amiss.


Well I'm sorry but not on my thread. Fuck off to your so called Terfs are bigots thread. This thread and all the other Feminism threads are for females to talk about their issues. This is not about you


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Well I'm sorry but not on my thread. Fuck off to your so called Terfs are bigots thread. This thread and all the other Feminism threads are for females to talk about their issues. This is not about you



You lot really couldnt give a shit what collateral damage you leave in your wake as long as you get to force this point over andover again could you?  As you were then.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Well I'm sorry but not on my thread. Fuck off to your so called Terfs are bigots thread. This thread and all the other Feminism threads are for females to talk about their issues. This is not about you



I don't think you get to police this or any other threads. We're a community here.


----------



## Poot (Jun 25, 2019)

I'm disappointed tbh. I remember when threads were inclusive and OPs didn't think they were the police.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> You lot really couldnt give a shit what collateral damage you leave in your wake as long as you get to force this point over andover again could you?  As you were then.


Who's you lot? I am one woman asking that we are allowed to centre feminism around female people. 

Funnily enough it was going really well until I was baited into a thread called Terfs are bigots. 

Hmmm...


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

Poot said:


> I'm disappointed tbh. I remember when threads were inclusive and OPs didn't think they were the police.


And I don't think female people get to be policed on what they decide to include in their feminism.

As said above this was all going really well and in fact this thread spawned a plethora of threads.

Then...guess what happened Poot?

Where were the open and honest threads (I will say recently, because I am new) about how life sucks for women? Didnt find any. Where were you all talking in the forum everyone told me was full of dick swingers? Where was the honest and open and frankly really intellectual interrogation of what it is to be a woman now.

And now I come out and say I am critical of gender. Jeesuz every woman should be critical of gender because that is what holds us down.

And now I am the bad guy (ooops am I misgendering myself)

FFS ladies wake the fuck up


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Yes I don't think I ever said they would be excluded.
> I do not agree on the statement that sex work is work. I think as I agreed earlier that prostitution is work. But we must never forget it is prostitution. If men were to just throw the money at the woman and not have sex with her I think we can all agree which choice she'd prefer. Women are human beings.



And yet you've just created a degrading image in your description of a woman having money thrown at her.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> You might not be aware that this issue has caused a lot of upset within urban, which is a site where a lot of people know each other offline and several members have left and friendships broken up because of this debate - on both sides.  So a bit of sensitivity and posting about  it on the thread we all more or less agreed to use to discuss this wouldn't go amiss.


 Just to be clear, I think you mean the terf bigots issue is has caused upset  - not the more recent feminism threads? 

I think it was said up thread somewhere that we didn't want this thread to go down a terf/bigot dark hole. 

Feminism is a very broad movement and not every old feminist is a bigot.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think you get to police this or any other threads. We're a community here.


 Well she did start this thread, so she gets to say what she likes. 

U75 is a community, but a community that likes to argue and say fuck off a lot.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Just to be clear, I think you mean the terf bigots issue is has caused upset  - not the more recent feminism threads?



Yes of course, I mean the trans thread and the many before it which were binned.  I think these threads have been really good for urban.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Yes of course, I mean the trans thread and the many before it which were binned.  I think these threads have been really good for urban.


Right so take that bollocks away from here


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> And yet you've just created a degrading image in your description of a woman having money thrown at her.


Start a thread. These are issue we need to be discussing.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Well she did start this thread, so she gets to say what she likes.
> 
> U75 is a community, but a community that likes to argue and say fuck off a lot.



Saying what you like isn't the same as ownership is it?

The hostility in this case was uncalled for imo. The conflict here co-exists with care developed over time.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

Trans issues do seem to be a hot topic here and maybe on social media generally. But its not the only issue.

What about lack of opportunity / personal & financial independance / violence / the me too movement / body image / media representation / women's rights world wide / etc etc  - lots and lots of other feminist issues to discuss.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Saying what you like isn't the same as ownership is it?
> 
> The hostility in this case was uncalled for imo. The conflict here co-exists with care developed over time.


Then I suggest you look at all of my post pre today and then look at the bollocks thrown at me in the last 24 hours.

You appear to be very apologetic of those trying to shut this thread down. Well done


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

New topic on this thread - why are women scared of feminism that centres females? Why is it almost taboo? This is based on the posts of the last few hours and is *not open to men or men who identify as women (sorry) to comment on*. And it's also not a question asking why those who are not female should be centred. It is simply this...

*Why feminism that centres females is seen as scary (taboo?) these days?
*


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Saying what you like isn't the same as ownership is it?
> 
> The hostility in this case was uncalled for imo. The conflict here co-exists with care developed over time.


Since when did touchy-feely-care-taking happen in the p&p threads? or is care only required in feminism related threads?

I have sensed huge amounts of hostility from lots of U75 people. What care taken over time? or did I miss that memo too? 

(I am of course a relative newbie compared to some so maybe I missed the initial emotional bonding session in the 90s)


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

I don't think you want an honest discussion, I don't trust your agenda and I don't want to talk to you any more. Thanks for starting the threads.

Not friendofdorothy, obviously.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

polly said:


> I don't think you want an honest discussion, I don't trust your agenda and I don't want to talk to you any more. Thanks for starting the threads.
> 
> Not friendofdorothy, obviously.


Bleurgh you are the worst kind of feminist so no loss sweetheart

Hey my last post might be of interest


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB - I don't really understand your last question (post 1166), I'm not sure what you mean.

However it is well established that you can't stop people of all genders from piling into a potiential bun fight.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> New topic on this thread - why are women scared of feminism that centres females? Why is it almost taboo? This is based on the posts of the last few hours and is *not open to men or men who identify as women (sorry) to comment on*. And it's also not a question asking why those who are not female should be centred. It is simply this...
> 
> *Why feminism that centres females is seen as scary (taboo?) these days?*



The retweet of Urban75


----------



## 8115 (Jun 25, 2019)

It's a shame this has happened because this was a good thread. It's a good question where the feminism threads are. I did try to start a feminism thread a little while ago but it was closed down which nobody commented on at the time.

I do think there was a problem with the most feminism discussion being on a thread in parenting which is that it's exclusionary of at least say people with a chronic illness that means they don't have children. Not that it's not a great place to have feminist discussions but I don't think it's ideal as the only space.

I haven't commented much on the feminist threads as they move quite fast so I struggle to wrap my head around and indeed this thread has moved on now already. 

Also I was sulking


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> JudithB - I don't really understand your last question, I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> However it is well established that you can't stop people of all genders from piling into a potiential bun fight.


Why are women scared of saying feminism is for females? Should I delete and rephrase? 

There appear to be a lot of females who are scared to say actually I want to focus on women and women's right even if that makes male born persons uncomfortable.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Bleurgh you are the worst kind of feminist so no loss sweetheart
> 
> Hey my last post might be of interest


Uncalled for. I can see you obviously feel angry about responses to other threads but I think you taking your anger out on others here when challenged reasonably isn’t helpful to you, anyone else, or the thread in general which had until now been robust, interesting, but not delved into unpleasantness.


----------



## Poot (Jun 25, 2019)

8115 said:


> It's a shame this has happened because this was a good thread. It's a good question where the feminism threads are. I did try to start a feminism thread a little while ago but it was closed down which nobody commented on at the time.
> 
> I do think there was a problem with the most feminism discussion being on a thread in parenting which is that it's exclusionary of at least say people with a chronic illness that means they don't have children. Not that it's not a great place to have feminist discussions but I don't think it's ideal as the only space.
> 
> ...


It really wasn't intended (I don't think) to be a feminist thread as such. It sort of grew organically and is mutually supportive. You'd be very, very welcome. Not everyone there has kids. And it's open to men, women, anyone really as long as everyone is respectful. We don't really do robust and confrontational, that's not really its flavour.

I mean, if you sulk you might end up on the naughty step though


----------



## Manter (Jun 25, 2019)

8115 said:


> It's a shame this has happened because this was a good thread. It's a good question where the feminism threads are. I did try to start a feminism thread a little while ago but it was closed down which nobody commented on at the time.
> 
> I do think there was a problem with the most feminism discussion being on a thread in parenting which is that it's exclusionary of at least say people with a chronic illness that means they don't have children. Not that it's not a great place to have feminist discussions but I don't think it's ideal as the only space.
> 
> ...


The parenting forum is feminist out of necessity and there are people childless though choice and involuntarily who are in there, both regularly and sporadically. You’re more than welcome if you’re interested- but it’s like a long interesting chat between intelligent and thoughtful people that occasionally breaks into child chat. Parenting is where we started but it’s not what we mostly chat about.

But we’re not ‘discussing feminism’- we’re living it and working through its kinks and so on on a day by day basis. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that some of the most interesting contributions on the feminist threads are from men who spend a lot of time on the parenting threads 

(And yes I think feminist theory etc threads are a good thing, even if they have flushed out some terrifying attitudes)


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Uncalled for. I can see you obviously feel angry about responses to other threads but I think you taking your anger out on others here when challenged reasonably isn’t helpful to you, anyone else, or the thread in general which had until now been robust, interesting, but not delved into unpleasantness.


Of course, I should just be nice

Fuck off

I started this thread and I repeat again, that if there wasn't a need for threads about the lived experiences of women recognised as philosophical discussions then there would not have been the spawning of threads on this site. 

Females read this thread and felt energised. They are speaking in their dozens, tens of dozens. 

Yes I am angry and the reasons for my anger should be debatable, but they aren't. And if I want to feel and express anger who are you to tell me to be quiet.

Hear me roar sweetheart and dont ever tell a woman to be be nice again


----------



## colacubes (Jun 25, 2019)

Manter said:


> The parenting forum is feminist out of necessity and there are people childless though choice and involuntarily who are in there, both regularly and sporadically. You’re more than welcome if you’re interested- but it’s like a long interesting chat between intelligent and thoughtful people that occasionally breaks into child chat. Parenting is where we started but it’s not what we mostly chat about.
> 
> But we’re not ‘discussing feminism’- we’re living it and working through its kinks and so on on a day by day basis. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that some of the most interesting contributions on the feminist threads are from men who spend a lot of time on the parenting threads
> 
> (And yes I think feminist theory etc threads are a good thing, even if they have flushed out some terrifying attitudes)



As a childless infertile woman I endorse this statement. I don’t post regularly but feel I can absolutely drop in when I want to.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Of course, I should just be nice
> 
> Fuck off
> 
> ...


Oh fuck off yourself and jog on with your holier than thou shite


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Since when did touchy-feely-care-taking happen in the p&p threads? or is care only required in feminism related threads?
> 
> I have sensed huge amounts of hostility from lots of U75 people. What care taken over time? or did I miss that memo too?
> 
> (I am of course a relative newbie compared to some so maybe I missed the initial emotional bonding session in the 90s)



I was talking about getting to know people over time despite conflict and the care that develops towards people when you get to know them not that we need to be pussyfooting around in discussions.


----------



## Manter (Jun 25, 2019)

Poot said:


> It really wasn't intended (I don't think) to be a feminist thread as such. It sort of grew organically and is mutually supportive. You'd be very, very welcome. Not everyone there has kids. And it's open to men, women, anyone really as long as everyone is respectful. We don't really do robust and confrontational, that's not really its flavour.
> 
> I mean, if you sulk you might end up on the naughty step though


And then we’ll discuss whether the naughty step works, general attitudes to discipline, take a detour into bondage, then discuss how much sex we’re having, then whether sex is better or worse or just different after kids, then whether our lives would have been better without kids....


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I was talking about getting to know people over time despite conflict and the care that develops towards people when you get to know them not that we need to be pussyfooting around in discussions.


But we are in the P&P threads. You are ignoring the reputation of them and suddenly asking me as a woman to be nicer in some way. Do you hold the men who posts threads to the same standards?


----------



## JudithB (Jun 25, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Oh fuck off yourself and jog on with your holier than thou shite


No you fuck off


----------



## Poot (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> But we are in the P&P threads. You are ignoring the reputation of them and suddenly asking me as a woman to be nicer in some way. Do you hold the men who posts threads to the same standards?


I think if they'd used the word sweetheart they'd have been torn limb from limb.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 25, 2019)

Well I'd like to thank Judith for starting the threads.

They were needed and necessary, and yes it's no surprise that this thread ended up like this. It's a shame cuz until now it's been really nice hearing about women's experiences and feeling kinship *despite our differences*.

Can't happen to women though.

Send in the MRAs and trolls.

Nice job Urbanites


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 25, 2019)

It was all going so well. Oh dear.  

Perhaps the few pages answer the OP question - that all feminist threads just end in acrimony or in the bin.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

JudithB said:


> But we are in the P&P threads. You are ignoring the reputation of them and suddenly asking me as a woman to be nicer in some way. Do you hold the men who posts threads to the same standards?



What a weird post. I don't expect anything from you, I think you were out of order telling smokedout to fuck off out of your thread. That's not challenging or aggressive argument, that's just plain hostility.


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

. 

edited - bit out of order


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

Poot said:


> It really wasn't intended (I don't think) to be a feminist thread as such. It sort of grew organically and is mutually supportive. You'd be very, very welcome. Not everyone there has kids. And it's open to men, women, anyone really as long as everyone is respectful. We don't really do robust and confrontational, that's not really its flavour.
> 
> I mean, if you sulk you might end up on the naughty step though



Actually, there is conflict there too, we don't always agree and sometimes piss each other off, but it's not brought out into the open very often. I'm not sure if that's a good thing.


----------



## Santino (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The hostility in this case was uncalled for imo. The conflict here co-exists with care developed over time.


Is there any reason why you haven't challenged the hostility of, say, pengaleng or Pickman's in this or related threads?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 25, 2019)

It's called "trashing" apparently. 

The woman who wrote the book "invisible women" mentioned it on twitter today and I think it's quite relevant to what's going on in this thread (and eventually all feminist threads)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 25, 2019)

Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

Santino said:


> Is there any reason why you haven't challenged the hostility of, say, pengaleng or Pickman's in this or related threads?



Well, I have pengaleng on ignore because of their constant hostility.


----------



## Santino (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Well, I have pengaleng on ignore because of their constant hostility.


Fair point.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2019)

The reason I said what I said was because when there's been hostility to me and nobody said anything it feels really shit. It's like a bullying dynamic when there are silent bystanders, the bully expressing the aggression on behalf of the group and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I've pointed out plenty of times when I think someone is being treated unfairly, there's nothing special about this. Not sure why I bother though it must be said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 25, 2019)

Santino said:


> Is there any reason why you haven't challenged the hostility of, say, pengaleng or Pickman's in this or related threads?





friendofdorothy said:


> It was all going so well. Oh dear.
> 
> Perhaps the few pages answer the OP question - that all feminist threads just end in acrimony or in the bin.




It was...but here we are watching the fallout of the same old cut and run in with stink bombs nonsense and wait for a reaction bullshit that we are all so familiar with.

Yes, JudithB has strong opinions that not everyone agrees with however she has been baited and and wound up over days and far too FEW people have said anything about that IMO. It's all too easy to come in and tell HER what she is doing wrong and expect her to conform to the warped personality culture and fear of long standing urban posters and their cheerleaders.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 25, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The reason I said what I said was because when there's been hostility to me and nobody said anything it feels really shit. It's like a bullying dynamic when there are silent bystanders, the bully expressing the aggression on behalf of the group and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I've pointed out plenty of times when I think someone is being treated unfairly, there's nothing special about this. Not sure why I bother though it must be said.




I think on this because you have certain people on ignore you may be missing the dynamics of some of this stuff being played out.


----------



## polly (Jun 25, 2019)

I know it wasn't just about me but she absolutely refused to engage with the point I was making and assumed it was something else entirely. I didn't insult her, but she insulted me. I'm not really  interested in having a conversation with someone who won't listen.


----------



## Edie (Jun 25, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It was...but here we are watching the fallout of the same old cut and run in with stink bombs nonsense and wait for a reaction bullshit that we are all so familiar with.
> 
> Yes, JudithB has strong opinions that not everyone agrees with however she has been baited and and wound up over days and far too FEW people have said anything about that IMO. It's all too easy to come in and tell HER what she is doing wrong and expect her to conform to the warped personality culture and fear of long standing urban posters and their cheerleaders.


Absolutely.

JudithB keep your cool. Keep arguing with incision, and grace, and passion. Oh and polly is a friend 

That’s my advice fwiw 

Actually, one more thing. Red Cat is always scrupulously fair and that deserves a mention. You really are mate, can rely on it I find.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 26, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It was...but here we are watching the fallout of the same old cut and run in with stink bombs nonsense and wait for a reaction bullshit that we are all so familiar with.
> 
> Yes, JudithB has strong opinions that not everyone agrees with however she has been baited and and wound up over days and far too FEW people have said anything about that IMO. It's all too easy to come in and tell HER what she is doing wrong and expect her to conform to the warped personality culture and fear of long standing urban posters and their cheerleaders.



To be fair she came onto the trans thread and posted aoad of transphobic nonsense, called everyone stupid when it didn't go down that well and then came back here to try and pursue that agenda and demanded that trans people mustn't post on her thread in response. I realise she got some shit but she dished a fair bit out as well.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 26, 2019)

Nobody seems to have answered the OP’s question, which is terribly rude.  

I’m not frightened of talking about feminist issues that relate specifically to cis/natal women.  But not all of the subjugation of women is limited to natal women.  None of the trans women I know have any kind of philosophical or practical issue with feminism being about female biology when relevant.  I know those trans women exist, but I think they’re arseholes.   

I’m also not willing to subjugate another oppressed group (trans people) where their oppression is greater than my own.


----------



## Poot (Jun 26, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Nobody seems to have answered the OP’s question, which is terribly rude.
> 
> I’m not frightened of talking about feminist issues that relate specifically to cis/natal women.  But not all of the subjugation of women is limited to natal women.  None of the trans women I know have any kind of philosophical or practical issue with feminism being about female biology when relevant.  I know those trans women exist, but I think they’re arseholes.
> 
> I’m also not willing to subjugate another oppressed group (trans people) where their oppression is greater than my own.


This is what I wanted to say but you have put it so much better than I could. I'm not fond of arguing with other feminists simply because I don't like confrontation irl and I rarely learn anything that way. There are feminists out there whose point of view on trans issues vary from mine but I am massively fond of them. You're never going to agree with everyone on everything and I'd rather enjoy their company.

The very last bit you wrote also chimes with me. I know trans people, I've seen their struggles and I'm sorry because this thread was good but if this is the road it's now taking then I'm not really interested anymore.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2019)

The thread took this road because somebody simply wanted to talk abut feminist issues other than trans things but they were not allowed to do that.  Instead, an individual heavily invested in trans thing apparently above all else just kept on pushing and pushing and pushing until the feminist snapped and lashed out in response.

Some might argue that little scene is the world in microcosm over the last five years.


----------



## polly (Jun 26, 2019)

We've all been talking about other aspects of feminism for weeks, while she was away from the boards. Honestly it's like some of us have been reading a different thread.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2019)

Edie said:


> Actually, one more thing. Red Cat is always scrupulously fair and that deserves a mention.


Just wanted to say I totally agree with this. I've nearly always found Red Cat posts informative, on point and fair. Wish my posts were more like hers.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2019)

polly said:


> We've all been talking about other aspects of feminism for weeks, while she was away from the boards. Honestly it's like some of us have been reading a different thread.


Weeks?  Wow, aren’t we lucky to have _weeks _in which we’re allowed to discuss feminist things without making  it about trans things.


----------



## polly (Jun 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Weeks?  Wow, aren’t we lucky to have _weeks _in which we’re allowed to discuss feminist things without making  it about trans things.



Weeks is the amount of time judithb has been away from the boards. During which time we've been discussing feminist issues other than those around trans people. You know that was my point.


----------



## Manter (Jun 26, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The reason I said what I said was because when there's been hostility to me and nobody said anything it feels really shit. It's like a bullying dynamic when there are silent bystanders, the bully expressing the aggression on behalf of the group and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I've pointed out plenty of times when I think someone is being treated unfairly, there's nothing special about this. Not sure why I bother though it must be said.


Don’t stop speaking out! It’s one of the characteristics I appreciate about you


----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2019)

polly said:


> Weeks is the amount of time judithb has been away from the boards. During which time we've been discussing feminist issues other than those around trans people. You know that was my point.


And how do you suppose your point interfaced with my point that you were responding to?

If feminism discussions always end up with a “but what the trans!” response, there will be a kickback to that response.  That’s not an accusation, it’s just an observation.  It’s happened in this thread, just as it’s happened in so many other feminist spaces over the last 3-5 years.  If people want to look for why there seems to be such anger in the whole subculture right now, they can do worse than to understand this contributory factor.


----------



## polly (Jun 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> And how do you suppose your point interfaced with my point that you were responding to?



I didn't quote you because it wasn't just your point that I was responding to. I am saying that we have managed to talk about many other aspects of feminism recently and I think we can continue to do that. There even discussions taking place right now on other feminist threads that have nothing to do with trans people. We (all of us) seem to have different takes on why last night was the shit show it was, so maybe we should move on and try to return to the mostly informative and interesting discussions we had when judithb wasn't posting.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The thread took this road because somebody simply wanted to talk abut feminist issues other than trans things but they were not allowed to do that.  Instead, an individual heavily invested in trans thing apparently above all else just kept on pushing and pushing and pushing until the feminist snapped and lashed out in response.
> 
> Some might argue that little scene is the world in microcosm over the last five years.



Careful...you'll be accused of whinging soon...


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jun 26, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Of course, I should just be nice
> 
> Fuck off
> 
> ...


The thread is not about you or your opinions, even if you started it. It's not PM or a blog or your personal soap box, it's an open discussion. You are posing questions and positing discussion topics but you are not not leading the discussion in any sense. You're not even expanding on your own views so why should anybody take instruction from you on what to discuss here or how?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2019)

Not wishing to be an after-timer, but I was wondering from the start how long it would take for the mask to slip.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 26, 2019)

What on earth does that mean?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> What on earth does that mean?



It means he is here to further put the boot in because 'he knew all along'


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2019)

*Further* put the boot in? When did I put the boot in before?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

S☼I said:


> *Further* put the boot in? When did I put the boot in before?



Further as additionally, not that you personally have before.

Also I don't think being GC isn't wearing a _mask_. I don't think JudithB was hiding her opinions at any point. Her posts here had a different focus.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2019)

There just seemed to have been a change from "feminists let's unite together" which has led to some enlightening and useful threads to telling people to fuck off (on a message board!) and using belittling language like sweetheart and champ.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

Santino said:


> Is there any reason why you haven't challenged the hostility of, say, pengaleng or Pickman's in this or related threads?


perhaps you'd care to point to this hostility you claim to see from me on this thread, or pop over to the related threads and highlight it for me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

S☼I said:


> There just seemed to have been a change from "feminists let's unite together" which has led to some enlightening and useful threads to telling people to fuck off (on a message board!) and using belittling language like sweetheart and champ.



Oh yes, for certain there has been a change in tone and approach but I disagree that it represents a 'slip of a mask'.  There is context and a direct relationship between how she was being baited IMO.

I'm not excusing shitty behaviour and lashing out btw, I just don't think it's as clear cut as some are making out and I'm not too scared to say so.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you'd care to point to this hostility you claim to see from on this thread, or pop over to the related threads and highlight it for me.



Oh come off it pickman's, you are a cheerleader of it... and no I won't waste my time quoting it and highlighting it. You know exactly what Santino means.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The thread took this road because somebody simply wanted to talk abut feminist issues other than trans things but they were not allowed to do that.  Instead, an individual heavily invested in trans thing apparently above all else just kept on pushing and pushing and pushing until the feminist snapped and lashed out in response.
> 
> *Some might argue that little scene is the world in microcosm over the last five years.*


I agree with the bold bit. But I have a different perspective on the rest. To me at least it was clear that someone joining this forum with a nod towards the name of a gender theorist was going to have a lot of opinions about gender. So my comment about having been expecting her in the trans thread was due to that and a few snippets I'd read. She was on my radar...thought perhaps a troll tbh.

Some people are saying she was baited into joining that thread and maybe she was (I was unaware of the posts here before she joined that  thread btw)but really nobody has to join in any threads they don't want to. Her posts on that thread made it damn clear of her stance. It was also clear she had not read the thread. It made me wonder if she is perhaps more used to mixing in gc accepting circles (mumsnet.. Twitter...a woman's place etc) She has certainly debated this stuff a lot
before _somewhere. JudithB ? Don't like talking about you like you're not here. Please feel free to add your tuppence. _

But that's by the by. The op doesn't own a thread and doesn't get to police who participates. We aren't mumsnet and people are allowed to disagree with gc views.

Nobody gets to tell us we're stupid or aren't feminists if we are trans inclusive. And because a lot of us are, it would go against all we believe if there was a _trans women aren't welcome rule  _on feminist threads.

And that's the microcosm- some feminists want to police who gets to come to women's meetings and some don't. There will be no agreement on this. That much is obvious. Unfortunately the divide in opinion is massive which is why groups are splintering off into for and against lines.

Gc feminists do and can have trans free groups though. That's a fact. But not every women's group has to or wants to exclude trans women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh come off it pickman's, you are a cheerleader of it... and no I won't waste my time quoting it and highlighting it. You know exactly what Santino means.


i didn't ask you to spend any of your time on it. your claim i'm cheerleading it?  all the way from my last posts here on 3 may.  you don't need to 'waste your time quoting it' because like me you know it doesn't exist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't ask you to spend any of your time on it. your claim i'm cheerleading it?  all the way from my last posts here on 3 may.  you don't need to 'waste your time quoting it' because like me you know it doesn't exist.



You know full well that I am referring to posts on other threads too, just like you were. 



> you claim to see from on this thread, or pop over to the related threads and highlight it for me.




But anyway, distance yourself as much as you like, hopefully that means you aren't proud of it at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

Rutita1 just so you don't have to waste any of your valuable time, here's all my posts from before today on this thread. maybe you could cast your eye over them for signs of hostility


Pickman's model said:


> The Abolition of Work
> 
> where i start from on the issue of work





Pickman's model said:


> You have to have something to start with, it's not, as you say, a practical how-to





Pickman's model said:


> yeh, i said it was a starting point. i thought that suggested it wasn't perfect or a blueprint but something to begin with.





Pickman's model said:


> yeh which is why i introduced the link as a starting point, where you (pl.) go with it, up to you.





Pickman's model said:


> also it would tend to place discussion in a sort of ghetto





Pickman's model said:


> To be fair he's rude to everyone without regard for their sex





Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could get 30 feet behind it or at least 30 feet from a computer or mobile





Pickman's model said:


> did you not offer your mum a cup of tea when you were making one for yourself?





Pickman's model said:


> it's not really tho is it. the great majority of men under feudalism or capitalism haven't and don't really get much chance to control or own what they want. yeh i'll grant you that of the beneficiaries of capitalism the majority are men. but i think it a superficial and facile comment to say 'the essence of being a man (as a gender expectation) is being entitled to control of own anything he desires'. gender expectations differ in time and place - not to mention in terms of power. it's like the nonsense that there's one unchanging human nature, on the surface attractive and plausible but it's like smoke as you try to grasp it, it slips away in a hundred different directions.





Pickman's model said:


> a subliminal message is girls cut themselves less frequently (16 plasters) than boys do (20 plasters)





Pickman's model said:


> yeh i bet they are





Pickman's model said:


> if capitalism and feudalism are natural consequences of the gender expectation of being a man as santino suggests, then it is perplexing that such systems have evolved in which so few men have the wherewithal to compel other men, and indeed women too, to their bidding. yeh, the question you raise is a good one - where does this expectation come from? i don't believe it is innate but rather culturally constructed. this doesn't mean that it is necessarily transient - it may be what the annales historians might have seen as a _longue duree _phenomenon, something which came into effect a very long time ago and has developed since then, perhaps emerging around the time people in the middle east stopped being nomads (this is just a suggestion and not an actual argument i'm proposing).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

Clair De Lune said:


> I agree with the bold bit. But I have a different perspective on the rest. To me at least it was clear that someone joining this forum with a nod towards the name of a gender theorist was going to have a lot of opinions about gender. So my comment about having been expecting her in the trans thread was due to that and a few snippets I'd read. She was on my radar...thought perhaps a troll tbh.
> 
> Some people are saying she was baited into joining that thread and maybe she was (I was unaware of the posts here before she joined that  thread btw)but really nobody has to join in any threads they don't want to. Her posts on that thread made it damn clear of her stance. It was also clear she had not read the thread. It made me wonder if she is perhaps more used to mixing in gc accepting circles (mumsnet.. Twitter...a woman's place etc) She has certainly debated this stuff a lot
> before _somewhere. JudithB ? Don't like talking about you like you're not here. Please feel free to add your tuppence. _
> ...



Good, reasoned post Clair De Lune


----------



## Edie (Jun 26, 2019)

JudithB is cool, it’s nice to have a new woman along with fire and passion and new ideas and kick us all up the arse  I have much enjoyed the feminist thread explosion.

Judith’s opinions about trans are her own, and she can hold them whilst *also* genuinely wanting to discuss a whole host and range of other frankly more important and pressing feminist issues. 

The trans thing is a bit of a side show for me anyway, the unpaid labour and mental load and domestic powerlessness and femicide (2 women a week, may you rest in peace whilst I take your battle on), are the fucking issues for me. Fuck the trans issue.

Judith got baited by penaleng into the trans thread, then the super-weird penaleng/Pickmans bullying sideshow ground into action (with new added elbows). So much so fucking dull. 

Personally I think it’s all good with respect to the feminist threads. Maybe Judith has had to accept that the threads aren’t ‘hers’ once they’re kicked off, but other than that let’s crack on with the feminist discussions


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You know full well that I am referring to posts on other threads too, just like you were.


i know full well you're on a sticky wicket with this one. perhaps Santino will pop by and help you out.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 26, 2019)

Edie said:


> JudithB is cool, it’s nice to have a new woman along with fire and passion and new ideas and kick us all up the arse  I have much enjoyed the feminist thread explosion.
> 
> Judith’s opinions about trans are her own, and she can hold them whilst *also* genuinely wanting to discuss a whole host and range of other frankly more important and pressing feminist issues.
> 
> ...



Well said Edie.  Can't we all ignore the silly sniping of Pengaleng?


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2019)

S☼I said:


> There just seemed to have been a change from "feminists let's unite together" which has led to some enlightening and useful threads to telling people to fuck off (on a message board!) and using belittling language like sweetheart and champ.


Not very ladylike.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2019)

Santino said:


> Not very ladylike.


That's not my point. Suspect you know it, too.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 26, 2019)

love it when I'm talked about and over exaggerated.

mmmmmmm delicious notoriety of a TERF slayer. 

you're welcome.


----------



## campanula (Jun 26, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> love it when I'm talked about and over exaggerated.


 mostly ignored as it is substanceless shouty drivel


----------



## mango5 (Jun 26, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you'd care to point to this hostility you claim to see from me on this thread, or pop over to the related threads and highlight it for me.


You do seem to like a lot of posts illustrating women's failure to live up to an idealised standard of universal sisterhood.


----------



## andysays (Jun 26, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> love it when I'm talked about...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> You do seem to like a lot of posts illustrating women's failure to live up to an idealised standard of universal sisterhood.


if the best support you can offer to santino's claims of my hostility are posts you don't like that i've liked then the entire flim-flam house of cards hostility nonsense collapses.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 26, 2019)

No worries, we see you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> No worries, we see you


yeh and i see you, someone who'll be all hail and well met in person but who'll be quite different on the boards for no reason i can tell - certainly i've said nothing in any of my posts on any of the feminism threads to warrant the beef you seem to have cooked up. there's a song  by the wolfe tones, 'quare things in dublin' which ends with the injunction never trust someone who has more than one face. and you certainly seem to.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 26, 2019)

I saw your niftily edited post about my nice parties back in 2004/5 and how disappointed you are that I haven't lived up to my IRL friendly presence on these threads.  Get over it sunshine, move with the times.

eta in the context of these threads, are you _really_ surprised that a woman might be less emollient and more likely to engage in an argument online than in a face-to-face social situation?


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2019)

I heard even you are less of a bellend in the flesh tbf pickmans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I saw your niftily edited post about my nice parties back in 2004/5 and how disappointed you are that I haven't lived up to my IRL friendly presence on these threads.  Get over it sunshine, move with the times.
> 
> eta in the context of these threads, are you _really_ surprised that a woman might be less emollient and more likely to engage in an argument online than in a face-to-face social situation?


go on then, let's have some argument rather than the dishonest goalpost-shifting bollocks you've been serving up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2019)

killer b said:


> I heard even you are less of a bellend in the flesh tbf pickmans.


don't believe everything you hear. i hadn't a bad thing to say about mango5, our paths rarely crossed, until she started pursuing some strange beef with me on the design thread for reasons i don't know and which have nothing obvious to do with the cut and thrust of debate. have a look at it, and then perhaps you might see my pov.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2019)

killer b said:


> I heard even you are less of a bellend in the flesh tbf pickmans.


If it were the other way round, he’d long since have been confined to solitary


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

So where were we? 

"Feminism - the radical notion that women are human beings" Marie Shear

Funny that


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> mmmmmmm delicious notoriety of a TERF slayer.


PS In your dreams


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

And just to clarify for those who picked up on my name. I think Judith Butler and Queer Theory is a load of incomprehensible (for a reason) bollox. I am happy to defend this position as I am happy to defend my trans sisters and brothers.

However, I have spent my life defending and protecting women and nothing will stop me standing up for the female of our species. So if certain rights are perceived as wants that females currently have, I will interrogate. If this winds people up, so be it. 

Now let's talk about sex...the female sex...baby


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 26, 2019)

That's it isn't it? Deep nonsense/delusion.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 26, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Now let's talk about sex...the female sex...baby





Favourite song of my tween yooof


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> That's it isn't it? Deep nonsense/delusion.


Just total absolute pseudo intellectual bollocks. Follow queer theory to it's conclusion and everyone is queered no matter their sex, ability, age. FFS. Get a grip world and read some Dworkin


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Favourite song of my tween yooof



You had me at hello


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 26, 2019)

JudithB said:


> You had me at hello



TRUEFACT

My mum told me off to singing this to my brother because she thought I had learnt it from my dad/schoolmates. My dad was an abusive sexist arsehole, and my schoolmates were being brought upin the neolib class counciousless era of the late 80s.

My mum was brought up in communist Hungary.

I was told off from singing this song, because my mum never believed it was an actual song. She thought I was singing about sex - the action - which she thought I'd got from my dad's pornomags. At 10 years old! How liberating.

Truth is my dad used to leave those mags ready to find from a much younger age.

Then, one day, my aunt and I listened to the song in Hungary 6 months later (it just came on the radio), driving to my cousins, and I was vindicated.  Clearly, the song existed rather than me making it up to wind my little brother up. I wasn't a prervy 10 year old anymore... I was a young girl listening and understanding the critique of sex based realities.

It's one of the only times my mum "let me off" and the only time my dad got pissed off for his sexism being scuppered.

My mum was like "ahh sex... Not sex" (reproductive capacity and political meaning thereof not just banging each other and playboy masculinity and femininity)

And my dad was like "ahh... Fuck"

Fuck my dad. He is an arsehole.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 26, 2019)

I'm only liking your post right now because it's bedtime. And I intend to come answer you fully tomorrow. 
xxx


----------



## Balbi (Jun 26, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Just total absolute pseudo intellectual bollocks. Follow queer theory to it's conclusion and everyone is queered no matter their sex, ability, age. FFS.



Yes, as if socialisation and classification and expectation are detrimental impositions by society, culture and power upon individuals and groups and the conflict between our understanding of ourselves and the expectation of what we should be (fueled by denying it in the face of an overwhelming and oppressive expectation and policing of these expectations) causes immense personal, social and cultural problems. 



> Get a grip world and read some Dworkin



Oh, no thanks.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 26, 2019)

polly said:


> Weeks is the amount of time judithb has been away from the boards. During which time we've been discussing feminist issues other than those around trans people. You know that was my point.



That's unfair. It wasn't JudithB returning that changed the tone of this thread, it was certain people baiting her with cross-thread beef. I don't think JudithB's response was the best, TBH, but it was a _response, _not the cause of the change.


----------



## polly (Jun 26, 2019)

scifisam said:


> That's unfair. It wasn't JudithB returning that changed the tone of this thread, it was certain people baiting her with cross-thread beef. I don't think JudithB's response was the best, TBH, but it was a _response, _not the cause of the change.



I don't think I said she was solely responsible. Obviously she's partly responsible but that wasn't my point in the post you quoted. I was trying to say that it isn't at all true that we can't talk about feminism without talking about trans people, as some were claiming (this is a very effective silencing device by the way). (And the joke is that I wasn't even trying to at the time but she wilfully ignored what I was trying to say.) As evidenced by the fact that we have been doing so since all these threads were started. She came back, it's a matter for debate whether she was baited or not (dunno why everyone is painting her as a victim, wasn't my take on it, but whatever) and now here we are. 

I was enjoying the threads until now - I thought we'd done quite a good job of being civil on the whole, despite our differences on lots of things - but now it's become really unpleasant and hostile, and all the potential for interesting conversation seems to be over. So I don't think I'm going to post on this thread any more. 

Love you, obviously, Sam and I'll see you elsewhere.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 26, 2019)

polly said:


> I don't think I said she was solely responsible. Obviously she's partly responsible but that wasn't my point in the post you quoted. I was trying to say that it isn't at all true that we can't talk about feminism without talking about trans people, as some were claiming (this is a very effective silencing device by the way). (And the joke is that I wasn't even trying to at the time but she wilfully ignored what I was trying to say.) As evidenced by the fact that we have been doing so since all these threads were started. She came back, it's a matter for debate whether she was baited or not (dunno why everyone is painting her as a victim, wasn't my take on it, but whatever) and now here we are.
> 
> I was enjoying the threads until now - I thought we'd done quite a good job of being civil on the whole, despite our differences on lots of things - but now it's become really unpleasant and hostile, and all the potential for interesting conversation seems to be over. So I don't think I'm going to post on this thread any more.
> 
> Love you, obviously, Sam and I'll see you elsewhere.



Agreed about the general ongoing civility. I don't think any one person is the bad guy here.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 27, 2019)

'certain people' is still me, just say me, why be snide about it?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 27, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> 'certain people' is still me, just say me, why be snide about it?



You baited her but it seems like there were other people too, some of whom I have on ignore (I know it's cowardly but we all choose our battles), so I don't know who they were, plus other people added on. If I'd just meant you I'd have named you. Saying certain people for one person is really fucking snide and if it seemed like that, it wasn't meant that way.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 27, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> 'certain people' is still me, just say me, why be snide about it?


Me!  Me!  Me!  Look at me!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 27, 2019)

JudithB said:


> And just to clarify for those who picked up on my name. I think Judith Butler and Queer Theory is a load of incomprehensible (for a reason) bollox. I am happy to defend this position as I am happy to defend my trans sisters and brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's talk about sex...the female sex...baby


What made you choose it then?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 27, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Just total absolute pseudo intellectual bollocks. Follow queer theory to it's conclusion and everyone is queered no matter their sex, ability, age. FFS. Get a grip world and read some Dworkin



My fault for not quoting the post/posts I was referring to but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant.



> mmmmmmm delicious notoriety of a TERF slayer.





> PS In your dreams





> That's it isn't it? Deep nonsense/delusion.



All clear now.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 27, 2019)




----------



## JudithB (Jun 29, 2019)

Clair De Lune said:


> What made you choose it then?


Because it made me giggle


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 29, 2019)

London Black Women’s Project has just had their refuge provision decommissioned by Newham Council. So now it’ll be even harder for women to access safety. 

Perhaps we could all stop having endless pissing contests on various threads about who is more bigoted than who / more oppressed than who because whilst we all willy wave the actual reality for women gets worse. 

Information on protests:


----------



## JudithB (Jun 29, 2019)

This is what really upsets me. Clever brilliant women being distracted due to the selfishness and childishness of a certain ideology. In the meantime the planet is burning. And we are being distracted from what is happening to women that is possibly not to do with budging up and making space for trans women. Do we know why they have decommissioned the project? I will google but asking in case you have some info to hand


----------



## TopCat (Jun 29, 2019)

Selfishness and childish?


----------



## Manter (Jun 29, 2019)

In today’s patriarchy-fucks-us-all-over-men-and-women-alike news


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 29, 2019)

Manter said:


> In today’s patriarchy-fucks-us-all-over-men-and-women-alike news


Ok, I haven't seen any reaction whatsoever to it, but I haven't been looking. Where was this negative crap?


----------



## colacubes (Jun 29, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Ok, I haven't seen any reaction whatsoever to it, but I haven't been looking. Where was this negative crap?


It was on the Sun online within minutes of the match ending the other night (I saw it on Twitter and meant to post it then). The article was saying how it was creepy and not the 1st time he’d been slammed for it. The only creepy thing is their attitude and spreading such utter garbage.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 29, 2019)

The Sun, Christ. Not exactly a track record of exemplary journalism. It's a ridiculous attitude, they were having a lovely time. He seems like such a good bloke to me, clearly loves his kids.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2019)

Omigod not ON THE LIPS!!!!1!


----------



## Manter (Jun 29, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Ok, I haven't seen any reaction whatsoever to it, but I haven't been looking. Where was this negative crap?


Sun, mail, express, twitter, Facebook.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> This is what really upsets me. Clever brilliant women being distracted due to the selfishness and childishness of a certain ideology. In the meantime the planet is burning. And we are being distracted from what is happening to women that is possibly not to do with budging up and making space for trans women. Do we know why they have decommissioned the project? I will google but asking in case you have some info to hand


See it’s posts like this that make me less inclined to read anything sensible on the subject. 
I’m not going to comment on the ideology only to say that probably only a tiny proportion of a tiny population of trans people follow it anyway.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 4, 2019)

colacubes said:


> It was on the Sun online within minutes of the match ending the other night (I saw it on Twitter and meant to post it then). The article was saying how it was creepy and not the 1st time he’d been slammed for it. The only creepy thing is their attitude and spreading such utter garbage.


Step away from the poison..::


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> See it’s posts like this that make me less inclined to read anything sensible on the subject.
> I’m not going to comment on the ideology only to say that probably only a tiny proportion of a tiny population of trans people follow it anyway.


If you ever did fancy reading how we got where we are. Here's a good satirical history of what happened. The Annals of the TERF-Wars


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> If you ever did fancy reading how we got where we are. Here's a good satirical history of what happened. The Annals of the TERF-Wars




This is seriously horrible stuff. On a par with sharia law taking over the country or something of that sort- it’s one thing to say certain ideas are wrong, this goes way further than that. (I’m using the SL comparison in the sense it’s The Trans Are Gonna Take Over- if people can take that in good faith and not that I’m writing everyone off as fash) 
Is there any chance the sensible posters could challenge this share here though for a change? I’ve been reliably informed on many occasions I’m not sensible, and neither are my questions.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 4, 2019)

Anybody sensible isn’t touching any of this with a barge pole


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

It's satire


----------



## polly (Jul 4, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> London Black Women’s Project has just had their refuge provision decommissioned by Newham Council. So now it’ll be even harder for women to access safety.
> 
> Perhaps we could all stop having endless pissing contests on various threads about who is more bigoted than who / more oppressed than who because whilst we all willy wave the actual reality for women gets worse.
> 
> Information on protests:



There's another one on 15 July at 7pm outside Stratford old town hall. There's a petition too, though this will no doubt be a done deal: Sign the Petition

Gutted to read this, I hadn't heard. I did some work with them years ago when it was Newham Asian Women's Project, they are brilliant and - like all such services - very much in demand. Sounds like they've given the contract to one of the big operators who seem to be hoovering up all the small refuges, for the worse (you'll know better than me about this). Fucked. Austerity continues to hit poor women the hardest.


----------



## andysays (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> It's satire


You're a dishonest transphobic cunt, and although the word TERF is often thrown around indiscriminately, it's perfect for you.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

polly said:


> There's another one on 15 July at 7pm outside Stratford old town hall. There's a petition too, though this will no doubt be a done deal: Sign the Petition.



Signed and I will share with some of my networks too. Plus details of the demo. Sending them all the luck in the world. This is why women have to start supporting women again from the grassroots. It often feels like we are the first to be thrown under the bus when it comes to cuts, defunding pretty much


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Omigod not ON THE LIPS!!!!1!



Children carry more than 72 known diseases.  A bite or scratch can be fatal.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> Children carry more than 72 known diseases.  A bite or scratch can be fatal.


I want that "spit drink" gif for this post


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 4, 2019)

polly said:


> There's another one on 15 July at 7pm outside Stratford old town hall. There's a petition too, though this will no doubt be a done deal: Sign the Petition
> 
> Gutted to read this, I hadn't heard. I did some work with them years ago when it was Newham Asian Women's Project, they are brilliant and - like all such services - very much in demand. Sounds like they've given the contract to one of the big operators who seem to be hoovering up all the small refuges, for the worse (you'll know better than me about this). Fucked. Austerity continues to hit poor women the hardest.



Yep, big generic services cost much less (they pay their staff shit wages) and can absorb the costs like gas and electric within other projects making it harder for small independents to compete. No understanding from commissioners about the importance of specialist services and the expertise they carry. Fucking shite.


----------



## polly (Jul 4, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Yep, big generic services cost much less (they pay their staff shit wages) and can absorb the costs like gas and electric within other projects making it harder for small independents to compete. No understanding from commissioners about the importance of specialist services and the expertise they carry. Fucking shite.



Yeah  Just so shit that councils still haven't learnt not to just go for the cheapest tender. I'm sure they will be paying for this down the line, but the women involved will be paying for it sooner.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

polly said:


> Yeah  Just so shit that councils still haven't learnt not to just go for the cheapest tender. I'm sure they will be paying for this down the line, but the women involved will be paying for it sooner.


It's like they've learned nothing from the reforms to the prison and probation services. Give it to the cheapest tender you get the cheapest service.

Women will suffer


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I want that "spit drink" gif for this post



Shamelessly stolen from Scarfolk tbf.

That ‘history’ you posted - I really don’t think that’s the right word.  I think it a *perception* of how some things have played out for some people, especially if the timeline mirrors the trajectory of their involvement in terms of awareness and which organisations they have aligned with, with the earliest part acting as something of a ‘prequel’, kicking off with events that never really happened (even seen through the stylistic lens used here).
Then it proceeds through some things which *kind of* happened if seen via a certain perspective, recruiting some extreme views on the way and representing them as emblematic of the general debate.

Then just goes a bit mental because it’s actually a rallying cry.  And misrepresents the legal position as far as I can tell.

So yeah, the writing is quite punchy in places, but it is neither a history or honest.  And the fact that it is written in response to something equally loaded isn’t really an excuse.  In my opinion.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

Were you there? Because it is the timeline of how things have played out. It started with the lesbians. It ends with women not knowing a consultation was going on.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Were you there? Because it is the timeline of how things have played out. It started with the lesbians. It ends with women not knowing a consultation was going on.



I wasn’t quarreling with the timeline as such.  Just the events on it.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> I wasn’t quarreling with the timeline as such.  Just the events on it.


It's there as a satirical and fairly accurate account of how things happened. It's a chance for people to see the other side of the debate without the usual calls of... the words we all know are shouted.

And most importantly for people to realise just how long this has been going on. This did not start last year or the year before. Some of us have been trying to talk about this for half a decade now. And that could be why we get rather cross about it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

I don't think this is going to work out.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is going to work out.


Yeah, let's change the subject...

Friends of mine with bigger social media reach than I are going to share the Newham Council petition. This is the kind of thing this thread needs to be about


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> It's there as a satirical and _*fairly accurate account*_ of how things happened. It's a chance for people to see *the other side of the debate* without the usual calls of... the words we all know are shouted.



I was trying to avoid such insults for that reason.
I've italicised the bits of your argument that are in conflict with each other.

Taking a look over it, how many instances can you see of the shrill, incoherent abuse coming from the side you are *not* instinctively in sympathy with?  

In answer to your final point, for a lot of trans people I think this has been "going on" for a LOT more than half a decade.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Yeah, let's change the subject...
> 
> Friends of mine with bigger social media reach than I are going to share the Newham Council petition. This is the kind of thing this thread needs to be about



Post cross-over - happy to change subject.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> I was trying to avoid such insults for that reason.
> I've italicised the bits of your argument that are in conflict with each other.
> 
> Taking a look over it, how many instances can you see of the shrill, incoherent abuse coming from the side you are *not* instinctively in sympathy with?
> ...


It doesn't say they haven't

It is very honest about how questions were stopped from being asked. Which is why we are *still* having to ask them now. 

Shall we talk about issues that are affecting women that we can actually try and do something about? Newham Asian Women’s Project who is able to attend the meeting? If you are unable, can you please sign the petition. Thank you


----------



## 8ball (Jul 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> It doesn't say they haven't
> 
> It is very honest about how questions were stopped from being asked. Which is why we are *still* having to ask them now.
> 
> Shall we talk about issues that are affecting women that we can actually try and do something about? Newham Asian Women’s Project who is able to attend the meeting? If you are unable, can you please sign the petition. Thank you



Already agreed to the last part.
And have signed the petition.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 4, 2019)

8ball said:


> Already agreed to the last part.
> And have signed the petition.


You might not like it. But I *heart* you


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jul 5, 2019)

Slow hand clap for Judy here. You've done exactly as predicted.

Sign up here as a fresh new feminist member
Start a load of feminist threads- what did we do without you dear?
Make sure to only lightly imply your gc position at first, gotta get your feet under the table for a bit first.
Bide your time watching women ernestly open up their pain and trauma
Don't share anything much of your own of course
Make a point of engaging briefly for a few posts in a thread about trans issues before storming back to the safety of the now many feminist threads here - those people are awful waah! I can't engage with them! They are incapable of an intellectual discussion! I just have 'concerns'
Start attempting to police your threads - I only want to hear from women. Why can't women have places to discuss things in safety
Start a few more feminism threads - one clearly Batshit late night drunken one. Ooh that was a bit embarrassing wasn't it?
And finally feel so cosy here cos you've gauged that a proportion of women here who have shared their stories of abuse by men will have concerns about women's spaces.
Use that knowledge to turn fear into phobia. Stoke those fears, enlist more members to your rebranded cause - oh no we're not terfs- that's a slur dontcha know. We are calling ourselves gc feminists now which is much more palatable. We can talk about gc feminism in a fucking Costa, in playgrounds, in book clubs, in toddler groups- we can even talk about it at work now! and we can slip it into literally any thread on feminism. Lucky we've started so many.
'Trans women are misogynistic abusive men' is your rallying cry isnt it Judy?
Trans women are threatening lesbians (implying they're potential rapists)
Theyre transing our kids arent they Judith? (Wont somebody think of the children)

Feet firmly under table with someone else making you a cuppa you drop a link that completely reveals the cesspits of the internet you usually hang out in. Drop it casually on your first feminist thread where you were oh so innocently enquiring where to find the feminists around here.

Anyone who disagrees gets told to change the subject to the more relevant thread posts by women engaging in the original thread subject. Oh don't worry about that link, it's just satire daahling.

 I see you Judy, your agenda was clear from the start. I see your frothing mouth and bulging evangelical eyes. I see you freely  talking shit about trans people while claiming you're being silenced. You've brought mumsnet's accepted, tolerated transphobia here and redecorated this place haven't you?

You gonna be knocking on people's doors like Jehovah's witnesses soon? Or is that next year's agenda?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Clair De Lune said:


> Slow hand clap for Judy here. You've done exactly as predicted.







Clair De Lune said:


> Sign up here as a fresh new feminist member



Yes I did




Clair De Lune said:


> Start a load of feminist threads- what did we do 	 without you dear?



I only started one in the first instance which spawned a couple more. Granted I did then start a couple more threads. This was for selfish reasons as I had lost track of the other threads and wanted to join in.




Clair De Lune said:


> Make sure to only lightly imply your gc position at 	 first, gotta get your feet under the table for a bit first.



I don’t think I implied my position at all. It was never my intention to tell anyone as I never know where it is safe to do so. When you have been threatened with being doxxed you learn to keep your head down.





Clair De Lune said:


> Bide your time watching women ernestly open up their 	 pain and trauma



I regret that my work schedule changed and meant I did not have the time to fully engage in the initial threads. It was difficult to catch up when I had the time again.





Clair De Lune said:


> Don't share anything much of your own of course



Again my work schedule meant I could not fully engage. I was also aware of my status as a noob and was becoming aware of how long everyone here has known one another. It was a little intimidating.





Clair De Lune said:


> Make a point of engaging briefly for a few posts in a 	 thread about trans issues before storming back to the safety of the now 	 many feminist threads here - those people are awful waah! I can't engage 	 with them! They are incapable of an intellectual discussion! I just have 	 'concerns'



I got baited into the thread in question. I made the mistake of returning on another thread when I will admit I was feeling very cross. It gets infuriating, on both sides, to keep repeating what one has been saying again and again. Especially after years of hearing No Debate.





Clair De Lune said:


> And finally feel so cosy here cos you've gauged that a 	 proportion of women here who have shared their stories of abuse by men 	 will have concerns about women's spaces.




I do not feel cosy here yet. What I have gauged is that this is not the forum to discuss these issues.

Do women who have been abused by men not have the right to be concerned about women’s spaces?





Clair De Lune said:


> Use that knowledge to turn fear into phobia. Stoke 	 those fears, enlist more members to your rebranded cause - oh no we're not 	 terfs- that's a slur dontcha know. We are calling ourselves gc feminists 	 now which is much more palatable. We can talk about gc feminism in a 	 fucking Costa, in playgrounds, in book clubs, in toddler groups- we can 	 even talk about it at work now! and we can slip it into literally any 	 thread on feminism. Lucky we've started so many.



If you are confident with your position why does it matter where women are discussing the issues? No one is debating trans people’s right to exist or the rights they currently have.

'





Clair De Lune said:


> Trans women are misogynistic abusive men' is your rallying cry isnt it Judy?




No I do not think transwomen will abuse women. I think self-ID will open the door to abusers if there is no safeguarding. Filling in a piece of paper is not safeguarding. More importantly it disallows women and girls challenging people they think could be in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. This will not happen today or tomorrow but it will happen in the future. This is not about transwomen it is about abusers who will take advantage.



Clair De Lune said:


> Trans women are threatening lesbians (implying they're potential rapists)



No implication that they are rapists. There is an attempt at coercing young lesbians. The cotton ceiling exists as a phrase for a reason.



Clair De Lune said:


> Theyre transing our kids arent they Judith? (Wont somebody think of the children)



I think we do need to think of the children. A 4000% rise in girls wanting to transition should be investigated. In America very young girls are having irreversible surgeries. There are a growing number of detransitioners, see Pique Resilience Project and GNC Centric on youtube. These girls (and some boys) are calling for support from Stonewall and other LGBT+ organisations who are ignoring them.





Clair De Lune said:


> Feet firmly under table with someone else making you a 	 cuppa you drop a link that completely reveals the cesspits of the internet 	 you usually hang out in. Drop it casually on your first feminist thread 	 where you were oh so innocently enquiring where to find the feminists 	 around here.



I am sorry you think some people I know are from the cesspit of the internet. I personally think they are very intelligent women. I know quite a few trans women too who are also GC.




Clair De Lune said:


> Anyone who disagrees gets told to change the subject to the more relevant thread posts by women engaging in the original thread subject. Oh don't worry about that link, it's just satire daahling.




After last week I made a decision not to get into anymore arguments about it. I have been informed how many times this subject ends up going nowhere. I am now also aware of how many friendships this subject has fractured. I do not want to add to that. There was an intention to inform people if they were interested of quite how long this has been going on. People are often under the impression that this discussion started (or didn't) a year or so ago. In fact it has been going on for much longer but nobody knew it was happening. EG Scottish women were unaware there had been a consultation on the GRA in Scotland. They only found out about it when they saw English women asking to be consulted.



Clair De Lune said:


> I see you Judy, your agenda was clear from the start. I see your frothing mouth and bulging evangelical eyes. You've brought mumsnet's accepted, tolerated transphobia here and redecorated this place haven't you?



I have never posted on mumsnet



Clair De Lune said:


> You gonna be knocking on people's doors like Jehovah's witnesses soon? Or is that next year's agenda?



This was not my intention. But whether I do or do not should not worry anyone if they are confident with their position.

You could start another thread about any of the topics you mention. But we both know how it will end. Is it worth anyone's time, energy and most importantly the friendships to go over it all again?


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 5, 2019)

Its should be aiways worth it to defend vulnerable people from hysterical bigotry and outright lies


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> Its should be aiways worth it to defend vulnerable people from hysterical bigotry and outright lies


I agree and none of what I have said above is hysterical bigotry or a lie of any description


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 5, 2019)

Are you sure, and to be fair hysterical might not fit.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> Are you sure, and to be fair hysterical might not fit.


Very sure


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 5, 2019)

Yes you would be.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 5, 2019)

Clair De Lune said:


> Slow hand clap for Judy here. You've done exactly as predicted.


My suspicions are even more suspicious than your suspicions. I've never, for example, seen a long term committed feminist repeatedly using the term 'females' to refer to women, as JudithB does in the celebrating feminism thread. I have started to get the sense of a subtle troll trying to see how far they can push it. But I could be wrong. It would take a right wrong'un to post a lot of feminist threads while pretending to be a woman, but it seems possible.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 5, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> ...It would take a right wrong'un to post a lot of feminist threads while pretending to be a woman, but it seems possible.



I wouldn't fall off my chair if that turned out to be the case...

The posts read like someone who learned a new word and is desperate to ram it into every conversation they can, or was doing it for a bet.

I think I'm getting the fantatacism of the new convert, but it might be some bloke laughing his tits off...


----------



## Athos (Jul 5, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> My suspicions are even more suspicious than your suspicions. I've never, for example, seen a long term committed feminist repeatedly using the term 'females' to refer to women, as JudithB does in the celebrating feminism thread. I have started to get the sense of a subtle troll trying to see how far they can push it. But I could be wrong. It would take a right wrong'un to post a lot of feminist threads while pretending to be a woman, but it seems possible.



'Female' makes perfect sense as a way to distinguish between cis and trans women, if your focus is biology.

It's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if she wasn't a woman.

And I don't think they're a troll; just had a certain agenda from the start, and slightly disingenuously pussy-footed around it for a few weeks, rather than getting to the point, which I think many could see coming from a mile off.  (And I say that even as someone who's enjoyed some of the recent feminist threads, and who agrees with a fair bit of what she says.)


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Hilarious. No woman could possibly talk the way I do. So I must be a man 

Athos I didn't have an agenda from the start. Why can't a woman want to talk about feminism without it having to do with the trans debate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I agree and none of what I have said above is hysterical bigotry or a lie of any description


Makes a change if that's the case


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I wouldn't fall off my chair if that turned out to be the case...
> 
> The posts read like someone who learned a new word and is desperate to ram it into every conversation they can, or was doing it for a bet.
> 
> I think I'm getting the fantatacism of the new convert, but it might be some bloke laughing his tits off...


Before your time, but flimsier pretended to be a woman to play a cruel trick on a long standing (male) poster


----------



## Edie (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Before your time, but flimsier pretended to be a woman to play a cruel trick on a long standing (male) poster


Flimsier wasn’t a woman?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> Flimsier wasn’t a woman?


No indeed, he was at the time a teacher


----------



## Athos (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Athos I didn't have an agenda from the start. Why can't a woman want to talk about feminism without it having to do with the trans debate?



I absolutely believe women have the right to talk about feminism, and for that to include or exclude the trans issue, as they prefer.  But, it seemed to me that that was the subject about which you really wanted to talk, but that you thought it'd be better to build a bit of goodwill/credibility by addressing other aspects of feminism first.


----------



## Athos (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No indeed, he was at the time a teacher



Not that the two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not that the two are mutually exclusive.


True


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Athos said:


> I absolutely believe women have the right to talk about feminism, and for that to include or exclude the trans issue, as they prefer.  But, it seemed to me that that was the subject about which you really wanted to talk, but that you thought it'd be better to build a bit of goodwill/credibility by addressing other aspects of feminism first.


These are assumptions and that is all. I came here to find feminists and those interested in feminism. 

I'm sorry the tran debate has ruined friendships and caused a schism on these boards and I would rather stay out of it.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> If you ever did fancy reading how we got where we are. Here's a good satirical history of what happened. The Annals of the TERF-Wars



Why are you posting transphobic  shit on the thread you posted with the announcement that you definitely didn;t want this thread to turn into a discussion of trans issues?

There's another thread we've all been discussing that on, the one you refuse to post on because you clearly have zero respect for this community.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> These are assumptions and that is all. I came here to find feminists and those interested in feminism.
> 
> I'm sorry the tran debate has ruined friendships and caused a schism on these boards and I would rather stay out of it.


Then why post your piece of satire


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Why are you posting transphobic  shit on the thread you posted with the announcement that you definitely didn;t want this thread to turn into a discussion of trans issues?
> 
> There's another thread we've all been discussing that on, the one you refuse to post on because you clearly have zero respect for this community.


Yeh if she had any respect for the community she'd have at least said 'sorry, an oversight' when confronted with evidence she lied about Bristol uni toilets. Not to mention all the other greater things she's done


----------



## Athos (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> These are assumptions and that is all. I came here to find feminists and those interested in feminism.
> 
> I'm sorry the tran debate has ruined friendships and caused a schism on these boards and I would rather stay out of it.



Yes, they are only my suspicions based on some of what you wrote.  But I can't prove it, and, it's quite possible I'm wrong.  But, like you, it's not something I'm keen to argue about.  Especially as I agree with some of what you say, even if I think the way you went about it was a bit sus (and that some of what you say goes too far, in my opinion).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> These are assumptions and that is all. I came here to find feminists and those interested in feminism.
> 
> I'm sorry the tran debate has ruined friendships and caused a schism on these boards and I would rather stay out of it.


Yeh you would now that you've been shown to be economical with the actualité


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh if she had any respect for the community she'd have at least said 'sorry, an oversight' when confronted with evidence she lied about Bristol uni toilets. Not to mention all the other greater things she's done



I did not lie about Bristol Uni toilets. You misunderstood me. The posters went up, they try to deplatform people and that article was shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I did not lie about Bristol Uni toilets. You misunderstood me. The posters went up, they try to deplatform people and that article was shit.


Oh I understood you all too well. You said those posters are in every Bristol uni loo. But they're not. Did you not note the date on the telegraph article? 2014. They were up for one week in 2014. Have you ever used a toilet with a five year auld poster in it?

If you're going to lie about things you link to I don't have any confidence in your telling the truth about things you don't support with sources


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> It's there as a satirical and fairly accurate account of how things happened. It's a chance for people to see the other side of the debate without the usual calls of... the words we all know are shouted.
> 
> And most importantly for people to realise just how long this has been going on. This did not start last year or the year before. Some of us have been trying to talk about this for half a decade now. And that could be why we get rather cross about it.



Its been going on half a century, when radical feminists in the states sent death threats to trans women and turned up with guns to threaten a trans woman.  It continued into the 80s when Sheila Jefreys and her cronies tried to expel trans women (and bisexual people and the wrong kind of lesbians) from the London Lesbian and Gay Centre, it rumbled on through the 90s and the birth of the internet when blogs like twansphobic were doxing trans people and humiliating them online, and when the GRA was introduced Jeffreys and co made much about how it was the end of womanhood and all the fears that are being raised about self ID now were then raised about GRAs.  The only reason it didn't fly in a more mainstream way is that you didn't have Murdoch on your side then.

Trans people endured decades of organised abuse and harassment from a certain branch of radical feminism with virtually no pushback, to pretend this row just emerged when you heard of it shows a (probably willfully) ignorant of the history of your own movement.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh I understood you all too well. You said those posters are in every Bristol uni loo. But they're not. Did you not note the date on the telegraph article? 2014. They were up for one week in 2014. Have you ever used a toilet with a five year auld poster in it?
> 
> If you're going to lie about things you link to I don't have any confidence in your telling the truth about things you don't support with sources



Lied about Bristol Uni having a habit of no platforming people as well, when the Students Union say this:


> Bristol SU have stated that they have ‘not refused a platform to any speaker in the last few years’ and follow the University’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice which claims that the only exception to freedom of speech on campus ‘is where there are serious concerns about public disorder or the direct incitement of violence or hatred.’


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Lied about Bristol Uni having a habit of no platforming people as well, when the Students Union say this:


She's not got an honest bone in her body


----------



## Edie (Jul 5, 2019)

There’s something intentionally disempowering about accusing someone of lying when they actually just disagree with you. It seems sly. 

When we’re arguing, people will have different takes than you, events will be viewed with opposing slants, statistics will be selectively quotes, some aspects will be magnified or minimised depending on your opponents bias. This is human nature and rarely what I would define as a lie.

Accusing someone of lying is inflammatory, and it personalises the debate. At worst, it’s a nasty psychological trick to undermine someone’s credibility and foundation.

I’m really fucking circumspect with the word liar.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> There’s something intentionally disempowering about accusing someone of lying when they actually just disagree with you. It seems sly.
> 
> When we’re arguing, people will have different takes than you, events will be viewed with opposing slants, statistics will be selectively quotes, some aspects will be magnified or minimised depending on your opponents bias. This is human nature and rarely what I would define as a lie.
> 
> ...



The thing is it is the endless lies which are causing the real social damage to trans people (see the other thread on rising hate crimes for details).  I don't recall anyone (here) defending the Daily Mail when they were lying about benefit claimants, sorry, viewing things with opposing slants and selectively using quotes and statistics. This stuff causes real harm, and when it can be shown a lot of it is untrue then those who insist in perpetuating these myths despite knowing they are without foundation, should be named for what they are imo, which is a liar.

If someone was making dodgy claims to undermine lone parents, I suspect you  would have little sympathy.  That's how it feels Edie, I was a claimant when we endured that torrent of shit from the right wing press and this feels exactly the same.  And the end result -  which is what some people want - will be to make trans people withdraw from social activity, like posting on urban in this case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> There’s something intentionally disempowering about accusing someone of lying when they actually just disagree with you. It seems sly.
> 
> When we’re arguing, people will have different takes than you, events will be viewed with opposing slants, statistics will be selectively quotes, some aspects will be magnified or minimised depending on your opponents bias. This is human nature and rarely what I would define as a lie.
> 
> ...


Yeh. I don't call someone a liar just because they disagree with me, but because they disagree with established fact.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 5, 2019)

People who only post on one subject, create multiple threads on that one subject, and then attempt to manage/curate them, as well as limit who can post on them to ensure they stay pointed in their direction  - particularly when that subject is contentious - are fanatics.

what are Judith's views on Brexit and the EU, or Syria, or wild camping, or the transport network, or Osprey Migration, or the Cricket World Cup?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

kebabking said:


> People who only post on one subject, create multiple threads on that one subject, and then attempt to manage/curate them, as well as limit who can post on them to ensure they stay pointed in their direction  - particularly when that subject is contentious - are fanatics.
> 
> what are Judith's views on Brexit and the EU, or Syria, or wild camping, or the transport network, or Osprey Migration, or the Cricket World Cup?


She does rate carry on screaming so she's not all bad


----------



## Edie (Jul 5, 2019)

kebabking said:


> People who only post on one subject, create multiple threads on that one subject, and then attempt to manage/curate them, as well as limit who can post on them to ensure they stay pointed in their direction  - particularly when that subject is contentious - are fanatics.
> 
> what are Judith's views on Brexit and the EU, or Syria, or wild camping, or the transport network, or Osprey Migration, or the Cricket World Cup?


I for one want to hear what her feelings are about Osprey Migration, good call. And any check ins on the Shepard’s delight tracking service, which truly is a one of a kind feature and one of my favourite threads.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

I bet people are allowed to come on to this forum and talk only about football


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I bet people are allowed to come on to this forum and talk only about football


No indeed, we have a dedicated football forum for that

Perhaps you should look around the place


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

For forum read boards. I am out of touch with the correct lingo

Have you missed me Picky?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> For forum read boards. I am out of touch with the correct lingo
> 
> Have you missed me Picky?


No, judy


----------



## Supine (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I bet people are allowed to come on to this forum and talk only about football



They don't start loads of threads on the same subject though. Normally.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Supine said:


> They don't start loads of threads on the same subject though. Normally.


I'm a rule breaker!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I'm a rule breaker!


You say that like it's a good thing


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No indeed, he was at the time a teacher


Because teachers are never women


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You say that like it's a good thing


Come on... you *have* missed me Picky


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2019)

Supine said:


> They don't start loads of threads on the same subject though. Normally.


Never seen the Dulwich Hamlet forum?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Come on... you *have* missed me Picky


Tell me who you were before and I'll tell you if I've missed you


----------



## Supine (Jul 5, 2019)

Santino said:


> Never seen the Dulwich Hamlet forum?



No


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Tell me who you were before and I'll tell you if I've missed you


I am not a man
I am not a returning person
I am not here to troll urban75
I am not here to convert urban75
I am amazed by the attention
And so is my wife


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2019)

I don't think we are going to agree on some things Judith but I do want you to know you don't have to put up with this shit.


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 5, 2019)

kebabking said:


> curate



LOL


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 5, 2019)

Edie said:


> There’s something intentionally disempowering about accusing someone of lying when they actually just disagree with you. It seems sly.
> 
> When we’re arguing, people will have different takes than you, events will be viewed with opposing slants, statistics will be selectively quotes, some aspects will be magnified or minimised depending on your opponents bias. This is human nature and rarely what I would define as a lie.
> 
> ...



I agree with this, on the whole, however, if people present information as fact, when it’s not supported by evidence, it’s not unreasonable to suggest they are being dishonest.

I happen to think JudithB isn’t who they make out they are - I think they’re mendacious (at best). This is opinion, not fact.

It’s important to distinguish the two.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 5, 2019)

I said Bristol Uni have up some posters that they had had up and had then taken down (apparently very quickly. Hoorah young women  objected I hope). The point was what was on the posters and how there is a strong push inside that Uni for an ideology I do not believe in. I referenced the student no platforming people. They were successful with one and did not manage the other. I linked to articles in this or another thread. This was all to do with my objection to mixed sex toilets and then my stating correctly that a paper that had been linked to say there is nothing wrong with mixed sex toilets was probably to be taken with a pinch of salt. I was right. The paper was tosh.

And the issue I raised was never addressed and as I have said several times now. This is probably not the forum to discuss it. It was never my intention to discuss these issues. I do not want to contribute to what I have read are schisms and most importantly broken friendships.


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I said Bristol Uni have up some posters that they had had up and had then taken down (apparently very quickly. Hoorah young women  objected I hope). The point was what was on the posters and how there is a strong push inside that Uni for an ideology I do not believe in. I referenced the student no platforming people. They were successful with one and did not manage the other. I linked to articles in this or another thread. This was all to do with my objection to mixed sex toilets and then my stating correctly that a paper that had been linked to say there is nothing wrong with mixed sex toilets was probably to be taken with a pinch of salt. I was right. The paper was tosh.
> 
> And the issue I raised was never addressed and as I have said several times now. This is probably not the forum to discuss it. It was never my intention to discuss these issues. I do not want to contribute to what I have read are schisms and most importantly broken friendships.



You’ve said a lot of things...


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> You’ve said a lot of things...


So sue me


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> So sue me



Retro comeback - blunt.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Its been going on half a century, when radical feminists in the states sent death threats to trans women and turned up with guns to threaten a trans woman.  It continued into the 80s when Sheila Jefreys and her cronies tried to expel trans women (and bisexual people and the wrong kind of lesbians) from the London Lesbian and Gay Centre, it rumbled on through the 90s and the birth of the internet when blogs like twansphobic were doxing trans people and humiliating them online, and when the GRA was introduced Jeffreys and co made much about how it was the end of womanhood and all the fears that are being raised about self ID now were then raised about GRAs.  The only reason it didn't fly in a more mainstream way is that you didn't have Murdoch on your side then.
> 
> Trans people endured decades of organised abuse and harassment from a certain branch of radical feminism with virtually no pushback, to pretend this row just emerged when you heard of it shows a (probably willfully) ignorant of the history of your own movement.


I missed this. I do apologise. Picky perked my attention.

If you will take your history from revisionist sites such as Transadvocates and it's follow on "theTERFS" you are going to be feel angry. This revisionist bullshit has been around since 2013/14.


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I missed this. I do apologise. Picky perked my attention.
> 
> If you will take your history from revisionist sites such as Transadvocates and it's follow on "theTERFS" you are going to be feel angry. This revisionist bullshit has been around since 2013/14.



You really are quite the cunt, aren’t you?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't think we are going to agree on some things Judith but I do want you to know you don't have to put up with this shit.



And if I said half the appalling things you guys say to me you'd burn me at the stake. There's a reason for that. Begins with P...something...arch...

What is that word?


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> And if I said half the appalling things you guys say to me you'd burn me at the stake. There's a reason for that. Begins with P...something...arch...
> 
> What is that word?



Immersed in the drama triangle much?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

No drama

Although you guys keep trying to put me there


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> No drama
> 
> Although you guys keep trying to put me there



Not even close to a chess move - crack on, Judith!


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

How many men have come on this thread to slag me off? I'm starting to lose count


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> How many men have come on this thread to slag me off? I'm starting to lose count



Telling...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 6, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Telling...


Telling of what exactly?


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Telling of what exactly?



That JudithB is assuming men, when perhaps there aren’t men...

I’ll make no apology - I think JudithB isn’t who they present themselves to be.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

You know exactly who I am
I am a feminist who wants to talk feminism with other female people
i am a feminist who is critical of gender ideology
I am a feminist who because she cares about women doesn't want to hurt any friendships more than they have been
That's me
You all know it
But you keep finding different ways to call me names or a liar


----------



## Humberto (Jul 6, 2019)

We have to have some semblance of fair play/good faith discussion, otherwise its just throwing mud. Sorry but that is the only way I know to advance a debate/disagreement. In other words, some of yas seem a bit convinced that they are right and hang the consequences. Trying to encircle eachother with like-minded internet arguers, talking down to each other with disdain. What happened to building an argument yourself, instead of confrontation and chastisement?

You/everyone is only going to end up disappointed, because its a shit use of the medium that is this website. Unless you do want trench warfare. Be a bit more responsible. Its not a hobby or like joining a gang at school. Sometimes you have to think back to the basic principles that underpin your politics/worldview.

Now I realise I have pissed everyone off: both 'sides' and lots of individuals. I happen to value this website highly. So anyone who tells me to fuck off, consider it returned to you. Anyway, politics/life isn't easy, I suggest you wind your necks in. Or fuck off. Either ones fine.  We all are in the same boat to some extent, that is the basic truth. We are all fucked (individually, societally) if we don't pull together. Be good to people and they will be good to you. Be honest and reasonable and the same.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> You know exactly who I am
> I am a feminist who wants to talk feminism with other female people
> i am a feminist who is critical of gender ideology
> I am a feminist who because she cares about women doesn't want to hurt any friendships more than they have been
> ...


Because you keep handing people reason too on a plate with garnish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I said Bristol Uni have up some posters that they had had up and had then taken down (apparently very quickly. Hoorah young women  objected I hope). The point was what was on the posters and how there is a strong push inside that Uni for an ideology I do not believe in. I referenced the student no platforming people. They were successful with one and did not manage the other. I linked to articles in this or another thread. This was all to do with my objection to mixed sex toilets and then my stating correctly that a paper that had been linked to say there is nothing wrong with mixed sex toilets was probably to be taken with a pinch of salt. I was right. The paper was tosh.
> 
> And the issue I raised was never addressed and as I have said several times now. This is probably not the forum to discuss it. It was never my intention to discuss these issues. I do not want to contribute to what I have read are schisms and most importantly broken friendships.


You said "bu have these posters up". They don't. E2A the link you posted led to a story published in the telegraph in 2014 which says they were put up for a campaigning week


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You said "bu have these posters up". They don't. E2A the link you posted led to a story published in the telegraph in 2014 which says they were put up for a campaigning week


I haven't and what I said above says *I said they have up posters*

Picky can  you stop this now it really doesn't prove what you want it to and I think you might be starting to look like a bully


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I haven't and what I said above says *I said they have up posters*
> 
> Picky can  you stop this now it really doesn't prove what you want it to and I think you might be starting to look like a bully





JudithB said:


> Sorry I missed this.
> 
> No I did not ignore your point. I made the point that the single sex exemptions are being ignored, see Bristol University for one who have posters in the female toilets stating if you think someone should not be there, get over it, pretty much
> 
> ...


"the posters linked to above"


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 6, 2019)

This is unpleasant.


----------



## Edie (Jul 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't think we are going to agree on some things Judith but I do want you to know you don't have to put up with this shit.


Absolutely, this.



ElizabethofYork said:


> This is unpleasant.


Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This is unpleasant.


Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Edie (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. Yes it is.


Then stop it. Bullying and hounding someone, regardless of their views, is horrible. Just stop. Please.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Picky can  you stop this now it really doesn't prove what you want it to and I think you might be starting to look like a bully


He"s known for this kind of pedantic, scab picking harassment. It's nothing new.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He"s known for this kind of pedantic, scab picking harassment. It's nothing new.


Yep, that’s true. It’s not exclusive to JudithB- just a tedious modus operandi


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He"s known for this kind of pedantic, scab picking harassment. It's nothing new.





trashpony said:


> Yep, that’s true. It’s not exclusive to JudithB- just a tedious modus operandi


soz, it's not pedantry to say of a substantive claim and not a facet thereof 'this is not true' and give reasons for that conclusion. It is tedious to be met with a blank refusal to face the actualité and so to repeat myself. You might both show better solidarity with poor JudithB to show I'm factually wrong here than to continue with the same tired hounding which is condemned a couple of posts up - play the ball if you can


----------



## Edie (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> soz, it's not pedantry to say of a substantive claim and not a facet thereof 'this is not true' and give reasons for that conclusion. It is tedious to be met with a blank refusal to face the actualité and so to repeat myself. You might both show better solidarity with poor JudithB to show I'm factually wrong here than to continue with the same tired hounding which is condemned a couple of posts up - play the ball if you can


Pickmans I honestly not saying this to be a bitch, but most people just don’t work like this. They just don’t see the world like this. They are able to temper being ‘entirely factually correct’ with nuance and social skills.

Going after one thing like a dog with lock jaw isn’t helpful to either side. Honestly it’s not. Maybe you just really can’t see this. I think fundamentally your a decent bloke. You just lock on to shit almost as a proxy for actually thinking about the substantive stuff. But it totally comes across as a kind of slightly disturbing, obsessive bullying at times.


----------



## andysays (Jul 6, 2019)

I'm not sure that "bullying" is the word I would use for challenging the dishonesty of someone attempting to push a transphobic agenda, albeit mostly couched in terms of an appeal to women and feminism, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some have chosen to focus on the method of challenging rather than the substance of what's being challenged.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Again you have made the assumption that my wanting to talk about feminism is an attempt to push a transphobic agenda. Women are allowed to talk about feminism without it being about trans people. 

Any attempt to challenge the substance of what I might say will very quickly become an excuse for you to shout bigot and transphobe. I have opinions. I look at evidence and have drawn conclusions. If some one was to offer me other evidence I would look at it and possibly draw other conclusions. Nothing remotely connected to the topic is discussed afaik without it quickly becoming personal name calling. I shall "curate" this thread and make it the Come and Call Me a Bigot and Transphobe thread. If you want to call me a man, someone you previously had beef with or any other manner of descriptors, here's the place to do it. I hope that makes everyone feel better. 

(Victim, hysterical they're good to go words too)


----------



## andysays (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Again you have made the assumption that my wanting to talk about feminism is an attempt to push a transphobic agenda. Women are allowed to talk about feminism without it being about trans people.
> 
> Any attempt to challenge the substance of what I might say will very quickly become an excuse for you to shout bigot and transphobe. I have opinions. I look at evidence and have drawn conclusions. If some one was to offer me other evidence I would look at it and possibly draw other conclusions. Nothing remotely connected to the topic is discussed afaik without it quickly becoming personal name calling. I shall "curate" this thread and make it the Come and Call Me a Bigot and Transphobe thread. If you want to call me a man, someone you previously had beef with or any other manner of descriptors, here's the place to do it. I hope that makes everyone feel better.
> 
> (Victim, hysterical they're good to go words too)


More dishonesty. You haven't avoided talking about trans people, you have made explicitly transphobic posts, while complaining about being 'silenced'.


----------



## Supine (Jul 6, 2019)

If you think urban is somewhere you can "curate" a thread you are very much mistaken.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2019)

Edie said:


> Pickmans I honestly not saying this to be a bitch, but most people just don’t work like this. They just don’t see the world like this. They are able to temper being ‘entirely factually correct’ with nuance and social skills.
> 
> Going after one thing like a dog with lock jaw isn’t helpful to either side. Honestly it’s not. Maybe you just really can’t see this. I think fundamentally your a decent bloke. You just lock on to shit almost as a proxy for actually thinking about the substantive stuff. But it totally comes across as a kind of slightly disturbing, obsessive bullying at times.



JudithB

It's the way urban has always worked and its not a good thing.

When I first started out here I foolishly posted my opinions honestly about the so solid crew and was immediately labelled "racist" "classist" "ignorant" and an "idiot".

None of it was true, I just stupidly hadn't lurked enough and didn't realise you have to shut your mouth on this forum if you have the wrong opinion. It's safer to do that here unless you don't mind committing social suicide.

Once there were enough people willing to call me names openly, it became the done thing to bully, hound and harass me across all other threads, and it was seen as acceptable, nay, necessary to be seen as part on the in group.  Threads that could have been good were deliberately derailed and turned into another feeding frenzy, much like this one. 

No one said anything, of course. Cool kids get away with that. 

Now, that had happened to me all through my school days so I knew how it worked and I knew why they were doing it. It's nothing to do with you Jude, it's just a way of virtue signaling the whole tough-man/cool-girl thing to the in crowd.

You probably hear your kids talking about about it. It's like a shit version of mean girls. 

You gotta laugh really, because it's fucking pathetic and weak and sad behaviour anyway, but especially so when it comes from middle aged, balding, white, sexist, middle class men who sit in front of a computer all day and have nothing better or more useful to do with their sad sad lives.

Anyway, they've found a witch, so they will continue to burn you, not for just this but ANYTHING you say. Prepare to have any new threads you post derailed. 

There will be a new poster along in a year or two who falls for the same trap, and eventually it'll all be forgotten about and they'll move on to flesh blood once you get boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

Edie said:


> Pickmans I honestly not saying this to be a bitch, but most people just don’t work like this. They just don’t see the world like this. They are able to temper being ‘entirely factually correct’ with nuance and social skills.
> 
> Going after one thing like a dog with lock jaw isn’t helpful to either side. Honestly it’s not. Maybe you just really can’t see this. I think fundamentally your a decent bloke. You just lock on to shit almost as a proxy for actually thinking about the substantive stuff. But it totally comes across as a kind of slightly disturbing, obsessive bullying at times.


You haven't thought this through.

I can do nuance. I can do argument. I have social skills. What I don't have is any patience with the utter bullying bollocks you've posted here. 

This is about a matter of fact. Not nuance. Not opinion. 

Either those posters are up, as JudithB claims, or they aren't. There's no room for nuance there. I am not attacking her beliefs but her claims of fact. 

Yeh it's tedious when someone won't face their mendacity and keeps denying it. But there you go.

You think there's something wrong with me. It's not inherent, it's that I have some small regard for the truth in a debate as emotive as the trans one. I'm not so sure you do


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I have social skills



Lol.


----------



## Edie (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You haven't thought this through.
> 
> I can do nuance. I can do argument. I have social skills. What I don't have is any patience with the utter bullying bollocks you've posted here.
> 
> ...


Okay. Listen I’ve no interest in persuing this. It’s just my impression of you. Maybe I’m wrong. I just don’t care enough.


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Again you have made the assumption that my wanting to talk about feminism is an attempt to push a transphobic agenda. Women are allowed to talk about feminism without it being about trans people.



Yet it is you, on this very thread, who made reference to trans ideology in the midst of women talking about wider service closures, with this post:

_“Clever brilliant women being distracted due to the selfishness and childishness of a certain ideology. In the meantime the planet is burning. And we are being distracted from what is happening to women that is possibly not to do with budging up and making space for trans women.”
_
You then went on to post a really provocative link, under the guise of satire.

This was after a post you made on another of your threads, earlier in the week, about backing off from threads and not wanting to upset people who have been through the debate/s here before - yet you ended that particular post by inviting people to dm you to “discuss “hot” trans topics.”

I’ve been trying to work out what it is about you that is exercising me so much, and it’s your fundamental dishonesty - it’s fucking toxic. I won’t be giving it any more time.


----------



## Athos (Jul 6, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Cool kids get away with that.



You're surely not implying Pickman's model is a cool kid?!


----------



## Athos (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I have social skills.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> View attachment 176539


FabricLiveBaby! did it better


----------



## smokedout (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I missed this. I do apologise. Picky perked my attention.
> 
> If you will take your history from revisionist sites such as Transadvocates and it's follow on "theTERFS" you are going to be feel angry. This revisionist bullshit has been around since 2013/14.



Then how come i was aware of it at around the turn of the century?  Some of us have been living this our whole lives, you might want to keep that in mind when you glibly dismiss trans history as revisionism.

And just to be clear, are you accusing Sandy Stone of lying about the abuse she received?  Then perhaps you can explain why she left Olivia Records, what's the real story?

Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale, the book written by Janice Raymond which calls for transsexuality to be morally mandated out of existence and has informed much of the more extreme gender critical thought was published in 1981.  The below quote gives a flavour of the attitude of the lesbian separatist movement towards trans women back then:  "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive".  The Sandy Stone affair is heavily discussed in the book and Stone herself wrote a response in 1983.  This didnt all spring into being in 2013/14.

I'm not aware of any members of The Gorgons and other lesbian separatist groups denying the events that took place in the 1970s by the way.  I suspect they would be pretty pissed off at liberal feminists like yourself air brushing their militancy out of existence because you've decided it probably doesn't make for great PR in the modern day.  And Sheila Jeffreys certainly has no regrets.  And you know what, at least their movement had coherency, they walked the fucking walk and didn't dance around things by pretending to care about trans people whilst just innocently asking a few questions.  I may oppose much of what they stand for but I have more political respect for them then the middle class pearl clutching pseudo radicals of the modern GC movement.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Signal 11 
Mr.Bishie 
kebabking 
ginger_syn 
TopCat 
Pickman's model 
seventh bullet 
abstract1 

Out of interest are you male or female?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

Who were you before this new incarnation?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

_"Anyway, they've found a witch, so they will continue to burn you, not for just this but ANYTHING you say"_


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Who were you before this new incarnation?


Twitter

Are you male or female Mr. Bishie? Should be a simple question.

ETA Apologies I read Where instead of Who.

I am not firky I am not jazzz I cannot remember any others I might have been accused of being. I am female. I was on twitter and decided to find somewhere I might get to talk feminism with like minded women that wasn't too esoteric but was intelligent and witty. I think the women on here fit that bill


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Signal 11
> Mr.Bishie
> kebabking
> ginger_syn
> ...


Yes


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes


Picky does that mean you are all male?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I am not firky I am not jazzz I cannot remember any others I might have been accused of being.



So you’re so new here but can quote those two names?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So you’re so new here but can quote those two names?


Because they are two of many I have been accused of being and remember them.
Please get over this.
What is so frightening to all of you about a woman sounding off about women's rights (and ensuring she doesn't want trans ppl to lose any rights they have) that means I have to continue to defend myself against all sorts of rubbish?


ETA I try not to swear verbally or online as an example to my sons. Some may slip through.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Signal 11
> Mr.Bishie
> kebabking
> ginger_syn
> ...


i'm a female, why?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

I see the resident fuckwit Gromit did refer to you as the former. Frightening? Nah. Just properly pissed off that a good friend has been hounded off the forum by transphobes, & you stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Then how come i was aware of it at around the turn of the century?


Janice wrote her book in the 70's and I am trying to find a recent podcast with Stone which suggests she is still very angry. 

Your theories are a huge amount of bull mixed in with the history of all this. It really does remind me of other conspiracy theories- a deep dark rabbit hole.

 Sandy Stone has connections to Donna Harroway of Cyborg Manifesto fame. So erm yeah. 

The Transsexual Empire probably provides all the so called propaganda about terfs and it could be said is the result of a nasty personal beef between Stone and Janice.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> i'm a female, why?


OK to make it simpler for those at the back. 

Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?

Did that make the question simpler?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

Fuck off Judith.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck off Judith.





JudithB said:


> Any attempt to challenge the substance of what I might say will very quickly become an excuse for you to shout bigot and transphobe. I have opinions. I look at evidence and have drawn conclusions. If some one was to offer me other evidence I would look at it and possibly draw other conclusions. Nothing remotely connected to the topic is discussed afaik without it quickly becoming personal name calling. I shall "curate" this thread and make it the Come and Call Me a Bigot and Transphobe thread. If you want to call me a man, someone you previously had beef with or any other manner of descriptors, here's the place to do it. I hope that makes everyone feel better.
> 
> (Victim, hysterical they're good to go words too)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

Fuck off.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Janice wrote her book in the 70's and I am trying to find a recent podcast with Stone which suggests she is still very angry.
> 
> Your theories are a huge amount of bull mixed in with the history of all this. It really does remind me of other conspiracy theories- a deep dark rabbit hole.



I don't have any theories, I have my opinion on the testimonies of those around at the time which I believe to be reasonably accurate and largely undisputed by either side.



> Sandy Stone has connections to Donna Harroway of Cyborg Manifesto fame. So erm yeah.



To be clear, you are calling Sandy Stone a liar, and this is based on the fact she knew someone you disagree with?  Is that a fair summary of why you reject her testimony?



> The Transsexual Empire probably provides all the so called propaganda about terfs and it could be said is the result of a nasty personal beef between Stone and Janice.



No it wasn't, it was based on Raymond's dissertation and produced under the guidance of Mary Daly and it is recognised by many of your contempories, including Sheila Jeffreys who has spoken at many of the recent ant GRA reform meetings, as the foundational text of gender critical feminism.  In her 2014 book Gender Hurts, Jeffreys opens her acknowledgements with this:



> I am indebted to Janice G. Raymond for her pioneering book, The Transsexual Empire (1994, fi rst published 1979). Her work is the foundation on which feminist criticism of transgenderism has been built, and continues to inspire radical feminist thought.



You are right though, I got the date it was published wrong.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Edie (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?


Woah. Hold up. These are sensitive things.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?



Here we go.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

smokedout said:


> I don't have any theories, I have my opinion on the testimonies of those around at the time which I believe to be reasonably accurate and largely undisputed by either side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why if you are a woman and so may other trans women (barring the GC transwomen I know) really seem to ignore the obvious safeguarding concerns we raise? I've stated mulitple times on these boards that it isn't transwomen it's the worry of Self ID and what that means to those who WILL abuse it. Why do you as a woman keep bashing us down? When we will fight for your rights. You do know that we are not ever going to ask for your rights to be taken away. Like your side (who physically attack women) we have bad apples. I would not count Posie or Julia Long as my campadres. Do you condone the behaviour of the Cathy Brennan and Tara Wolf?

ETA to change what was a ? to a full stop after your rights


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2019)

smokedout said:


> Here we go.



Talk about pushing buttons regarding the leaving of a good friend. Proper troll post from someone who’s been here before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Talk about pushing buttons regarding the leaving of a good friend. Proper troll post from someone who’s been here before.


This seems something of a giveaway 


JudithB said:


> For forum read boards. I am out of touch with the correct lingo
> 
> Have you missed me Picky?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Hmmm I tried to quote Picky and something went wrong... let me try again


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> This seems something of a giveaway





JudithB said:


> . If you want to call me a man, someone you previously had beef with or any other manner of descriptors, here's the place to do it. I hope that makes everyone feel better.
> 
> (Victim, hysterical they're good to go words too)



When are you going to get over the fact I am a woman and I am not some male person coming here to virtually tug on your penis for lols? 

Feminism mean women having concerns of their own that have nothing to do with you except if you are one of the 98% of perpetrators that hurt us. It's that simple. This is not a conspiracy


----------



## scifisam (Jul 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?



I see where you're coming from with what it means to be a "female" these days, but knock it off. For the purposes of discussion about womanhood etc it might be reasonable to ask politely if someone was born female or not, but that's it. 

That polite request could go down very badly sometimes too, but IMO it shouldn't if the context is gender-specific. I'm fairly sure people most on Urban could cope with someone saying "sorry, but because of the topic, does that mean born female or later identified as female?" without having to use terms like CIS or natal or anything politically loaded. There'd be people in the background in PMs calling you a TERF for bringing it up at all because there are arseholes everywhere but they would be a tiny minority.  

(Though I say this having had a couple of people blank me in real life for my supposed TERFdom - and I don't get out much - and a couple of people deleted me online - so it really is fucking divisive and I understand people battening down).


----------



## JudithB (Jul 6, 2019)

One can no longer ask a group of possible men who are obviously or tacitly (through likes) bullying a woman if they are men.

One can no longer name possible sexism if that was what I as a women might feel I am experiencing


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?


You are weird  really weird.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> You are weird  really weird.





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Anyway, they've found a witch, so they will continue to burn you, not for just this but ANYTHING you say..





JudithB said:


> One can no longer ask a group of possible men who are obviously or tacitly (through likes) bullying a woman if they are men.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

Also thank you for the laughs, its priceless


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I was on twitter and decided to find somewhere I might get to talk feminism with like minded women that wasn't too esoteric but was intelligent and witty. I think the women on here fit that bill




In case it gets missed in the flurry... I am loving our communion xx


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

No honestly its weird, but since you want to know so badly my kids popped out of my vag the same way i popped out of my mums.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Signal 11
> Mr.Bishie
> kebabking
> ginger_syn
> ...



Those mentioned are either elsewhere engaged and I hope they are having a fabulous night out. Those who so far have engaged can't apparently tell me what they are. The question if too complicated is and as a sister of someone with a DSD (look it up before shouting sex on a spectrum) were you born with the biology that produces ova or the biology that produces spermatoza?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 7, 2019)

Who accused you of being Firky, JudithB?
I don't think you're a troll BTW.
I have a dick if you think that's pertinent


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> No honestly its weird, but since you want to know so badly my kids popped out of my vag the same way i popped out of my mums.


Then why are you up in my mentions for asking about safeguarding and why there's a 4000% rise in girls transitioning? I cannot believe you want to shout bigot without examining something of what I might be saying?


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> Who accused you of being Firky, JudithB?
> I don't think you're a troll BTW.
> I have a dick if you think that's pertinent


OMFG - I don't remember - go back to the earliest pages. I just remember the name and it was early on.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 7, 2019)

ugh.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> Who accused you of being Firky, JudithB?
> I don't think you're a troll BTW.
> I have a dick if you think that's pertinent


And I dont care if you have a dick. It's how you treat women that matters  
I am thankful you dont think I'm a troll. God only knows why I need to be thankful for that. Women trying to talk about women with women. Who knew it would be so controversial?


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Then why are you up in my mentions for asking about safeguarding and why there's a 4000% rise in girls transitioning? I cannot believe you want to shout bigot without examining something of what I might be saying?


While heavily suggesting you were a liar i did not call you a bigot.


----------



## Looby (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Then why are you up in my mentions for asking about safeguarding and why there's a 4000% rise in girls transitioning? I cannot believe you want to shout bigot without examining something of what I might be saying?



Why is it so hard to believe that many women disagree with you?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 7, 2019)

Guys, seriously.

It's Saturday night and we've all had a few.

Calm the fuck down.

Here's a box of kittens.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

Looby said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that many women disagree with you?


Are you disagreeing that we should not look into why there is a 4000% in girls transitioning? And that there are a significant amount of detransitioners?


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

Sorry still laughing at your earlier post, this wil keep me going for days.


----------



## Looby (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Are you disagreeing that we should not look into why there is a 4000% in girls transitioning? And that there are a significant amount of detransitioners?



I’m not getting into it with you because like others I don’t actually trust you or feel comfortable discussing this with you. I’m not saying you’re a returner or a troll because I have no idea but having read your posts over the last couple of weeks I just feel uneasy and more than a little patronised. 

I don’t know why I commented at all but it really pisses me off when people question why women are trans inclusive or challenge whether they are ‘real feminists’ as if some of us are too thick to have realised the peril that awaits or something.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> Sorry still laughing at your earlier post, this wil keep me going for days.


And not giving a mention or perhaps a care to the 4000% uprise in young girls transitioning? Yes laugh at me all you want. 
There is a massive rise in detransitioners. Why are you concentrating on calling ppl like me bigots and not looking into what is actually happening to children and young adults?


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

I off to watch  something to distract myself, my cheeks hurt.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

Looby said:


> I’m not getting into it with you because like others I don’t actually trust you or feel comfortable discussing this with you. I’m not saying you’re a returner or a troll because I have no idea but having read your posts over the last couple of weeks I just feel uneasy and more than a little patronised.
> 
> I don’t know why I commented at all but it really pisses me off when people question why women are trans inclusive or challenge whether they are ‘real feminists’ as if some of us are too thick to have realised the peril that awaits or something.


That's up to you... but while you do that remember that there is something going on with young girls. 4000% uptake. If it were just to do with it being authentic lives I'd expect to see the same in my age group and especially my mother's. 

Question me please. I am open to debate. 

And at no point, I can guarantee, will I say the rights of trans people or their existance is up for debate.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

ginger_syn said:


> I off to watch  something to distract myself, my cheeks hurt.


Heartless


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OMFG - I don't remember - go back to the earliest pages. I just remember the name and it was early on.


You just have to type a word into search to find these things out.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

N_igma said:


> I also think this newbie is a troll. Firky though they are not.


That'll be why I remember the name. I think I might have been more explicitly accused going forward.

Do you know what is getting to me is no one wants to talk about the children caught up in this.

I'm off to bed now. We're off to a circus skills thing tomorrow. I call disappointed kids because they're talking trapeze acts and we know h&s wont let that happen.

I'd really like to talk about what's  happening with girls and transitioning. I'm a mother. My sons have friends who are changing gender and all of them are girls. I'm sorry I feel concerned. And I only say sorry because in the eyes of here I'm a bigot and transphobic apparently. I'm not. I  feel very concerned about three teenage girls I know because their parents are torn. It is scary as a parent. Hormones changes girls forever. And we're hearing more about necessitative hystorectomies. It's scary as fuck


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 7, 2019)

We see you now for sure. You've overplayed your hand.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> We see you now for sure


Welcome to the bully club Orang Utan. 
VIP membership unfortunately has been sold out.
You may be a well known member here but that counts for nothing until you use your powers of patriarchy to burn the witch
I am sure you will fit in well


----------



## Celyn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> That'll be why I remember the name. I think I might have been more explicitly accused going forward.
> 
> Do you know what is getting to me is no one wants to talk about the children caught up in this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Celyn (Jul 7, 2019)

.


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2019)

Those of you attacking the OP, saying she must be returner blah blah blah. For fuck’s sake you are an embarrassment.  Just argue with what is being said or not. Some posters can manage it. All this and I know what your game is blah blah blah. Pathetic wankers. Fuck this.


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2019)

Too many blahs in that, but you get the gist.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Heartless


Please I've only just stopped randomly chuckling, watching the rules of film noir helped don't set me off again.


----------



## BristolEcho (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Are you disagreeing that we should not look into why there is a 4000% in girls transitioning? And that there are a significant amount of detransitioners?



Where is the 4000% coming from? Trying to find it but I can't? Genuinely interested.


----------



## nyxx (Jul 7, 2019)

Judith B doesn’t give a flying fuck about a reported 81% rise in hate crime against trans people & spent considerable energy in trolling the discussion thread on it. But she wants everyone here to be concerned about some figure she’s pulled out of her arse as regards teenagers potentially transitioning. 


Oh and now anyone who criticises or disagrees with her is a bully. 

And anyone participating in the discussion has to disclose what’s in their pants now.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?


Inappropriate weird sense of humour episode is mostly under control so,
You do realise you have turned a simple question into a more complicated and offensive one don't you, though as you made the effort to frame it that way you must. Your posts are very dishonest aren't they which is why i won't debate with you because thats not what you want,
You seem to just want an opportunity to lie and misinform people.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Then why are you up in my mentions for asking about safeguarding and why there's a 4000% rise in girls transitioning? I cannot believe you want to shout bigot without examining something of what I might be saying?


No idea about what that first sentence is about, i have not called you a bigot, i called you a liar and i have looked at what  you've said and I'm sorry to say there is bigotry there, you seem bewildered that I as a born female(feels a little bit icky typing that) would support transpeople, why wouldn't I.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 7, 2019)

I think I have now had a week of what I was advised yesterday by a kind poster would happen. If this is going to happen to me I might as well raise the one big concern I have. The rapid rise in girls transitioning. 

Minister orders inquiry into 4,000 per cent rise in children wanting to change sex

Investigation as number of girls seeking gender transition treatment rises 4,515 percent

Investigation ordered after number of 'transitioning referrals' increase by four thousand per cent | Daily Mail Online

Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?



Why Is Transgender Identity on the Rise Among Teens?

You can "see me" as much as you want. I really am passed caring. If I have an audience for whatever reason I might as well ask the question. Why do we think girls are taking these sometimes radical or even drastic steps with their lives?


----------



## Edie (Jul 7, 2019)

Honestly, I think for the majority it’s just a fad. They’ll experiment a bit (and why not so long as it’s all social and not medical- it’s probably a good thing!). They’ll enjoy the attention, in the way teenage girls enjoy the drama. And then for the majority they’ll grow though it.

True dysphoria is no doubt much rarer. But that will come out in the wash and persist much beyond the young ones who are experimenting with identity in a fairly standard teenage way.

I think smokedout has pointed out before that only a tiny minority get puberty blockers or hormone treatment, and no child gets surgery. I find this reassuring and it inoculates against “panic”.

The other thing to note is this is largely a middle class South of England phenomenon. I know there will be some kids in Leeds who are trans, of course there will. But there’s no fad here. Frankly at where my kids go to school it’s too rough for that shit. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good or a bad thing, but it is a thing.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I think I have now had a week of what I was advised yesterday by a kind poster would happen. If this is going to happen to me I might as well raise the one big concern I have. The rapid rise in girls transitioning.
> 
> Minister orders inquiry into 4,000 per cent rise in children wanting to change sex
> 
> ...




Littman's (controversial) study points towards a hypothesis that the rise is largely made up of young females with ROGD (a term as yet unrecognised by the mainstream medical community), and that social contagion might play a significant role in that.   The study is not perfect, but has largely withstood an incredible amount of academic scrutiny (the corrected version stressed the methodology, but the conclusions remained the same), despite being the target of an ideological campaign.  It's not conclusive on this point, but doesn't claim to be; it does flag an area for further robust scientific investigation. However, that's being actively resisted by those who fear it'll undermine the 'born that way' narrative, and universities don't want the grief such research attracts (meaning the interests if those young people are sacrificed).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> When are you going to get over the fact I am a woman and I am not some male person coming here to virtually tug on your penis for lols?
> 
> Feminism mean women having concerns of their own that have nothing to do with you except if you are one of the 98% of perpetrators that hurt us. It's that simple. This is not a conspiracy


I'd prefer it if you didn't refer to me as Picky, check the FAQ for the bar on fucking about with usernames

When will you realise I haven't said you're a man?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK to make it simpler for those at the back.
> 
> Do you have the same genitalia as the person who birthed you? If you are intersex (and I apologise to my sister if I am now insensitive) did the tests you had when you were a tiny baby of a day or so old confirm you were male or female?
> 
> Did that make the question simpler?



This is massively out of line.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> Littman's (controversial) study points towards a hypothesis that the rise is largely made up of young females with ROGD (a term as yet unrecognised by the mainstream medical community), and that social contagion might play a significant role in that.   The study is not perfect, but has largely withstood an incredible amount of academic scrutiny (the corrected version stressed the methodology, but the conclusions remained the same), despite being the target of an ideological campaign.  It's not conclusive on this point, but doesn't claim to be; it does flag an area for further robust scientific investigation. However, that's being actively resisted by those who fear it'll undermine the 'born that way' narrative, and universities don't want the grief such research attracts (meaning the interests if those young people are sacrificed).



I wonder why you assume that research isn't happening currently? When you repeat this 'robust scientific investigation' line you're suggesting that it doesn't take place, that clinicians in the field aren't doing this. 

But also, the idea that scientific research will provide clear answers rather underestimates the complexity of working with these young people, any young people with difficulties of some kind - I do wonder, what kind of scientific research is going to give you the information you're looking for? What will that look like?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Picky does that mean you are all male?


It means I am male or female


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I wonder why you assume that research isn't happening currently? When you repeat this 'robust scientific investigation' line you're suggesting that it doesn't take place, that clinicians in the field aren't doing this.
> 
> But also, the idea that scientific research will provide clear answers rather underestimates the complexity of working with these young people, any young people with difficulties of some kind - I do wonder, what kind of scientific research is going to give you the information you're looking for? What will that look like?



I don't assume that research isn't taking place; I know that it is - very important research, often led by clinicians.  (Though I also know some institutions have been put off research in this area, due to the controversy.)

And I appreciate that the nature of this area will mean that we're unlikely to get black and white answers.  But I'd like to see an investigation into the hypothesised phenomenon of ROGD that's more methodically sound than Littman's (particularly around sampling/recruitment, and speaking to young people themselves).

Essentially, I'd be keen to for any decent research that can clarify whether the sudden upturn in the number of girls being referred is because they've always felt this way and are only now confident to say it, or whether it's developed suddenly because adolescence is hard and this is  a way to deal with that which is popular with their peer group. 

Because it seems to me a one size fits all approach to anyone who says they're trans (i.e. affirmation) might be failing some young people (both those who'd go on to detransition, and those who've always known they're trans from a very young age, but are considered with suspicion as jumping in the trend).


----------



## kebabking (Jul 7, 2019)

Most of the kids in my daughters (15) class last year were 'pan', now they're something else that I don't particularly understand - I rather doubt that the 4000% is a solid number: it rather sounds like an amalgam of the number of girls who answered yes to 'wouldn't it be great to be able to take a piss in a field like a boy', and boys who, on a roasting hot day in black school trousers, thought it would be a lot more comfortable to wear a skirt.

If you're an obsessive bigot, then this is a Trans Army - if you're everyone else it's just kids being kids.

I do think Judith is a bigot, I think she wants somewhere to broadcast her views and not have to deal with counter arguments, I don't see her wanting to be part of a community, I think she wants a stage.

She might be genuine, she might be trolling - personally I couldn't care less...


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

kebabking said:


> ... it rather sounds like an amalgam of the number of girls who answered yes to 'wouldn't it be great to be able to take a piss in a field like a boy'...



No, it's not girls who quite like the idea of a stand-up piss; it's girls referred for treatment.


----------



## BristolEcho (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I think I have now had a week of what I was advised yesterday by a kind poster would happen. If this is going to happen to me I might as well raise the one big concern I have. The rapid rise in girls transitioning.
> 
> Minister orders inquiry into 4,000 per cent rise in children wanting to change sex
> 
> ...




Thanks. Why do you think they are? Not sure how comfortable I feel with the terms radical and drastic are unhelpful. When supporting someone through this they are terms I'd avoid.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Why if you are a woman and so may other trans women (barring the GC transwomen I know) really seem to ignore the obvious safeguarding concerns we raise? I've stated mulitple times on these boards that it isn't transwomen it's the worry of Self ID and what that means to those who WILL abuse it. Why do you as a woman keep bashing us down? When we will fight for your rights. You do know that we are not ever going to ask for your rights to be taken away. Like your side (who physically attack women) we have bad apples. I would not count Posie or Julia Long as my campadres. Do you condone the behaviour of the Cathy Brennan and Tara Wolf?
> 
> ETA to change what was a ? to a full stop after your rights



Why would you rather personalise this then answer the point? You claimed that the events I posted, events which are important to understand for anyone interested in the history of this conflict were revisionist, a strong word as I'm sure you realise, yet you have failed to show that, or to provide an alternative history. So are you prepared to back up this claim or not? 

And its pretty rude to assume people's sex or gender, I have discussed my relationship to gender on the thread you refuse to read or post, I'm certainly not doing it with you here, mostly because I don't believe you are the really interested, you're just so mired in identity politics that you think you might be able to use it to score points.


----------



## chilango (Jul 7, 2019)

You know what?

If for whatever reason I wanted to disrupt, fuck up even, a community such as this then I would do it now, when then the community is under real strain because of certain debates. Yeah, I'd appear right now and in the manner that JudithB  has appeared.

I'm not saying that that is what she is doing, but the impact may end up being the same. 

I may have a cock and balls but I've been part of this community for 15 years, and seen the genuine positives it has had for many if its members. I don't want to see that lost.

So Judith, if you're here with honest intentions, stick around, join the community and contribute to it in a wider sense. Build those relationships, read and learn about who people are, what they believe and then think about what it's worth saying and what's not.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Most of the kids in my daughters (15) class last year were 'pan', now they're something else that I don't particularly understand - I rather doubt that the 4000% is a solid number: it rather sounds like an amalgam of the number of girls who answered yes to 'wouldn't it be great to be able to take a piss in a field like a boy', and boys who, on a roasting hot day in black school trousers, thought it would be a lot more comfortable to wear a skirt.
> 
> If you're an obsessive bigot, then this is a Trans Army - if you're everyone else it's just kids being kids.
> 
> ...



There has been a large rise in referrals to children's gender identity services, and trans boys now outnumber trans girls, but we're still talking about one in ten thousand kids, many do not have any treatment at all and the vast majority are over 15.

The reason for the rise is unknown but increased acceptance of trans people, as well as a rise in awareness that this service exists amongst GPs, parents and kids themselves is likely to be a significant factor. And the truth is that this is still way below the rate of trans adults and given most trans people report gender dysphoria beginning in childhood then it seems that most trans kids are not being identified or given any support. As Edie says, there may be a fashion for experimenting with gender amongst kids at middle class schools in the South of England, but elsewhere sadly it seems likely most gender divergent children are still in the closet and scared to come out.


----------



## Edie (Jul 7, 2019)

chilango said:


> So Judith, if you're here with honest intentions, stick around, join the community and contribute to it in a wider sense. Build those relationships, read and learn about who people are, what they believe and then think about what it's worth saying and what's not.


I certainly think this is true. And is a bit like my urge to want to take it offline and face to face where people are more gentle and compassionate. But really, CdL coming back (and I won’t tag her because she’s indicated she wants to step out of it for a bit) has made me really think about how I’d actually deal with this in real life rather than as a theoretical online debate which is what this is for me right now. And the answer is that if it was my best mate in real life’s kid who was struggling with their gender identity, who had been pushed to the edge, who was off her head with worry about what would happen to them, whether they’d be supported, accepted, then obviously I’d do anything I could for them.

It’s the friendships that have built over time, and that have been tested to the limit and beyond the limit, that matter. stethoscope for example, I care about her.

I’ve given up pretending I have any answers in this debate. It’s just so emotive.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't assume that research isn't taking place; I know that it is - very important research, often led by clinicians.  (Though I also know some institutions have been put off research in this area, due to the controversy.)
> 
> And I appreciate that the nature of this area will mean that we're unlikely to get black and white answers.  But I'd like to see an investigation into the hypothesised phenomenon of ROGD that's more methodically sound than Littman's (particularly around sampling/recruitment, and speaking to young people themselves).
> 
> ...



Thing is Athos the only GID service for young people in this country doesn't have a one size fits all approach at all. They're very clear that they work on a case by case basis and they say this repeatedly.

I certainly hope that the clinical research is being led by clinicians. However, I'd suggest the upturn in referrals is a multifactorial phenomenon.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Thing is Athos the only GID service for young people in this country doesn't have a one size fits all approach at all. They're very clear that they work on a case by case basis and they say this repeatedly.
> 
> I certainly hope that the clinical research is being led by clinicians. However, I'd suggest the upturn in referrals is a multifactorial phenomenon.



Yet many from within that service have expressed concerns about a prevailing approach that's not evidence-based.  Not saying it goes against the evidence, necessarily, but that there are big gaps - which is why I'd like to see a decent follow-up to Littman's work.

I've no doubt it's a multi factorial causation.  Which is why some way of picking apart the cause(s) in individual cases (so that treatment can be more effectively tailored) is so important.

That still meets a lot of resistance, or even downright hostility, though.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> And not giving a mention or perhaps a care to the 4000% uprise in young girls transitioning? Yes laugh at me all you want.
> There is a massive rise in detransitioners. Why are you concentrating on calling ppl like me bigots and not looking into what is actually happening to children and young adults?



From purely a statistical pov if there has been a massive rise in transitioners then there will likely also be a rise in detransitioners.  I dont know what the numbers are but it's interesting that you use % instead of numbers.

What was the increase in gay people after it became legal/more acceptable? How many more people felt free or safer to contemplate or explore  the possibility before settling on heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality?







I've seen it asked what the moral panic will be for our generation now we are parents seeing as we were so cool with our drugs and our gay friends. I think we've found it.

As a society we are in a constant state of transition, if you will excuse the pun. In 20 years we may have moved on to the equivalent of gay marriage, whatever that is.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yet many from within that service have expressed concerns about a prevailing approach that's not evidence-based.  Not saying it goes against the evidence, necessarily, but that there are big gaps - which is why I'd like to see a decent follow-up to Littman's work.
> 
> I've no doubt it's a multi factorial causation.  Which is why some way of picking apart the cause(s) in individual cases (so that treatment can be more effectively tailored) is so important.
> 
> That still meets a lot of resistance, or even downright hostility, though.


 
You're oversimplifying the picture. The criticism isn't that it's not evidence-based, it's that the approach of the GIDS is out of step with the cautious exploratory psychoanalytic approach that characterises the rest of the work done by the Tavistock and Portman. What David Bell says, amongst other reported criticisms, was that there isn't sufficient time and space given to exploring individual and family history and context and trauma. I'm sure that's the case. There is less and less time given to exploring individual and family histories in clinics everywhere as all services have huge waiting lists and have become increasingly medical with a focus on through-put. The people making criticisms are making them from the point of view of the need to get to know the patient/client first and foremost, over time, that's the kind of evidence they, and I, believe is needed.

David Bell and Marcus Evans are very senior clinicians. I know that because this is my field. I have their books, I read their papers, and if I saw they were speaking at a conference, I would try to attend. I'm very interested and take very seriously what they say. But the media is simplifying a complex political and clinical picture; as they can't even report correctly which service these two clinicians work for, I don't trust them with much else. They don't work for GIDS, they are senior staff in the Tavistock Clinic.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> You're oversimplifying the picture. The criticism isn't that it's not evidence-based, it's that the approach of the GIDS is out of step with the cautious exploratory psychoanalytic approach that characterises the rest of the work done by the Tavistock and Portman. What David Bell says, amongst other reported criticisms, was that there isn't sufficient time and space given to exploring individual and family history and context and trauma. I'm sure that's the case. There is less and less time given to exploring individual and family histories in clinics everywhere as all services have huge waiting lists and have become increasingly medical with a focus on through-put. The people making criticisms are making them from the point of view of the need to get to know the patient/client first and foremost, over time, that's the kind of evidence they, and I, believe is needed.
> 
> David Bell and Marcus Evans are very senior clinicians. I know that because this is my field. I have their books, I read their papers, and if I saw they were speaking at a conference, I would try to attend. I'm very interested and take very seriously what they say. But the media is simplifying a complex political and clinical picture; as they can't even report correctly which service these two clinicians work for, I don't trust them with much else. They don't work for GIDS, they are senior staff in the Tavistock Clinic.



Surely a lack of individual history is an aspect of lack of evidence?

But I accept your criticism that I'm over-simplifying; I'm a lay person, without your expertise in this field.

In any event, fundamentally, I don't think we disagree about that much.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> Surely a lack of individual history is an aspect of lack of evidence?
> 
> But I accept your criticism that I'm over-simplifying; I'm a lay person, without your expertise in this field.
> 
> In any event, fundamentally, I don't think we disagree about that much.



Yes, but it's not the same as THE EVIDENCE BASE which is political. 

I'm not an expert in GIDS, I would never want to give that impression, but I do understand some of the context at the Tavistock and wider services/ practice.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

And I don't mean to shut you up Athos, of course services should be open to scrutiny.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, but it's not the same as THE EVIDENCE BASE which is political.



I'm not sure I agree that the difference is so stark.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> And I don't mean to shut you up Athos, of course services should be open to scrutiny.



I know you don't; never thought that for a minute.  Though I'm sure it'd be no bad thing if someone did shut me up!


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Hmmm I tried to quote Picky and something went wrong... let me try again


Stop fucking about with user names.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure I agree that the difference is so stark.



Evidence-based practice is supposed to include practice-based evidence but the current political climate values and prioritises RCTs above all else to the point where they have become synonymous.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Evidence-based practice is supposed to include practice-based evidence but the current political climate values and prioritises RCTs above all else to the point where they have become synonymous.



But we don't have to accept that.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Athos said:


> Surely a lack of individual history is an aspect of lack of evidence?



Something which isn't widely understood is that GIDs is supposed to work with local CAMHS clinics, referring services, to gather information, get to know the young person and the family. I don't know how well this works due to huge pressures on services and challenges everywhere doing any kind of linked-up work. 

Anyway, I suppose what I want to get across isn't my awareness of the specifics so much as an appreciation of complexity. Any strongly felt certainty is likely to be misplaced.


----------



## chilango (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Something which isn't widely understood is that GIDs is supposed to work with local CAMHS clinics, referring services, to gather information, get to know the young person and the family. I don't know how well this works due to huge pressures on services and challenges everywhere doing any kind of linked-up work.
> .



My experience in the couple of cases I was involved in is that that link up work was ok. Certainly no worse, maybe a little better, than other situations.

...but that's a very small sample.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 7, 2019)

Interesting how a rising number of kids identifying as trans can simultaneously be a fad that'll blow over when they get tired of drama _and_ the most terrifying attack on childhood in a generation perpetrated by a cabal of trans zealots intent on mutilating their progeny. Anyway just on the "4,400% rise" mentioned, the actual numbers there are:

_>In 2009/2010, a total of 40 girls were referred by doctors for gender treatment. By 2017/2018 that number had soared to 1,806. 
>Referrals for boys have risen from 57 to 713 in the same period._

There are currently 8.81 million pupils of all ages in school as of 2019 (up from 8m in 2009), so 2,500 pupils getting referred is equivalent to 0.03% of the total. Conservative estimates on the percentage of the general UK population identifying as trans is something like 0.2%. Meaning that the rise, while seemingly sharp, is nearly a factor of ten lower than the percentage of adult people who identify as trans. Suggesting that it does not in fact represent a fad or a wide-ranging campaign of manipulation, but simply a small movement towards parity, most likely brought about by greater availability of support networks and acceptance in peer groups.

Amazing what a bit of context can do for what on the face of it would otherwise look like a shock number, eh.


----------



## Edie (Jul 7, 2019)

That kinda makes sense then that I’ve never known, seen or even heard of a trans kid. If there are less than 3000 in the entire country.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

chilango said:


> My experience in the couple of cases I was involved in is that that link up work was ok. Certainly no worse, maybe a little better, than other situations.
> 
> ...but that's a very small sample.



I should think local organisations are very keen to link up with GIDS. I can imagine schools, in particular, wanting to ensure those links are functioning as it's likely they fear they themselves lack the expertise. 

Anyway, it is strange that yet another thread has ended up discussing this. I didn't want to post on the subject again really, I've said all I have to say about it before, I'm not adding anything here.


----------



## abstract1 (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Anyway, it is strange that yet another thread has ended up discussing this. I didn't want to post on the subject again really, I've said all I have to say about it before, I'm not adding anything here.



I’m not surprised by the travel of direction, tbf.

Also, I find your contributions, generally, very valuable - please don’t ever ‘not post’ if you feel you have something to say! Apols for slightly clumsy wording.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I should think local organisations are very keen to link up with GIDS. I can imagine schools, in particular, wanting to ensure those links are functioning as it's likely they fear they themselves lack the expertise.
> 
> Anyway, it is strange that yet another thread has ended up discussing this. I didn't want to post on the subject again really, I've said all I have to say about it before, I'm not adding anything here.


By no means - you add a great deal


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Something which isn't widely understood is that GIDs is supposed to work with local CAMHS clinics, referring services, to gather information, get to know the young person and the family. I don't know how well this works due to huge pressures on services and challenges everywhere doing any kind of linked-up work.
> 
> Anyway, I suppose what I want to get across isn't my awareness of the specifics so much as an appreciation of complexity. Any strongly felt certainty is likely to be misplaced.



Yep, I agree.  Certainty is a probably a sign of a lack of understanding of the complexity!

And I'm sure nobody will disagree that these important services are chronically under-resourced.


----------



## Athos (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I should think local organisations are very keen to link up with GIDS. I can imagine schools, in particular, wanting to ensure those links are functioning as it's likely they fear they themselves lack the expertise.
> 
> Anyway, it is strange that yet another thread has ended up discussing this. I didn't want to post on the subject again really, I've said all I have to say about it before, I'm not adding anything here.



I think yours is one if the more valuable voices on this subject.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Feminism mean women having concerns of their own that have nothing to do with you except if you are one of the 98% of perpetrators that hurt us. It's that simple. This is not a conspiracy


this has been playing on my mind today

I don't think feminism is that at all, it's a very peculiar form of feminism you practice if it's nothing to do with men unless they're rapists or gropers. Doesn't your feminism have anything to say about equality in the workplace or home?


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2019)

Thanks all for your appreciative words. I wasn't looking for that but nice to read anyhow


----------



## Supine (Jul 7, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Thanks all for your appreciative words. I wasn't looking for that but nice to read anyhow



Good to have someone who knows their stuff contributing


----------



## scifisam (Jul 8, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Interesting how a rising number of kids identifying as trans can simultaneously be a fad that'll blow over when they get tired of drama _and_ the most terrifying attack on childhood in a generation perpetrated by a cabal of trans zealots intent on mutilating their progeny. Anyway just on the "4,400% rise" mentioned, the actual numbers there are:
> 
> _>In 2009/2010, a total of 40 girls were referred by doctors for gender treatment. By 2017/2018 that number had soared to 1,806.
> >Referrals for boys have risen from 57 to 713 in the same period._
> ...



I'm sorry, but that's fucking ridiculous. Is there _any_ other "context" in which you'd downplay a 4000% increase so much? Seriously.

It's not like that represents all the girls who are identifying as genderqueer or trans, either - it's a tiny percentage of them. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise. 

What a disingenuous post. Well written, though. That bit about the cabal makes people who have any concerns about the rise in referrals look really evil even though it's not actually representative of their views. Clever.

This is one of the reasons loads of people have given up on these discussions. Nobody's won any arguments in the sense of persuading "the other side," people have just given up. It's difficult to discuss something that's happening if some people, like you, claim it's not even happening at all. 

I'm not going to keep discussing it either, but I couldn't let this bit lie.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 8, 2019)

_"is therea_ other "context" in which you'd downplay a 4000% increase so much?"

I'm not downplaying anything, in fact all I did was use actual numbers rather than interpreted ones, but yes of course there are other examples of similarity dodgy stats being used for partisan ends.

Knife crime for example is regularly portrayed as "surging" but the increase is from such a low base relative to both population change and the historic lows of the last two decades that highlighting a percentage rise can make the issue look far larger than the reality. It's a technique used a lot in reactionary journalism when people are looking for a way to scare and titillate public opinion for the sake of a good old fashioned moral panic. Honestly I would urge people to check the backend stats _every_ time the headline looks outlandish, because it usually means something fishy is being done to them.

It's an impressive bit of projection that you'd accuse me of being disingenuous when I'm specifically pointing out how JB is using partial stats in a misleading manner. Doesn't reflect well on you though imo.

Nor does that vague handwaving of yours about some supposed vast number of kids who identify as trans without doing something about it, which was a) not the issue as first highlighted, goalpost-mover b) is surely a point against panicking even if it does exist as a phenomenon, as it would suggest doctors and parents are not in fact giving in to fads en masse at all and are sensibly only referring when it seems like a legit ask.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not downplaying anything, in fact all I did was use actual numbers rather than interpreted ones, but yes of course there are other examples of similarity dodgy stats being used for partisan ends. Knife crime for example is regularly portrayed as "surging" but the increase is from such a low base that highlighting a percentage rise can make the issue look far larger than the reality.



Or like recorded hate crimes against trans people which are fewer in number and rising less rapidly than the number of children referred?  It seems that challenges to statistics can be equally partisan.

For the record, I'm not downplaying the rise in reported hate crimes against trans people; I think both these phenomena are concerning, and need to be addressed.  I don't believe we should shrug off a 4,000% increase in an area of children's wellbeing in white such a cavalier fashion.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 8, 2019)

Ah yes, it's cavalier to use real stats as opposed to the scariest possible interpretation of those numbers, and violence against trans people is "equally as concerning" as referral to a doctor. Classy as ever Athos, thought I had you on mute already. Will fix now.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Ah yes, it's cavalier to use real stats as opposed to the scariest possible interpretation of those numbers, and violence against trans people is "equally as concerning" as referral to a doctor. Classy as ever Athos, thought I had you on mute already. Will fix now.



I didn't say "equally as concerning"; your quotation marks are an entirely dishonest misrepresentation of my position.

Both stats are "real."  The increases in both are a cause for concern, notwithstanding that the actual numbers are low.

What concerns me isn't that referrals are made, but that they're needed.  If that's just because young people are more comfortable coming forward, that's great; if it's that more young people are suffering this distress, that's a worry.  I think it worthy of some investigation, rather than your approach of shrugging it off.

By all means mute me if you're not willing or able to respond to what I actually write.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I'm sorry, but that's fucking ridiculous. Is there _any_ other "context" in which you'd downplay a 4000% increase so much? Seriously.


I'm not going to get into the specifics about what constitutes downplaying but Rob Ray is absolutely correct that using a % increase with small numbers (like 40) is nearly always a bad idea and would usually be frowned upon.

An increase from 40 to 1600 is very different to an increase from 400,000 to 16,000,000.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 8, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I'm sorry, but that's fucking ridiculous. Is there _any_ other "context" in which you'd downplay a 4000% increase so much? Seriously.
> 
> It's not like that represents all the girls who are identifying as genderqueer or trans, either - it's a tiny percentage of them. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
> 
> ...



I think there's a real discord here and that many see this rise purely in terms of it being a bad thing, and it's difficult to avoid the implication therefore that being trans is a bad thing, or at least something society should try to prevent. 

From a perspective though that recognises trans is just a thing, that is unpreventable and as such it is actually a good thing that more young trans people are receiving support, as long of course as only those who really need it are receiving any form of medical treatment. When taking about numbers perhaps a good starting point is how many trans children would you expect there to be. I'm not sure of any research that has been done into how many of the estimated 1% of those who are trans or gender dysphoria who report significant distress due to gender dysphoria in childhood and who feel they would have benefitted from the support offered but my guess is it would be significantly more than one in ten thousand of the population. In this context whilst the rise might be sudden, the number of children referred to GIDS is very low. 

Obviously that doesn't answer the question of whether these are the right children, but given minimum 3year waiting and assessment periods and the fact the Tavistock say these children are thriving and they have a zero regret rate then it looks pretty promising. The Tavistock are also embarking on a huge research project into treating gender dysphoria in children, more research is going on elsewhere and despite popular assumptions this is widely supported by the trans community. It's pretty offensive that some, not you scifii but many, imply there is an agenda to trans children, the ultimate end point of which would be to induce gender dysphoria in non trans adults by giving them bodies that didn't match their genders or sense of self or whatever you want to call it. That is exactly what trans healthcare is intended to prevent.

Finally if you start from the perspective that trans kids exist, and they really do, then Occams Razor would surely suggest that the rise in referrals had come from the massive change in social attitudes towards trans acceptance, as well as the fact these services have gone from being a tiny backwater of the NHS that even many GPs weren't aware of to front page news.  There has also been a very large rise in trans girls presenting for treatment. I'm haven't heard any claims that this is also due to ROGD, or that there are clusters of trans girls, or that they are confused gay teenagers who have been taught to hate their bodies by Patriarchy. It again seems pretty obvious that this is due to a reduction in social stigma, although that may be going into reverse in the UK and greater awareness of treatment options. Because really, from my memory the last thing the teenage boys I grew up alongside wanted was for their dicks to shrivel up due to hormones.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 8, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> From purely a statistical pov if there has been a massive rise in transitioners then there will likely also be a rise in detransitioners.  I dont know what the numbers are but it's interesting that you use % instead of numbers.



I'm guessing it's gone from 2 to 90.

edit: oops - a bit off there, but that figure doesn't match 4,400% tbf


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

smokedout said:


> I think there's a real discord here and that many see this rise purely in terms of it being a bad thing, and it's difficult to avoid the implication therefore that being trans is a bad thing, or at least something society should try to prevent.
> 
> From a perspective though that recognises trans is just a thing, that is unpreventable and as such it is actually a good thing that more young trans people are receiving support, as long of course as only those who really need it are receiving any form of medical treatment. When taking about numbers perhaps a good starting point is how many trans children would you expect there to be. I'm not sure of any research that has been done into how many of the estimated 1% of those who are trans or gender dysphoria who report significant distress due to gender dysphoria in childhood and who feel they would have benefitted from the support offered but my guess is it would be significantly more than one in ten thousand of the population. In this context whilst the rise might be sudden, the number of children referred to GIDS is very low.
> 
> ...



First, where does the 1% estimate come from?

Secondly, if one in a hundred kids are trans, the chances of, say,  four girls in a group of ten being trans are very, very small.  Yet this story of clustering is being reported by many.   Doesn't that suggest that there might be more to it than simply an increased willingness to come out?  If young people are identifying as trans  for reasons other than gender dysphoria (e.g. social contagion) they might require different treatment from those who have gender dysphoria.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> First, where does the 1% estimate come from?



Gender dysphoria   (I presume)



> Secondly, if one in a hundred kids are trans, the chances of, say,  four girls in a group of ten being trans are very, very small.  Yet this story of clustering is being reported by many.   Doesn't that suggest that there might be more to it than simply an increased willingness to come out?  If young people are identifying as trans  for reasons other than gender dysphoria (e.g. social contagion) they might require different treatment from those who have gender dysphoria.


Unless, of course, those who do experience GD actively seek each other out, which you'd have thought they'd be quite likely to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

cba


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Gender dysphoria



What the relevant part of that link says is


> It's not known exactly how many people experience gender dysphoria, because many people with the condition never seek help. A survey of 10,000 people undertaken in 2012 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 1% of the population surveyed was gender variant, to some extent. While gender dysphoria appears to be rare, the number of people being diagnosed with the condition is increasing, due to growing public awareness.



Gender variant presumably isn't exactly the same as having gender dysphoria, but I guess we can take the two as similar for the purposes of this estimate.

And given that public awareness is growing and more people are seeking help, it's likely that the estimated figure will be something of an underestimate.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Gender dysphoria
> 
> Unless, of course, those who do experience GD actively seek each other out, which you'd have thought they'd be quite likely to do.



What does this mean?   And is it the same as being trans? 

"_A survey of 10,000 people undertaken in 2012 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 1% of the population surveyed was gender variant, to some extent._"

The pattern being reported is of longstanding groups with no obvious GD links.   But, in fairness, that's largely anecdotal.  Which is why I'd like to see a decent follow-up to Littman's work, to see why the sudden increase - whether it's entirely down to an increased willingness to come out, and/or down to social contagion (and/or something else).  Wouldn't you?


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> if one in a hundred kids are trans, the chances of, say,  four girls in a group of ten being trans are very, very small.  Yet this story of clustering is being reported by many...


The source for this clustering may already have been posted, but would you mind posting it again please


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> What does this mean?   And is it the same as being trans?
> 
> "_A survey of 10,000 people undertaken in 2012 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 1% of the population surveyed was gender variant, to some extent._"
> 
> The pattern being reported is of longstanding groups with no obvious GD links.   But, in fairness, that's largely anecdotal.  Which is why I'd like to see a decent follow-up to Littman's work, to see why the sudden increase - whether it's entirely down to an increased willingness to come out, and/or down to social contagion (and/or something else).  Wouldn't you?


No it isn't, it is reporting that on the numbers who say they experience some kind of gender 'variance' - it is using deliberately vague terms, partly to test out what terms are appropriate. But trans and Gender dysphoria is what smokedout referred to


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> No it isn't, it is reporting that on the numbers who say they experience some kind of gender 'variance' - it is using deliberately vague terms, partly to test out what terms are appropriate. But trans and Gender dysphoria is what smokedout referred to



Yes, and I asked for a source for the claim of 1% being trans and/or having gender dysphoria. The survey you quoted isn't evidence of that, since it asked about something different called "gender variance."

Would you mind answering the question at the end of the post you quoted, please?


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> The source for this clustering may already have been posted, but would you mind posting it again please


Not very readily from my phone, but if you search these boards for 'Littman' I think you'll find a link.  Don't read too much into it though; it raises a hypothesis, rather than purporting to prove it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, and I asked for a source for the claim of 1% being trans and/or having gender dysphoria. The survey you quoted isn't evidence of that, since it asked about something different called "gender variance."
> 
> Would you mind answering the question at the end of the post you quoted, please?


Not particularly different.  For the terms of this discussion it is close enough.  Indeed, it was part of the point.

As for your question - I'm not fussed. Yes there will be some social influence, but I do not think that that is a particularly important question to be asking.


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not very readily from my phone, but if you search these boards for 'Littman' I think you'll find a link.  Don't read too much into it though; it raises a hypothesis, rather than purporting to prove it.


Found it. This is the link for anyone else who hasn't read it yet

Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Not particularly different.  For the terms of this discussion it is close enough.  Indeed, it was part of the point.
> 
> As for your question - I'm not fussed. Yes there will be some social influence, but I do not think that that is a particularly important question to be asking.



Is it close enough? What does "gender variance"mean, then?

I'm surprised you're not fussed, given the importance of understanding the differing reasons for children identifying as trans in tailoring their treatment.  It seems to me you might need to differentiate between a kid who's long felt they're 'in the wrong body', and, say, a young girl for whom identifying as trans is this generation's alternative to e.g. anorexia or self-harm.   Especially given the potential for lifelong consequences of treatment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> Is it close enough? What does "gender variance"mean, then?
> 
> I'm surprised you're not fussed, given the importance of understanding the differing reasons for children identifying as trans in tailoring their treatment.  It seems to me you might need to differentiate between a kid who's long felt they're 'in the wrong body, and, say, a young girl for whom identifying as trans is this generation's alternative to e.g. anorexia or self-harm.   Especially given the potential for lifelong consequences of treatment.


how would you differentiate between the two - how, specifically, would you tell them apart?


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> Is it close enough? What does "gender variance"mean, then?


Yes it is.  And look at the paper if you genuinely care and aren't just trying to divert the discussion onto some barely relevant point, once again.

I'm surprised you're not fussed, given the importance of understanding the differing reasons for children identifying as trans in tailoring their treatment.  It seems to me you might need to differentiate between a kid who's long felt they're 'in the wrong body, and, say, a young girl for whom identifying as trans is this generation's alternative to e.g. anorexia or self-harm.   Especially given the potential for lifelong consequences of treatment.[/QUOTE]
Littman's theories are irrelevant to that though. Doing as you suggest 'simply'* requires exploring individual and family history and context and trauma.  Of the individual. 


* In inverted commas cos obviously doing so isn't really 'simple'


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> how would you differentiate between the two - how, specifically, would you tell them apart?



I don't know. Hopefully, that's something further research might help establish.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Yes it is.  And look at the paper if you genuinely care and aren't just trying to divert the discussion onto some barely relevant point, once again.
> 
> Littman's theories are irrelevant to that though. Doing as you suggest 'simply'* requires exploring individual and family history and context and trauma.  Of the individual.
> 
> * In inverted commas cos obviously doing so isn't really 'simple'



You don't know what "gender variance" means in this context, do you?

The trouble with confining scientific enquiry to individual cases in the present is that they provide little help in forecasting outcomes in the way that understanding the individual history *and* the evidence of a large scale longitudinal study might.

I don't think it can be in children's interests to resist a better understanding of this phenomenon.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> belboid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh fuck off, you patronising shit.



> The trouble with confining scientific enquiry to individual cases in the present is that they provide no way to forecast outcomes in the way that, say, a large scale longitudinal study might.  I don't think it can be in children's interests to resist a better understanding of this phenomenon.


In terms of priorities, this particular anecdote based theory strikes me as a far way down the list. An aspect to be included in a broader study, perhaps. The promotion of it as such a key area just strikes me as looking for a theory to justify a pre-existing bias.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Oh fuck off, you patronising shit.



Thought not. 



belboid said:


> In terms of priorities, this particular anecdote based theory strikes me as a far way down the list. An aspect to be included in a broader study, perhaps. The promotion of it as such a key area just strikes me as looking for a theory to justify a pre-existing bias.



Well, I'd expect nothing less of you.  But I suspect most reasonable people would think it pretty important, where possible, to understand why children present with the distress they do, before deciding the best way to treat them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't know. Hopefully, that's something further research might help establish.


i'm not sure saying it's a bit of a fad like anorexia's the best way to describe your alternative to dysphoria. this may not be your intended meaning, but you seem to me to suggest it. do people really set out to identify as anorexic?


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure saying it's a bit of a fad like anorexia's the best way to describe your alternative to dysphoria. this may not be your intended meaning, but you seem to me to suggest it. do people really set out to identify as anorexic?



I don't believe anorexia or kids identifying as trans are fads (and didn't say or imply that).  The way in which psychological distress manifests is socially mediated, and changes over time and place.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 8, 2019)

This thread doesn't seem to be about feminism any more


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> Well, I'd expect nothing less of you.  But I suspect most reasonable people would think it pretty important, where possible, to understand why children present with the distress they do, before deciding the best way to treat them.


That isn't really a response to what I wrote, is it? Why do you think Littman is the only/the key theory that should be studied? Because it fits with your pre-conceived bias.  In my view, it is far too limited a way of looking at why young people present.  Pretty much a side issue.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure saying it's a bit of a fad like anorexia's the best way to describe your alternative to dysphoria. this may not be your intended meaning, but you seem to me to suggest it. do people really set out to identify as anorexic?




If I was looking for a trendy label, I probably wouldn't go for the one with the highest mortality of any mental illness.


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Found it. This is the link for anyone else who hasn't read it yet
> 
> Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria


I may have missed something on my relatively brief look at this study, but as far as I can see it's based (as the title suggests) entirely on parental reports of young people perceived by their parents to show signs of rapid onset gender dysphoria.

In other words it is not in any way (and nor does it claim to be) a broad study of gender dysphoria in general, and neither does it support Athos's earlier claim to have identified clusters


Athos said:


> ...if one in a hundred kids are trans, the chances of, say, four girls in a group of ten being trans are very, very small.  Yet this story of clustering is being reported by many...


as it is only concerned with young people perceived by their parents to show signs of rapid onset gender dysphoria, so there is no accurate measure of how many young people in a given group, however defined, are *not* showing such signs.

If I've missed or misunderstood something in this study, Athos, please point it out to me.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> That isn't really a response to what I wrote, is it? Why do you think Littman is the only/the key theory that should be studied? Because it fits with your pre-conceived bias.  In my view, it is far too limited a way of looking at why young people present.  Pretty much a side issue.



I don't think it's the only/the key theory they should be studied. The idea that I do is entirely a figment of your imagination.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> this has been playing on my mind today
> 
> I don't think feminism is that at all, it's a very peculiar form of feminism you practice if it's nothing to do with men unless they're rapists or gropers. Doesn't your feminism have anything to say about equality in the workplace or home?


JudithB you've been back at least twice today, maybe on your next swing by you could answer my post


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't think it's the only/the key theory they should be studied. The idea that I do is entirely a figment of your imagination.


As it is the one you go on and on about, I think everyone else can see precisely where I got that impression from.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 8, 2019)

weepiper said:


> This thread doesn't seem to be about feminism any more



Didn't somebody find the threads?


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> I may have missed something on my relatively brief look at this study, but as far as I can see it's based (as the title suggests) entirely on parental reports of young people perceived by their parents to show signs of rapid onset gender dysphoria.
> 
> In other words it is not in any way (and nor does it claim to be) a broad study of gender dysphoria in general, and neither does it support Athos's earlier claim to have identified clusters
> 
> ...



When referring you to it I explicitly gave a 'health warning' that it suggests a hypothesis, rather than purports to prove it!  I've recognised it's limitations, as, indeed does the author.  The only claim I've made for it is that it's a starting point for further and better research. (And, on the clusters/social contagion point it does say:  "_In 36.8% of the friendship groups described, parent participants indicated that the majority of the members became transgender-identified_.")


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't think it's the only/the key theory they should be studied. The idea that I do is entirely a figment of your imagination.


Here's what just happened

I asked for a source for your claim about clusters, 
You referred me to the Littman study. 
I don't think the study backs up your claim 
Not sure why you're talking about figments of *my* imagination


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> As it is the one you go on and on about, I think everyone else can see precisely where I got that impression from.



Lol!  That I "go on and on" about it is a straight up lie: I've raised the study once (that was on this thread), and responded to it being raised by another poster in one other thread (the TERF one), some months ago (both times expressing reservations about it).


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2019)

weepiper said:


> This thread doesn't seem to be about feminism any more


Congratulations on being the first (and only) woman to post on this page.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> JudithB you've been back at least twice today, maybe on your next swing by you could answer my post



How the fuck do you know? 

Mate, "keeping an eye on" (stalking) people who you don't like is creepy as fuck.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Here's what just happened
> 
> I asked for a source for your claim about clusters,
> You referred me to the Littman study.
> ...



I didn't make any claim about clusters beyond saying that there are reports of clusters; that some parents report clusters is reflected in the line from Littman's article to which I referred.

I've not mentioned your imagination - that was a reply to belboid.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How the fuck do you know?
> 
> Mate, "keeping an eye on" (stalking) people who you don't like is creepy as fuck.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2019)

weepiper said:


> This thread doesn't seem to be about feminism any more



It's so convienient that men have found a way to stop women talking about women's issues, isn't it?

Antifeminism ain't dead.

Well done lads.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

weepiper said:


> This thread doesn't seem to be about feminism any more





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's so convent that men have found a way to stop women talking about women's issues, isn't it.
> 
> Antifeminism ain't dead.
> 
> Well done lads.



You're right. I'm out of this for now.


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2019)

Athos said:


> I didn't make any claim about clusters beyond saying that there are reports of clusters; that some parents report clusters is reflected in the line from Littman's article to which I referred.
> 
> I've not mentioned your imagination - that was a reply to belboid.


Apologies about the imagination bit, I misread.

But the rest of your claim about clusters is in no way demonstrated by the study you pointed me to.


----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Apologies about the imagination bit, I misread.
> 
> But the rest of your claim about clusters is in no way demonstrated by the study you pointed me to.



My claim was that clusters were reported; those reports were mentioned by Littman.  We seem to be at an impasse about what Littman says; I've quoted the part - happy to let people interpret as they will.

In any event...



Athos said:


> You're right. I'm out of this for now.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's so convienient that men have found a way to stop women talking about women's issues, isn't it?
> 
> Antifeminism ain't dead.
> 
> Well done lads.


While I totally accept you have a very good point - I think you'll find JudithB should take a fair chunk of the blame for that.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's so convienient that men have found a way to stop women talking about women's issues, isn't it?
> 
> Antifeminism ain't dead.
> 
> Well done lads.



I do think this should move to the other thread but it is the case that JudithB refuses to post on their and insisted on posting about trans issues on this one, including demanding we all give our opinions on trans children.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How the fuck do you know?
> 
> Mate, "keeping an eye on" (stalking) people who you don't like is creepy as fuck.


How the fuck do I know? Because I clicked on her profile twice to see if she'd posted today. You'd know all about creepy of course with your nice insinuation I called you racist, classist etc when I've never done anything of the sort.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 8, 2019)




----------



## Athos (Jul 8, 2019)

8ball said:


>


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> How the fuck do I know? Because I clicked on her profile twice to see if she'd posted today. You'd know all about creepy of course with your nice insinuation I called you racist, classist etc when I've never done anything of the sort.



Mate I said that it's how this forum operates, that posters like to find scapegoats. Not that you called me names. It's not about you.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2019)

Anyways, it's all womenz fault. 


Fuck this shit. I'm out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Mate I said that it's how this forum operates, that posters like to find scapegoats. Not that you called me names. It's not about you.


Yeh snide to the end, I didn't see many other posters named in the post


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh snide to the end, I didn't see many other posters named in the post



Another man who can't differentiate between critique of culture, and critique of himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Another man who can't differentiate between critique of culture, and critique of himself.


Yeh. You were replying to a post about me, other posters thought the post referred to me, you can see how I might get the notion. But, hey, if none of it was aimed at me I'm glad to hear it


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Interesting how a rising number of kids identifying as trans can simultaneously be a fad that'll blow over when they get tired of drama _and_ the most terrifying attack on childhood in a generation perpetrated by a cabal of trans zealots intent on mutilating their progeny. Anyway just on the "4,400% rise" mentioned, the actual numbers there are:
> 
> _>In 2009/2010, a total of 40 girls were referred by doctors for gender treatment. By 2017/2018 that number had soared to 1,806.
> >Referrals for boys have risen from 57 to 713 in the same period._
> ...



For additional context, at one of my local schools (reported as 'the coolest state school in town' - by Tatler, apparently  ), in Brighton, where Allsorts are the go-to project to run awareness courses within schools, 2.5% of kids identify as trans, with a further 2.25% identifying as gender fluid.

Allsorts did a 'trans inclusion day' at the (different) secondary school that my daughter attends in the same city but there's been no separate LGBT awareness education, other than what is taught as standard.

I _would_ like schools to give a better rounded view of sexuality, along with gender, with some more focused stuff on what they are *allowed* to be, _as they are_, too - and I won't apologise for worrying about that, even in *inclusive* Brighton, particularly/especially for the girls, cos I know _loads_ of girls who're struggling with this - and, for certain, a small number for whom coming out as a lesbian has been way more difficult than relating to gender issues as a starting point to that.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 8, 2019)

Is it possible, that if we’d all grown up believing trans to be a viable and acceptable life, that the numbers of trans people in the older population would be much higher?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 8, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Is it possible, that if we’d all grown up believing trans to be a viable and acceptable life, that the numbers of trans people in the older population would be much higher?



Or for those of a certain age, grown up knowing the concept even existed...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Is it possible, that if we’d all grown up believing trans to be a viable and acceptable life, that the numbers of trans people in the older population would be much higher?


The first trans person I met, about 20 years ago, was a pensioner trans woman


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The first trans person I met, about 20 years ago, was a pensioner trans woman


I know you can’t have read my comment as meaning that older trans people don’t exist, so I’m at a loss as to the relevance...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I know you can’t have read my comment as meaning that older trans people don’t exist, so I’m at a loss as to the relevance...


Soz should have quoted Puddy_Tat


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Soz should have quoted Puddy_Tat



I know you can’t have read my comment as meaning that older trans people don’t exist, so I’m at a loss as to the relevance...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 8, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Or for those of a certain age, grown up knowing the concept even existed...



Growing up in a grim northern town I had no idea that lesbians or gay men even existed. No concept at all. I'd heard those words as insults but it didn't imagine it was possible to live with another person of the same sex? The only person who I'd met irl who might have been gay or trans was very sad and utterly shunned.

Only hetro sex in marriage with strictly enforced gender roles allowed - indeed it was compulsory. Nothing else was socially acceptable - we were all deviant, sinful, perverted and queer if not actally illegal. We all went to the same clubs as so there were so few of us.

The ideas of trans /queer/ sexuality and gender were all mixed up in the 70s/80/90s and not at all clear.  Sweet transvestite, From Transexual, Transylvania went the Rocky Horror song, it might have been written in 75 but I didn't even hear it til after I'd come out.

I wasn't aware that women were allowed to be happily single or financially independed either.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Growing up in a grim northern town I had no idea that lesbians or gay men even existed. No concept at all. I'd heard those words as insults but it didn't imagine it was possible to live with another person of the same sex? The only person who I'd met irl who might have been gay or trans was very sad and utterly shunned.
> 
> Only hetro sex in marriage with strictly enforced gender roles allowed - indeed it was compulsory. Nothing else was socially acceptable - we were all deviant, sinful, perverted and queer if not actally illegal. We all went to the same clubs as so there were so few of us.
> 
> ...



For quite a long time as a young child I assumed all boys wanted to be girls.  I remember asking questions to my male friends to try and tease it out of them, but they never gave anything away.  I thought this just meant they were better at keeping it secret than I was and resolved to try harder to make sure no-one ever found out.

As I got older then poof and bender became the insults of choice for any perceived sleight of masculinity.  People were all too aware of lesbians and gays, but it was the worst possible thing to be.  I worried I was gay and experimented as my sexuality developed and whilst it was okay that didnt seem to be what was 'wrong' with me.  I'd kind of hoped it was because then at least I'd be a thing, and there'd be other people like me, even if we were hated.  But the truth was I didn;t really want to be with a man, and I didn't want to be a man. 

I heard about transvestites, from those little adverts that were in the Sports pages of the tabloids for a cross dressing shop in London.  I found out about the Beaumont Society, which at the time was a support group for cross dressers, and looking back things like that were all quite comical.  The main focus seemed to be to show they were men, and in particular straight men, who just had this hobby they indulged, but were actually manly men with beards and wives who played football and worked as lumberjacks.  That didn;t really seem to fit me either.  Occassionally the tabloids would run a piece about someone havng a sex change, it always seemed to be an RAF pilot for some reason or perhaps thats just how I rememeber it.  But it was framed in such disparaging mocking terms that even though this seemed to be more inline with my experience I just couldn't conceive  of a world where I could ever do that, it was such a long way from what I was supposed to be.  I used to imagine, or hope I guess, I'd have some weird accident, where my genitals would be damaged and I might then be able to get away with asking for a sex change without the associated social stigma and rejection.  As a teen I got into glam rock and punk, and set about looking as much like a girl as I could whilst simoutaneously getting in fights, getting shitfaced, fucking off my education and generally being a wrong un.  In truth, as angry as I was, about all kinds of things, this was all a disguise.  I did evetything I could to show I was a man, even though I looked very femme, but even that was draped in that whole rock and roll awful big hair thing that was going on where you could look like a girl but had to get into fights, and do loads of drugs and have loads of sex with women - something I really tried to do but couldn't, I mean physically couldn't, what I now know was gender dysphoria made it almost impossible.  Even in longer term relationships, when I felt comfortable with someone it was very awkward and I'd do everything I could to avoid it which pretty much killed every relationship I ever had.  I was deeply depressed throughout this period, I thought I'd never be able to be myself, I'd never have a proper relationship, and I started to drink pretty much  every second I wasn't working developing an addiction I have never fully shaken off.  The only answer, or so I thought, was too try and make this weird thing I had go away, or find a way to ignore it, or failing that just make sure no-one ever found out.

It wasn't until I was in my early 30s and I got the internet, that I was able to find out more about being trans and was able to talk to some trans people.  By this time I'd accepted, at least to myself, that this was something that wasn't going to go away, although by then I had a young son and so once more resolved to keep it hidden at least until he was older, which he is now and which is why I've started to open up about it and ultimately do something about it.

Anyone I'm only posting this self indulgent spiel as an example of what the alternative is to providing acceptence and support for trans kids.  It seems a lot of people would like this world to return.  I truly feel sorry for any trans kids who are struggling to come out and understand themselves against a backdrop of trans women being accused of being misogynists, rapists and paedophiles across the internet.  This is why I think the rise in referrals to the Tavistock is potentially a good thing, because it means a lot of children are not living lives of denial, shame and secrecy, they are being accepted and supported.  I cant imagine how my life would have turned out had I been brought up being told it was okay to be trans and okay to experiment with gender, and that if I wanted to take things a bit further, at a very measured pace, then that would be okay too (if I met the diagnostic criteria of course).  I can't say my entire life has been misery, it hasn't, as I got older gender dysphoria became more of a nagging discomfort than an existential crisis, but had I transitioned as a teenager, and been supported in that, I suspect my early life would not have been anywhere near as chaotic as it was.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 9, 2019)

I'm sorry for not coming back and responding sooner - I often post in flurries. Hands haven't been up to typing and I've mostly been sleeping for the last few days. So I'm not going to try to multiquote everything.

I do accept that trans children exist - most trans adults identified as trans as kids too - but I also accept that kids experiment with gender - and so do adults. Phases really do exist; a lot of adults, especially girls, who identify as CIS in the end also went through phases where they didn't when they were children, though not using that term obviously. What concerns me is organisations like Mermaids that don't seem - from their literature - to accept that as a possibility and they have an awful lot of influence in schools right now. 

Do all of you liking Rob Ray's second post agree with everything he says in it? Because he says he's using "the actual numbers." What numbers does he think I was referring to? We're talking about the exact same numbers.  He's claiming it's not a big increase and I think 4000% is, especially since it's not an isolated increase (it's been gradual over the years). But it's still the same numbers. 

And the bit about it "not reflecting well on me." Well, that's nice. 

Smokedout - there do seem to be clusters but apart from that study it's mostly anecdotal. Some of the clusters will be down the Tavistock being the only clinic that children are referred to, and that's going to be more difficult the further away you are from it (especially if you don't have the money to travel to London). The Tavistock, however, is just one clinic. GPs will be the first medical practitioners encountering children and teens presenting as trans (plus CAMHS) and I don't think there are any localised statistics on that. 

Anecdotal evidence is not the same as statistics, but that doesn't mean it's entirely without value. For example, trans children wouldn't have been counted on any statistics not that many years ago, but does that mean no children then were experiencing gender dysphoria, temporarily or long-term? Obviously not.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Do all of you liking Rob Ray's second post agree with everything he says in it? Because he says he's using "the actual numbers." What numbers does he think I was referring to? We're talking about the exact same numbers.  He's claiming it's not a big increase and I think 4000% is, especially since it's not an isolated increase (it's been gradual over the years). But it's still the same numbers.


Sorry are you talking about post #1478 or #1489? 

Either way, my 'like' was on the statistical point. To talk about and increase of 4000+% when considering a base of 40 is poor practice. It is much better to express the increase in absolute terms, i.e. an increase to 1806 from 40. 
Is that increase large, well as Rob Ray discussed, it depends on the context.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I'm sorry for not coming back and responding sooner - I often post in flurries. Hands haven't been up to typing and I've mostly been sleeping for the last few days. So I'm not going to try to multiquote everything.
> 
> I do accept that trans children exist - most trans adults identified as trans as kids too - but I also accept that kids experiment with gender - and so do adults. Phases really do exist; a lot of adults, especially girls, who identify as CIS in the end also went through phases where they didn't when they were children, though not using that term obviously. What concerns me is organisations like Mermaids that don't seem - from their literature - to accept that as a possibility and they have an awful lot of influence in schools right now.



I've never seen anything from Mermaids that suggests it is not a possibility that gender variance can be a phase, quite the opposite in fact.  I think one reason why people have concerns about Mermaids, is that Mermaids is a support group for trans children, and as such their training and materials are aimed at trans children and parents of trans children.  It's not their role to diagnose children as trans, they take kids and their families at face value when they approach them as a family with a trans child.  I don;t think it would really  be appropriate for a support group to be continually interregating those they support over whether they are really trans, after all those kids are going to be questioned about that everwhere else they go.  Mermaids are not medical or CAMS professionals, they are not there to make a diagnosis, they are there to provide support and to provide resources to parents and schools on supporting trans children.  It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me that trans children should have a (very small) organisation that says okay, we accept you as trans and we will advocate for you and support you on that basis, although even that seems too much for a lot of people.



> Do all of you liking Rob Ray's second post agree with everything he says in it? Because he says he's using "the actual numbers." What numbers does he think I was referring to? We're talking about the exact same numbers.  He's claiming it's not a big increase and I think 4000% is, especially since it's not an isolated increase (it's been gradual over the years). But it's still the same numbers.
> 
> And the bit about it "not reflecting well on me." Well, that's nice.



It was the same numbers, I was a bit confused about that part of the post.  The most recent figures have just come out by the way and the rise seems to be topping out.  The number of referrals rose by only about 6% in 2018/19.  That would fit with the theory that a key driver of this rise was people becoming more aware of the service they offer.



> Smokedout - there do seem to be clusters but apart from that study it's mostly anecdotal. Some of the clusters will be down the Tavistock being the only clinic that children are referred to, and that's going to be more difficult the further away you are from it (especially if you don't have the money to travel to London). The Tavistock, however, is just one clinic. GPs will be the first medical practitioners encountering children and teens presenting as trans (plus CAMHS) and I don't think there are any localised statistics on that.



No, I don't think there's any local stats on that, but those kids are not having any treatment.  It may well be that some kids experiment with a different gender identity to their birth sex, they may even sincerely believe they are trans for a while, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would really get through the pretty strict and very long lasting diagnosis period that it takes to get any clinical treatment if they weren't really trans.  I also find it hard to believe that anyone who wasn't trans would continue with hormones once they started developing the secondary sexual characteristic of the opposite sex.  If the Tavistock was getting it wrong you'd expect a lot more desisters by now, and  according to them they don't have any from the group who have actually gone onto puberty blockers.  And I know some people claim its the blockers themselves that 'trans' kids, but that doesn't seem very plausible to me when thousands of children have been given the exact same drugs for precocious puberty without turning transgender.

I think it's probably true that some girls who might once have identified as butch lesbians might not be calling themselves non binary, or gender fluid or whatever, and the same with young feminine gay men. I get that this might annoy the shit out of a lot of older LGBT people, it certainly pisses off a very vocal group of older transsexuals, but things change, a lot of young LGBT people identify more as queer now, and perhaps, in more tolerant times, such strict delineation doesn;t feel  as important to the young er generation, although I remember a gay mag one of my ex's occassionally wrote for declaring in about 1999 that gay men were over and it's all about polysexuality now so this is not a new tension within LGBT circles.

What does worry me, and this isnt aimed at you scifi, is that whether they call themselves queer, non binary, gender fluid, or whatever other buzzwords they come up with, this kids will still face abuse and hostility for their sexuality and gender variance.  I've posted before about how the more virulent aspects of the anti trans campaigns were likely to emerge as a broader anti-LGBT force and I think we're now getting a sense of what that will look like.  Mumsnetters seem to have en masse decided that queer theory is all a paedophile plot and as such anyone who calls themselves queer is suspect.  They've spent much of the last month or so attacking pride events for having fetishes on display and things that might disturb children.  They are mobilising against drag and surrogacy, and their targets are increasingly high profile lesbians and gay men who do not share their views.  And whilst they have some backing from some lesbian and gay people in this, it seems that homosexuality, a word that they are now insisting on using, is absolutely fine, but anything a bit kinky, anything queer, anything gender non conforming, anything trans, anything too visible, anything too promiscuous is now ripe for attack, and given a lot of young LGBT people fall into one or more of  those areas then they strike me as highly vulnerable to a re-emergence of anti LGBT sentiment.  Equally troubling is that many evangelicals and the conservative right seem to be able to live with this compromise and are backing them to the hilt.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 9, 2019)

Sorry to jump in with something slightly unrelated to the topic at hand but the Government are cutting funding for the National DV Helpline meaning it’ll close in October. 

This is an enormous blow for women and hugely depressing when you consider it’s been going for 30 years.     No more 24 hour, 365 days a year support. 

I am so angry and upset. Fuck Theresa May so much she’s a massive fucking cunt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Sorry to jump in with something slightly unrelated to the topic at hand but the Government are cutting funding for the National DV Helpline meaning it’ll close in October.
> 
> This is an enormous blow for women and hugely depressing when you consider it’s been going for 30 years.	 No more 24 hour, 365 days a year support.
> 
> I am so angry and upset. Fuck Theresa May so much she’s a massive fucking cunt.


Fuck, that's appallingly crap.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 9, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Sorry to jump in with something slightly unrelated to the topic at hand but the Government are cutting funding for the National DV Helpline meaning it’ll close in October.
> 
> This is an enormous blow for women and hugely depressing when you consider it’s been going for 30 years.	 No more 24 hour, 365 days a year support.
> 
> I am so angry and upset. Fuck Theresa May so much she’s a massive fucking cunt.


what's the deal here then? 
Refuge awarded grant to operate domestic abuse helpline
Gov spin?


----------



## Athos (Jul 9, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Sorry to jump in with something slightly unrelated to the topic at hand but the Government are cutting funding for the National DV Helpline meaning it’ll close in October.
> 
> This is an enormous blow for women and hugely depressing when you consider it’s been going for 30 years.	 No more 24 hour, 365 days a year support.
> 
> I am so angry and upset. Fuck Theresa May so much she’s a massive fucking cunt.



I just went online to donate, and the website won't allow me!

Home– National Domestic Violence Helpline


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 9, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> what's the deal here then?
> Refuge awarded grant to operate domestic abuse helpline
> Gov spin?



Probably not actually - it’s run by both Refuge and Women’s Aid at the moment. Phew, that makes me feel better. WA press release need to be clearer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 9, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> Probably not actually - it’s run by both Refuge and Women’s Aid at the moment. Phew, that makes me feel better. WA press release need to be clearer.


I still wouldn't be surprised if it was spin though.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> what's the deal here then?
> Refuge awarded grant to operate domestic abuse helpline
> Gov spin?


It's all going to Refuge now, it seems. Previously it has been a partnership between them and Women's Aid, with the latter being lead partner. Who knows what the rationale for that choice was, tho there have been well publicised issues with WA's leadership lately. WA workers should have the right to a TUPE transfer to Refuge tho, I'd have thought.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2019)

If it's not a performance issue such as targets nor being met, it's possible Refuge but in a bid that undercut the partnership, charity financing can get pretty cutthroat at that level.

I really think the trans discussion should move back to the other thread by the way or it will end up dominating this one and important stuff like this will get sidelined. I'd appreciate it if anyone wants to reply to my last few posts if they'd do it there.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

smokedout said:


> If it's not a performance issue such as targets nor being met, it's possible Refuge but in a bid that undercut the partnership, charity financing can get pretty cutthroat at that level.


And it is crap that such helplines are being delivered based on some type of market driven competition anyway, rather than being recognised as a public service.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2019)

smokedout said:


> If it's not a performance issue such as targets nor being met, it's possible Refuge but in a bid that undercut the partnership, charity financing can get pretty cutthroat at that level.


Unfortunately, I doubt that. It's a well established partnership, and a pretty tiny amount of money, for a Home Office grant. Reputation is more important than saving £1 an hour on staffing. No way would Refuge bid for the entire thing unless they were encouraged too (which, of course, they shouldn't be, but...).  _Something _is going on for them to cut WA out, hard to tell what though.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 9, 2019)

From what I can see / hear, Refuge run their bit primarily on volunteers, WA predominantly pay staff so Refuge were able to undercut on this basis.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Signal 11
> Mr.Bishie
> kebabking
> ginger_syn
> ...


No. You have absolutely no right to do this. None at all. Take a warning.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Picky does that mean you are all male?


Don't piss around with user names. Last warning.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Don;t piss around with user names. Last warning.


Hold on. She hasn't done that since you gave her a warning not to. You are now giving her last warnings, telling  her not to do things that she hasn't done since you first warned her not to do.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Don;t piss around with user names. Last warning.



She hasn't posted again since you said this the first time.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 10, 2019)

Ah, *snap* Rutita1


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> No. You have absolutely no right to do this. None at all. Take a warning.


Really? It's against the rules to ask people what gender/sex they are?


----------



## Athos (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> No. You have absolutely no right to do this. None at all. Take a warning.



Really?  What's wrong with asking that?  Nobody is under any obligation to reply if they don't want to?  And it's a question that's been asked (in different forms) by many posters on many occasions over the years, all over these boards.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> She hasn't posted again since you said this the first time.


I was going through the reported posts, Apparently she had done it several times.


----------



## JimW (Jul 10, 2019)

Now you're getting really picky


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> I was going through the reported posts, Apparently she had done it several times.


Before you gave a warning not after.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Really? It's against the rules to ask people what gender/sex they are?


You think it's appropriate for a new poster to tag a load of people - some of whom she hasn't interacted with - and start asking them to publicly post up their gender?


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Before you gave a warning not after.


I didn't give her a proper 'points' warning anyway. For the record, my heart sinks when I see a load of reported posts come up and sometimes the same, err, 'crime' can be reported by different people many days apart.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> You think it's appropriate for a new poster to tag a load of people - some of whom she hasn't interacted with - and start asking them to publicly post up their gender?


They weren't random tags though and people don't have to answer if they don't want to. I've asked that question before as it sometimes has relevance to the discussion.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2019)

Anyway, I've no interesting in getting dragged into a, err, picky debate in this thread. If anyone has any complaints or comments about the moderation, feedback forum is thataway --->

Ciao!


----------



## Athos (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> You think it's appropriate for a new poster to tag a load of people - some of whom she hasn't interacted with - and start asking them to publicly post up their gender?



Why ever not?  Especially since they don't have to disclose if they'd rather not.  Don't you ask people the same when they sign up here?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't give her a proper 'points' warning anyway. For the record, my heart sinks when I see a load of reported posts come up and sometimes the same, err, 'crime' can be reported by different people many days apart.


I understand however it appeared you were dishing out a last/ final warning even though she did it before she was warned not to.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> You think it's appropriate for a new poster to tag a load of people - some of whom she hasn't interacted with - and start asking them to publicly post up their gender?



I can't think of a more appropriate thread to ask on (if there is ever an inappropriate one  ) than one on feminism, yes!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 10, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't give her a proper 'points' warning anyway. For the record, my heart sinks when I see a load of reported posts come up and sometimes the same, err, 'crime' can be reported by different people many days apart.



Fair do's - can see how that can happen when you're not following the thread - especially if the *other* post where she used the name has been reported _after_ you'd already issued the first request not to use it (although if that was the case I can only think that whoever subsequently reported the one you hadn't originally quoted was probably being a shit-stirring dickhead).


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2019)

I've checked the feedback forum and can't see any complaints. 

Moderating and running this site is a lot of work so if posters aren't happy the Feedback forum is the place to take this.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I've checked the feedback forum and can't see any complaints.
> 
> Moderating and running this site is a lot of work so if posters aren't happy the Feedback forum is the place to take this.



Who are you talking to?

I'm assuming that it's in relation to some of the posts following editor's request for any further stuff to be taken to that forum?
Might have been helpful if you'd noted that the very last of those (mine) occurred six minutes after he'd posted that - and that everyone had shut up after they'd seen that, until you bumped it two and half hours later to make your point.

Unless you're speaking to whichever poster it was that may have reported the *other* post in question, after it had already been dealt with, in which case you're quite right to highlight the fact that they would've just added an unnecessary modding job.


----------



## JudithB (Jul 13, 2019)

I have written to the mods in the feedback forum. Thanks to those who pointed out I desisted with the silliness and also the right I have to ask genders on this thread if any.

I decided to step away as I had such a lovely day last Sunday I didn't want to ruin it by coming back here and being abused. Thanks for all your comments regarding trans children. I hope the recent news also informs your thoughts if you try to be both objective and think about children's health and well-being.

I have a lot of work on now until the school holidays and may not be posting much. This is not me running away, this is me putting my beloved family and my beloved work before arguing with people online.

To those who have decided the "other" thread is where discussions on where trans womens wants buttress women's rights, I ask that you note you are posting on a thread that has the derogatory word "terf" along with "bigot" in the title. If there is a thread with a less bias and less disgusting title I would possibly be happy to move conversation there.

Sending kind regards to all for now x


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> this has been playing on my mind today
> 
> I don't think feminism is that at all, it's a very peculiar form of feminism you practice if it's nothing to do with men unless they're rapists or gropers. Doesn't your feminism have anything to say about equality in the workplace or home?


JudithB while you're back perhaps you could answer this, i've been waiting three months for a reply


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Thank you to all the lovely women who contributed to this and the other threads that thought about women and how we are humans, we do deserve to have our say, our place in the world. 

So much has happened in the past few weeks that I would like to talk about but I know I am not able to on these boards. The silencing of women and the threats against us for just wanting to congregate and discuss our sex based rights are now seen as hate speech more than ever. But don't let the bastards get you down. 

I hope all threads that speak of women as humans continue to flourish xx


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

So that's a no then JudithB


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Oh i posted to you "link"

Dont know where that went

So again Link please


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Caveat if it's your usually picky bollox no I am not going to answer


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oh i posted to you "link"
> 
> Dont know where that went
> 
> So again Link please


You're unable to look at post 1590 in which you're tagged, which is immediately before your 1591? How incompetent are you?


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You're unable to look at post 1590 in which you're tagged, which is immediately before your 1591? How incompetent are you?


Oops my lady brain

Link please


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

If, like me, you're using a phone you can't see post numbers. So I have no idea what those posts are either.

Seriously tho, JudyB, don't bother. He ain't worth it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oops my lady brain
> 
> Link please



Feminism - where are the threads?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If, like me, you're using a phone you can't see post numbers. So I have no idea what those posts are either.
> 
> Seriously tho, JudyB, don't bother. He ain't worth it.


If you're using an android phone rotate to landscape, thought you'd have worked it out


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If, like me, you're using a phone you can't see post numbers. So I have no idea what those posts are either.
> 
> Seriously tho, JudyB, don't bother. He ain't worth it.


I know but... I am trying to be civil

Hey have  you seen the aggravation about Newport this evening? After Brighton and the violent tweets with knives, bats, etc, I was very concerned about this meeting of middle aged, mostly lesbian and mothers. JFC!


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> If you're using an android phone rotate to landscape, thought you'd have worked it out


If you are serious just link the blooming post mate


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> If you are serious just link the blooming post mate


How many links do you want?


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model finds something to get picky about in 3... 2 ...


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> How many links do you want?


You brought up the link

Bring your links to my yard


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> You brought up the link
> 
> Bring your links to my yard


I have linked to it


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

Let me (a woman) do the job properly.

I think this is the question JudithB . I personally don't understand it, but perhaps you can decipher it.



Pickman's model said:


> this has been playing on my mind today
> 
> I don't think feminism is that at all, it's a very peculiar form of feminism you practice if it's nothing to do with men unless they're rapists or gropers. Doesn't your feminism have anything to say about equality in the workplace or home?


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I have linked to it


Silly lady brain cant see a link in that


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Silly lady brain cant see a link in that


Look up the fucking page


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Let me (a woman) do the job properly.
> 
> I think this is the question JudithB . I personally don't understand it, but perhaps you can decipher it.


Oh so it's a NAMALT question OK.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oh so it's a NAMALT question OK.



That's what I understood.

But also "what about men in the workplace/at home and being 'equal' to them.?" 

Personally (IMO) under the currents system trying to be equal under an inherently unequal patriarchal/capitalist society is a fool's game. Work, home or otherwise.

That's just me tho.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

OK Pickman's model it's not just my feminism, it's what is called feminism. And feminism is basically the want of women to be recognised as human. So that groper in the office or that rapist. Is that something that is peculiar to women? You'll now NAMALT me and also tell me about you or a friend or lots of your friends who are groped by men in the office. And I bet you'll tell me some women have too. But have you ever asked why? That's what feminism is mate. Asking why. 

If we could stop men from grabbing us as if we (and I also mean you if it's happened to you or any of your friends) were their property then that would be the same in a workplace as in a home environment. 

Women are humans and are raped and abused at work and at home. 

Feminism (that doesn't just belong to me) is about stopping the abuse of women due to our biological differences from men. We have two holes, and one of them men penetrate and that fear of penetration from the baddies among you (NAMALT), informs the experiences of all girls and women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> That's what I understood.
> 
> But also "what about men in the workplace/at home and being 'equal' to them.?"
> 
> ...


Yeh well it's not a namalt question, which is where you're wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oh so it's a NAMALT question OK.


No, no it isn't


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> OK Pickman's model it's not just my feminism, it's what is called feminism. And feminism is basically the want of women to be recognised as human. So that groper in the office or that rapist. Is that something that is peculiar to women? You'll now NAMALT me and also tell me about you or a friend or lots of your friends who are groped by men in the office. And I bet you'll tell me some women have too. But have you ever asked why? That's what feminism is mate. Asking why.
> 
> If we could stop men from grabbing us as if we (and I also mean you if it's happened to you or any of your friends) were their property then that would be the same in a workplace as in a home environment.
> 
> ...


No. It's not a namalt question so I won't be acting as you outline. Feminism is basically the want of women to be recognised as human? Recognised by who as human? Presumably men. So it is about a) the relationship between men and women, and b) equality. Which is what I've suggested to you only to be told 'you know nothing, Pickman's model'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Feminism - where are the threads?


This was the link I posted, JudithB

Ffi when you link to a post it appears under the thread title


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No. It's not a namalt question so I won't be acting as you outline. Feminism is basically the want of women to be recognised as human? Recognised by who as human? Presumably men. So it is about a) the relationship between men and women, and b) equality. Which is what I've suggested to you only to be told 'you know nothing, Pickman's model'


  They are not two separate points. a) women are oppressed by men, and b) women are oppressed by men


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> They are not two separate points. a) women are oppressed by men, and b) women are oppressed by men


They are two separate points, as a moment's reflection would show, since there is the relationship between men and women as it is now, and the relationship between men and women as it might be.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Pretending inequality does not exist and is not structured around the oppression of women by men due to their reproductive capacity does not make it go away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Pretending inequality does not exist and is not structured around the oppression of women by men due to their reproductive capacity does not make it go away.


I am not and never have said, suggested or pretended inequality doesn't exist. Do try to engage with what I've said and not what you think I've said.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Pickman's I really don't understand what you are trying to debate and discuss? Oppression of women by men based on their reproductive capacity is real. Inequality between the sexes is real. Yes women would like there to be less inequality. There is nothing new in anything I have stated. None of these statements can be new to you. So what are we meant to be discussing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Pickman's I really don't understand what you are trying to debate and discuss? Oppression of women by men based on their reproductive capacity is real. Inequality between the sexes is real. Yes women would like there to be less inequality. There is nothing new in anything I have stated. None of these statements can be new to you. So what are we meant to be discussing?


I've been very patient with you, you've made your answer to my question very clear - for which I thank you - and there's no need for any further discussion.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Pickman's I really don't understand what you are trying to debate and discuss? Oppression of women by men based on their reproductive capacity is real. Inequality between the sexes is real. Yes women would like there to be less inequality. There is nothing new in anything I have stated. None of these statements can be new to you. So what are we meant to be discussing?



You said that feminism has nothing to do with men unless they are the perpetrators of violence.

He said Really? What about inequality in the workplace and in the home? Surely feminism and men have something to do with that? Inequality is a relationship between men and women. 

You said, I don't understand the question.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 5, 2019)

I would hope, as a husband, and father of a boy and a girl, feminism would be something I'd be interested and involved in.


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2019)

This is an utterly captious and trivial dispute.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Santino said:


> This is an utterly captious and trivial dispute.


Word


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2019)

Santino said:


> This is an utterly captious and trivial dispute.



Really? Whether feminism or women's liberation is a separate political movement or one that includes men is totally relevant. And pointing out that inequality is a relationship may well be an obvious point but if we act as though we're dealing with things rather than relations then that also gets in the way.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> but if we act as though we're dealing with things rather than relations then that also gets in the way.


Can you expand on this bit please

Thanks


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Can you expand on this bit please
> 
> Thanks



The problem is the relationship between men and women, what goes on between them, rather than something that is a fixed quality of men or women. So any action against women's oppression needs to involve both aspects of that relationship.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> You said that feminism has nothing to do with men unless they are the perpetrators of violence.
> 
> He said Really? What about inequality in the workplace and in the home? Surely feminism and men have something to do with that? Inequality is a relationship between men and women.
> 
> You said, I don't understand the question.


I think enough of the other threads show that I believe there is inequality in the work place and home. It was my understanding that he was taking particular interest in why feminism (mine?!) appears to have focussed on violence against women. 

It is the oppression of women because of their reproductive capacity that underpins the patriarchal structure that allows men to be ruled by men but rule all women. If they'd stop raping us and then NAMALT'ing us we might be able to move on. But it has to be brought back to this point so it has to be argued again and again and again


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The problem is the relationship between men and women, what goes on between them, rather than something that is a fixed quality of men or women. So any action against women's oppression needs to involve both aspects of that relationship.


Yes

The Redstockings manifesto although quite dated deals with this very well and much of it is still very relevant


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Really? Whether feminism or women's liberation is a separate political movement or one that includes men is totally relevant. And pointing out that inequality is a relationship may well be an obvious point but if we act as though we're dealing with things rather than relations then that also gets in the way.


What are the practical consequences of this question?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2019)

Santino said:


> What are the practical consequences of this question?



I don't understand your question.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 6, 2019)

I think we might be being asked to solve the problems of the patriarchal power structure in easy to do steps


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I think we might be being asked to solve the problems of the patriarchal power structure in easy to do steps



No, I don't think it's that. I don't doubt there's an understanding of the complexity of the situation and potential responses to it.

I should think it's a quite specific question to do with a perceived failure of rigorous joining the dots thinking on my part.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 15, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> No, I don't think it's that. I don't doubt there's an understanding of the complexity of the situation and potential responses to it.
> 
> I should think it's a quite specific question to do with a perceived failure of rigorous joining the dots thinking on my part.


I thought I'd pop back to see if Santino had come back to you


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 18, 2019)

I had to actually look up NAMALT   That how out of date I am with internet debates.


----------



## polly (Oct 25, 2019)

'Freddy Krueger in the room': women confront Harvey Weinstein at New York event

This is depressing. Harvey Weinstein turns up at a stand up comedy thing in NYC. Two of the comics make comments and are booed, one is called a cunt by his entourage and thrown out by security.

Bad enough that he feels able to show his face at this kind of event, but that the two challenging him are treated so badly suggests his rehabilitation has already begun 

Edit - this one too, the absolute state of Silas https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...weinstein-heckled-comedian-event-women-actors


----------



## Poot (Oct 25, 2019)

polly said:


> 'Freddy Krueger in the room': women confront Harvey Weinstein at New York event
> 
> This is depressing. Harvey Weinstein turns up at a stand up comedy thing in NYC. Two of the comics make comments and are booed, one is called a cunt by his entourage and thrown out by security.
> 
> Bad enough that he feels able to show his face at this kind of event, but that the two challenging him are treated so badly suggests his rehabilitation has already begun


Why the fuck is he not in jail?

Rhetorical question obviously.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 25, 2019)

And he's at an event for "emerging talent" sitting at a table with several young women. He's not even trying to hide that he's a predator.


----------



## polly (Oct 25, 2019)

scifisam said:


> And he's at an event for "emerging talent" sitting at a table with several young women. He's not even trying to hide that he's a predator.



He's never really had to, I guess. Despicable cunt. The sheer lack of support these two comics had from the audience and club show how he's got away with it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2019)

Possibly a dumbass musing - was reading a review of a new album by a gifted new musican and realised I've never heard the term 'sultry' used in reference to a man, despite its meaning with reference to music being allegedly ungendered (according to some sources).


----------



## mango5 (Oct 25, 2019)

Not dumb. Acute observation of  sexualised description and how stark it is wrt to a man.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 1, 2019)

polly said:


> He's never really had to, I guess. Despicable cunt. The sheer lack of support these two comics had from the audience and club show how he's got away with it.


People have a love for money that is despicable.


----------



## polly (Nov 1, 2019)

TopCat said:


> People have a love for money that is despicable.



Yeah. Toxic combo of this culture of treating women like shit, and no one calling it out because they're too busy kissing rapist boot for the sake of their careers.

Like that fucking coward Silas in the buzzfeed piece - not knowing which way to jump so he doesn't back the comics taking Weinstein down but is at the same time desperate to make sure the feminists think he's a nice guy


----------



## Jennastan (Nov 1, 2019)

8ball said:


> Possibly a dumbass musing - was reading a review of a new album by a gifted new musican and realised I've never heard the term 'sultry' used in reference to a man, despite its meaning with reference to music being allegedly ungendered (according to some sources).


I'm pretty sure I've seen it used for men in the music press -  but not since the 80s. Sting is an example of a bloke I've seen described as sultry. I'm going to start using more for blokes I think.


----------



## Poot (Nov 1, 2019)

I think male flamenco dancers are allowed to be sultry.


----------



## Manter (Nov 1, 2019)

Poot said:


> Why the fuck is he not in jail?
> 
> Rhetorical question obviously.


I was listening to a podcast about this. Apparently he is on an a licence- and wears an ankle monitor bracelet- and isn’t allowed to leave Manhattan. Apparently one of his key legal advisors is Gloria Allred- aka famous ‘feminist’ lawyer. Yuk

edited to correct lawyer


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2019)

Manter said:


> I was listening to a podcast about this. Apparently he is on an a licence- and wears an ankle monitor bracelet- and isn’t allowed to leave Manhattan. Apparently one of his key legal advisors is Gloria Steinem- aka famous ‘feminist’ lawyer. Yuk



The licence should really include "don't go to places full of young people trying to start their careers in entertainment when that's who you've been accused of abusing."


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2019)

Manter said:


> I was listening to a podcast about this. Apparently he is on an a licence- and wears an ankle monitor bracelet- and isn’t allowed to leave Manhattan. Apparently one of his key legal advisors is Gloria Steinem- aka famous ‘feminist’ lawyer. Yuk



You sure about Steinem?


----------



## Manter (Nov 2, 2019)

Athos said:


> You sure about Steinem?


Allred- apologies. I’ll change the comment.


----------



## Manter (Nov 2, 2019)

Keeping Harvey Weinstein’s Secrets, Part 2: Gloria Allred


----------



## Jennastan (Nov 21, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I'm sorry the tran debate has ruined friendships and caused a schism on these boards and I would rather stay out of it.



Obviously that's why you decided to blunder onto an LGBT+ thread and start shitposting about trans people there too, despite, and correct me if you're wrong, you not actually being any part of LGBT+ as far as anyone can tell.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 21, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> Obviously that's why you decided to blunder onto an LGBT+ thread and start shitposting about trans people there too, despite, and correct me if you're wrong, you not actually being any part of LGBT+ as far as anyone can tell.



Not sure what that has to do with this thread. Please stop fucking up threads with personal agendas.


----------



## Jennastan (Nov 21, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Not sure what that has to do with this thread. Please stop fucking up threads with personal agendas.


i was responding to something she said on this thread that was clearly a lie. 

Please stop fucking threads up with stupid bullshit objections.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> i was responding to something she said on this thread that was clearly a lie.
> 
> Please stop fucking threads up with stupid bullshit objections.



Oh sorry, you are someone to listen to because of what exactly?

You clearly do have a 'personal' focus and telling people their objections to seeing you moving between threads demonstrating that isn't 'bullshit objections' it's letting you know we see you. You are boring as fuck tbh.


----------



## Jennastan (Nov 21, 2019)

Jeez - you people!




Rutita1 said:


> Oh sorry, you are someone to listen to because of what exactly?



Fine - attack me personally for pointing out something that is true and factual. I suspect you also have a problem with trans people - which means IT IS YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA.

why should I listen to a fucking word *you* say?

JudithB is a shit stick and you've bought into her poison. And I'm sorry, but I am allowed to say so - or ban me?

This 'feminism' is obviously not for all women - so I'll take my leave from this thread.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 22, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> Jeez - you people!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"You people?" Fuck off.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 22, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> Jeez - you people!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's for women. 'Feminism', lol.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 22, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> Jeez - you people!
> 
> 
> Fine - attack me personally for pointing out something that is true and factual. I suspect you also have a problem with trans people - which means IT IS YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA.
> ...



Okay dear!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 23, 2019)

Is it possible to discuss feminism in a general way with out it becoming a personal slanging match of cross thread bickering?

There used to be terrible arguments between working class / middle class women. Between zionist / anti zionist women. Between Hetrosexual women / lesbians. Between women of colour and white women. Between trans women / cis women.

Doesn't this loose sight of the real problems with being a woman (whatever kind of woman you are) that *society is structurally sexist. *

That equal opportunity and pay hasn't been acheived.
That sexist tropes and stereo types have never been eliminated.
That ingrained misogeny has never been eliminated.

That's what I want to discuss.


----------



## JudithB (Dec 1, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> Jeez - you people!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh do fuck off

What about feminism scares you so much? What about women standing up for their own rights to be human is so terrifying?

I hope you are banned


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 3, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oh do fuck off
> 
> What about feminism scares you so much? What about women standing up for their own rights to be human is so terrifying?
> 
> I hope you are banned


i don't understand. I'm a woman. I am a feminist. I support trans people. 

What are you scared of?


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 3, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> That equal opportunity and pay hasn't been acheived.
> That sexist tropes and stereo types have never been eliminated.
> That ingrained misogeny has never been eliminated.
> 
> That's what I want to discuss.



Yes - all women together - united. Trans, cis, gay, straight - not so sure about middle class though!! (joke)


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 3, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Okay dear!
> 
> 
> View attachment 190694


isn't calling a woman dear an old patriarchal thing?

Why am I being attacked for calling out lies on this thread made by somebody on this thread?


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 3, 2019)

scifisam said:


> "You people?" Fuck off.



"you people" being the intolerant JudithB fan club. Are you a member?


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 3, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I hope you are banned



You really don't like people disagreeing with you do you?


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2019)

Just... stop.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 3, 2019)

Jennastan said:


> "you people" being the intolerant JudithB fan club. Are you a member?


Lol...are you 7? You behave like it.


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 4, 2019)

Clair De Lune said:


> Slow hand clap for Judy here. You've done exactly as predicted.
> 
> Sign up here as a fresh new feminist member
> Start a load of feminist threads- what did we do without you dear?
> ...


I have to second this.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 6, 2019)

Funny: Jeremy Hunt - are you a feminist? Yes. Why? Literally says "because we really need the votes of women to win an election"


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Funny: Jeremy Hunt - are you a feminist? Yes. Why? Literally says "because we really need the votes of women to win an election"




there is something deeply unsettling about johnson's stance and expression


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 192063
> there is something deeply unsettling about johnson's stance and expression


you could have left off the last three words


----------



## JudithB (Dec 6, 2019)

Wasn't sure of the right thread to post this on and it would be good to bring this thread back to Feminism. 

The only site I can find that compares and contrasts what the three major parties says about women's rights is (get clutching those pearls people), WPUK 

The analysis makes interesting reading

Conservative Party 

Labour Party

Lib Dems


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Wasn't sure of the right thread to post this on and it would be good to bring this thread back to Feminism.
> 
> The only site I can find that compares and contrasts what the three major parties says about women's rights is (get clutching those pearls people), WPUK
> 
> ...


three other sites
Women and gender in the 2019 party manifestos | British Politics and Policy at LSE
What are the main parties promising women in the 2019 General Election? (telegraph)
Women's Rights: What Are the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems Promising? (vice)


----------



## Athos (Dec 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Wasn't sure of the right thread to post this on and it would be good to bring this thread back to Feminism.
> 
> The only site I can find that compares and contrasts what the three major parties says about women's rights is (get clutching those pearls people), WPUK
> 
> ...



Shame they didn't have a matrix where you can compare all three.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Wasn't sure of the right thread to post this on and it would be good to bring this thread back to Feminism.
> 
> The only site I can find that compares and contrasts what the three major parties says about women's rights is (get clutching those pearls people), WPUK
> 
> ...



These days, I think what they *say* means next to fuck all.
We can see what they *do*, but only when they have some power.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Oh do fuck off
> 
> What about feminism scares you so much? What about women standing up for their own rights to be human is so terrifying?
> 
> I hope you are banned



If you wish to ban someone you can report a post.

Not sure what exactly Jennastan  has done to deserve a ban.

What about Clair De Lune ? Is a ban in order for that poster?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> What about Clair De Lune ? Is a ban in order for that poster?



Pretty sure it's bad form to recommend posters for banning.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 7, 2019)




----------



## JudithB (Dec 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> If you wish to ban someone you can report a post.
> 
> Not sure what exactly Jennastan  has done to deserve a ban.
> 
> What about Clair De Lune ? Is a ban in order for that poster?


I guess I had hoped the whole trans/women debate been laid to rest for  a while and here it came again. Sigh


----------



## JudithB (Dec 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> These days, I think what they *say* means next to fuck all.
> We can see what they *do*, but only when they have some power.


Women are always told to wait their turn. 
It has been interesting to see/hear Jo Swinson make a pigs ear of things completely and not understanding the concerns of women with regards to Self-ID


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 10, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I guess I had hoped the whole trans/women debate been laid to rest for  a while and here it came again. Sigh



I think that Clair De Lune got it right on you. 

You didn't answer my question. 

Plus asking for a new female poster to be banned Jennastan is imo aggressive posting.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I guess I had hoped the whole trans/women debate been laid to rest for  a while and here it came again. Sigh





JudithB said:


> It has been interesting to see/hear Jo Swinson make a pigs ear of things completely and not understanding the concerns of women with regards to Self-ID



Sigh indeed.


----------



## Athos (Dec 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> ... a new female poster...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 18, 2019)

UK elects record number of female MPs


> The proportion of female MPs will reach 34%, the highest portion of either chamber in parliament to date. However, there are stark differences across the party divide: just a quarter of Conservative party MPs are female, whereas the Labour party will now be represented by more women than men – with a record 104 female MPs.


interested to hear this - I heard BoJo crowing about it on the radio the other morning so I thought I would check if its was true. Apparently it is but the HoC is still two thirds male. I doubt Bojo has helped in any way, shape or form and only a quarter of his MPs are female. 
 A brief search brings up 'Women outnumbered 3 to 1 by men in Tory grassroots' from 2018 The Conservative Party membership has a huge gender problem  can't imagine that would have changed for the better with the misogynistic things Bojo has said and done.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 18, 2019)

> However, there had been fears over the number of female MPs who chose not to contest their seats at this election and many lamented the abuse they faced in office.


 Certainly the online abuse on any woman who dares to express any political opinion seems to outweigh that dished out to men - the abuse seems personal and gendered.  The fear women MP have are justified fears, were dismissed by the pm.

Men on political panels outnumber women two to one – report  don't think this has improved either has it?  

Is party politics is still hugely male/macho in all the parties at every level?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 18, 2019)

I think heard something on R4 the other morning about how uk had fell in the international rankings for female equality - but I can't find a link with the stats.

Did find this when I was looking, full of depressing stats - but it's too much for me:
UN Gender Statistics


----------



## JudithB (Dec 18, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Certainly the online abuse on any woman who dares to express any political opinion seems to outweigh that dished out to men - the abuse seems personal and gendered.  The fear women MP have are justified fears, were dismissed by the pm.
> 
> Men on political panels outnumber women two to one – report  don't think this has improved either has it?
> 
> Is party politics is still hugely male/macho in all the parties at every level?


This is an interesting report:
Members of all parties are more likely to be male, white, older, middle-classed and predominantly (except SNP) to live in London and the South East


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

JudithB said:


> This is an interesting report:
> Members of all parties are more likely to be male, white, older, middle-classed and predominantly (except SNP) to live in London and the South East



Interesting.  A mate of mine is v active in the local Labour party and has said in his experience it has always been a U-shaped curve - lots of young eager whippersnappers, quite a lot of older folk, very lacking in the "late youth to early middle age" bracket.


----------



## JudithB (Dec 18, 2019)

The report goes on to say that due to the sheer size of the Labour party, it has more younger members in absolute terms. But only about one in twenty UK party members is aged between 18-24 compared to around one in ten of the general population.


----------



## JudithB (Dec 18, 2019)

I'm now hooked on this report 
Very interestingly the reasons people join parties are very similar.


----------



## Jennastan (Dec 19, 2019)

JudithB said:


> I guess I had hoped the whole trans/women debate been laid to rest for  a while and here it came again. Sigh


i just did a search that shows you've posted 86 times using the word "trans". If you want to lay it to rest you could try not being such an obsessive, transphobic troll. jut saying.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 19, 2019)

Has anyone seen Jennastan and JudithB online at the same time? Or am I barking up the wrong tree thinking about sock puppets? Cos the direct beef on a controversial topic between 2 relatively new posters seems a bit odd to me


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 19, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Has anyone seen Jennastan and JudithB online at the same time? Or am I barking up the wrong tree thinking about sock puppets? Cos the direct beef on a controversial topic between 2 relatively new posters seems a bit odd to me




I have noticed & found it weird that Jennastan has chosen only to focus on JudithB 's posts yes.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I have noticed & found it weird that Jennastan has chosen only to focus on JudithB 's posts yes.


Glad it’s not just me. I’ve been thinking how odd it was for a couple of weeks tbh.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2019)

At least one of them is definitely a sock puppet.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 19, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Has anyone seen Jennastan and JudithB online at the same time? Or am I barking up the wrong tree thinking about sock puppets? Cos the direct beef on a controversial topic between 2 relatively new posters seems a bit odd to me



No. Jennastan is a former well-known user under a new name, which is fine BC anyone can change their name, and JudithB is a different person.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 19, 2019)

scifisam said:


> No. Jennastan is a former well-known user under a new name, which is fine BC anyone can change their name, and JudithB is a different person.


Ah ok. Makes slightly more sense then


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 19, 2019)

How do people know who the returners are? I always feel so thick when I have no idea who anyone is or how people made the connections. I’d make a shit detective.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 20, 2019)

scifisam said:


> No. Jennastan is a former well-known user under a new name, which is fine BC anyone can change their name, and JudithB is a different person.



Except the old account still exists and this is a new account so, sock puppet rather than a returning poster. Duplicate accounts are against the FAQ.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 20, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> How do people know who the returners are? I always feel so thick when I have no idea who anyone is or how people made the connections. I’d make a shit detective.



Sometimes posting style is enough to give it away if you've had run-ins before.


----------



## Supine (Dec 20, 2019)

purenarcotic said:


> How do people know who the returners are? I always feel so thick when I have no idea who anyone is or how people made the connections. I’d make a shit detective.



Of course that's just what a good detective would say...


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2019)

Supine said:


> Of course that's just what a good detective would say...



The Columbo approach.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 23, 2019)

ACG summary of the Women Organising in the Workplace meeting at the October dayschool: Women Organising at Work – Anarchist Communist Group


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 26, 2019)

The above link no longer works. Here's the new one: Women Organising at Work – Anarchist Communist Group


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 28, 2019)

got info for this today via a history site i follow on teh tweeter

"Storying feminist history: Sisterhood and After: An Oral History of the UK"

free (but pre-booking) event at the LSE, evening of 30 January.  More here.


----------



## JudithB (Jan 7, 2020)

colacubes said:


> Has anyone seen Jennastan and JudithB online at the same time? Or am I barking up the wrong tree thinking about sock puppets? Cos the direct beef on a controversial topic between 2 relatively new posters seems a bit odd to me


Hehe - have we been busted 

I am joking and I am also deciding to ignore the baits from Jennastan


----------



## JudithB (Jan 7, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> got info for this today via a history site i follow on teh tweeter
> 
> "Storying feminist history: Sisterhood and After: An Oral History of the UK"
> 
> free (but pre-booking) event at the LSE, evening of 30 January.  More here.


Oh what a shame, I would have loved to have gone to this but cannot make the 30th January as already away the following weekend for a feminist conference.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 7, 2020)

Hey, just wanted to say that it's great to have feminist threads on here.


----------



## Poot (Jan 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Hey, just wanted to say that it's great to have feminist threads on here.


 Thanks.


----------



## JudithB (Jan 8, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Hey, just wanted to say that it's great to have feminist threads on here.


Super


----------



## JudithB (Jan 8, 2020)

I meant to post this story before Christmas but then life got in the way. The Miss World who is taking the competition owners to court. Could a win for her be the deathknell of Miss World and would you want it to be? 

I used to be on the fence and leaning towards it being harmless fun and a way for women from lower socio-economic groups to move up in the world. In the same respect that a working class lad could become a Premier League footballer. But I was much more lib fem in those days. As I have gotten older and re read more of the second wave I have mostly changed my view. 









						Glosswitch: We need a Miss World who's a mother – so she can kill off the contest for good
					

It's not difficult to guess at the thinking behind the no mothers rule. A society that divided women into virgins and whores, sluts and saints, sex objects and brood mares, couldn’t possibly allow them to be both at once




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2020)

The idea of rating women, of ordering them on a scale, not on the basis of achievement or success at doing something but just for what they are, is literally as objectifying as it gets.  I don’t see how anyone remotely claiming to understand and endorse feminist theory could be anything but appalled by it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2020)

Didn't realise it was still going, thought I read something a few years back saying they were thinking of quietly packing it in.
Guess they didn't.


----------



## JudithB (Jan 8, 2020)

8ball said:


> Didn't realise it was still going, thought I read something a few years back saying they were thinking of quietly packing it in.
> Guess they didn't.


I know! It's quite amazing really. I only became aware again after all the hideous stories of Trump and his inappropriate behaviour at the pageants he ran/runs.


----------



## JudithB (Jan 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> The idea of rating women, of ordering them on a scale, not on the basis of achievement or success at doing something but just for what they are, is literally as objectifying as it gets.  I don’t see how anyone remotely claiming to understand and endorse feminist theory could be anything but appalled by it.


Yes isn't it. But why are you attacking the person talking about it rather than the system that enables it? I grew up in a patriarchal structure. I am from a working class background. I was born in the 70's. This is part of my culture. 

I perhaps had a whimsical feeling about it. Harmless fun?

Is this more damaging than women today saying sex work is work? Objectification and abuse for money. Women rated on their inexperience (virginity).


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2020)

“Attacking”?


----------



## scifisam (Jan 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> The idea of rating women, of ordering them on a scale, not on the basis of achievement or success at doing something but just for what they are, is literally as objectifying as it gets.  I don’t see how anyone remotely claiming to understand and endorse feminist theory could be anything but appalled by it.



Because women get rated for their looks all the time anyway, so Miss World is doing what happens all the time but paying the women for it.

Though I don't claim to understand or endorse feminist theory. Don't really need to read theory in order to be a feminist, I'm just a feminist because I'm female.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 10, 2020)

Doing what the world does anyway is never a great way to enact change.


----------



## JudithB (Jan 15, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Though I don't claim to understand or endorse feminist theory. Don't really need to read theory in order to be a feminist, I'm just a feminist because I'm female.


A lot of women feel the same way and then when they read some theory they realise that it is how they are feeling put into text. I am not sure I have mentioned on these board before I know of a great and reasonably priced Introduction to Feminism course. Seminars are held on line and all reading material is provided. If anyone was interested in more info send me a message. At the moment I think it is mainly women but the Tutor was thinking of running the course for men if enough were interested.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 6, 2020)

Hey - wanted to pop by and say hello and send wishes that everyone and their families are staying healthy. xx


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 6, 2020)

JudithB said:


> Hey - wanted to pop by and say hello and send wishes that everyone and their families are staying healthy. xx


Same to you JudithB x


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 6, 2020)

Interesting programme this morning   BBC Radio 4 - Start the Week, The genetic gender gap BBC Radio4 Start the Week interview 



> *The genetic gender gap*
> Start the Week
> Women are faring better than men in the coronavirus pandemic because of their genetic superiority, according to the physician Sharon Moalem. He tells Kirsty Wark that women live longer than men and have stronger immune systems because they have two x chromosomes to choose from. In his book, The Better Half, Moalem calls for better understanding of the genetic gender gap and for a change to the male-centric, one-size-fits-all view of medical studies.
> 
> But if women have greater advantage genetically, where did the prevailing idea of fragile female biology come from? In The Gendered Brain the cognitive neuroscientist Gina Rippon traces the ideas of women’s physical inferiority to the 18th century, and later to the brain science of the 19th century. Even after the development of new brain-imaging technologies showed how similar brains are, the idea of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ brain has remained remarkably persistent.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 7, 2020)

JudithB said:


> Hey - wanted to pop by and say hello and send wishes that everyone and their families are staying healthy. xx


Hope you and yours are doing well, Judith x


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 9, 2020)

ACG article Women and Coronavirus 

"The working class has borne the brunt of the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. (See article on class inequality). However, within the working class, the gender division of labour has created particular problems for women. Though men are more likely to die from the virus, women are finding that the kind of work they do both inside and outside the home is causing immense physical and mental hardship."


----------



## Poot (Apr 22, 2020)

The 'Karen' meme is everywhere – and it has become mired in sexism

I just want to mention Karen.

Karen has not travelled well. Now that Karen has arrived on these shores she is no longer an angry white woman who wants to speak to the manager, she seems to be any woman with an opinion. 

Karen is simply another way of dismissing women, and worryingly she seems to be a way of women being self-deprecating. 'I don't want to be a Karen but...' 

This is bothering me. Has anyone else picked up on this?


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 22, 2020)

yes. it's on my list of <banned in front of mum words/memes> that also includes "bitch". it's the casual nature of it that riles me most. like "boomer", so fucking lazy.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2020)

Poot said:


> The 'Karen' meme is everywhere – and it has become mired in sexism
> 
> I just want to mention Karen.
> 
> ...


I've never heard of it, but then I do look to urbz to explain the 21st century to me, so thank you Poot. Bit tough on any one called Karen. 

As usual language means something different here than in the US, and the name Karen doesn't have middle-class racist overtones here. It was common amongst my working class mates who will be middle aged now.


----------



## Poot (Apr 24, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've never heard of it, but then I do look to urbz to explain the 21st century to me, so thank you Poot. Bit tough on any one called Karen.
> 
> As usual language means something different here than in the US, and the name Karen doesn't have middle-class racist overtones here. It was common amongst my working class mates who will be middle aged now.


Yes, exactly that. It's an Everywoman name which is being used against every woman. It's like the dictionary definition of sexist nonsense.


----------



## JudithB (Nov 23, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Hope you and yours are doing well, Judith x


We survived. Hope you all did too


----------



## JudithB (Nov 23, 2020)

Poot said:


> The 'Karen' meme is everywhere – and it has become mired in sexism
> 
> I just want to mention Karen.
> 
> ...


Yes! And apologies for the late reply. Luckily there are a lot of black women in the US also called Karen and/or are seeing this for yet another way to call a woman a bitch but be "progressive". They are organising and they are starting to fight back


----------



## kabbes (Nov 24, 2020)

Whilst we're here, a selection of the better of the papers I've been reading recently.  They're all linked through sci-hub.se which I have recently discovered provides access to every scientific paper for free.

I've been reading a lot of Angela McRobbie, who has a superb way of writing about how capitalism has fucked over feminism, providing a post-feminism that is designed around creating maximum consumption.  Her book "the aftermath of feminism: gender, culture and social change", which I heartily recommend as a whole, comprises a bunch of papers she'd already published.  This is a particularly good paper/chapter about "the post-feminist masquerade", in which " the fashion and beauty system appears to displace traditional modes of patriarchal authority":



			Sci-Hub | TOP GIRLS? Cultural Studies, 21(4-5), 718–737 | 10.1080/09502380701279044
		


In the above book, McRobbie talks of the "pathologisation of femininity", in which being female has become associated with a pathologised existence -- melancholy and damaged.  This was taken on in this excellent if depressing paper by Amy Dobson about "performative shamelessness".  Her point is that young women find themselves performing "shamelessness" on social media in an attempt to protect themselves from this pathologised femininity:



			Sci-Hub | Performative shamelessness on young women’s social network sites: Shielding the self and resisting gender melancholia. Feminism & Psychology, 24(1), 97–114 | 10.1177/0959353513510651
		


Finally, along similarly depressing lines, a paper about sexual agency amongst Latina girls in the US by Emily Mann.  In short, the hegemonic representations of neoliberalism in which everybody is an individual capable of determining their own fate (including having sexual agency) run into the hard reality of being stigmatised as hypersexual and irresponsible.  The result is a tough road.



			Sci-Hub | Latina Girls, Sexual Agency, and the Contradictions of Neoliberalism. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(4), 330–340 | 10.1007/s13178-016-0237-x


----------



## trashpony (Nov 24, 2020)

Ooh Angela McRobbie. I haven't read her since I was a student but I remember her being great


----------



## Jay Park (Nov 24, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Whilst we're here, a selection of the better of the papers I've been reading recently.  They're all linked through sci-hub.se which I have recently discovered provides access to every scientific paper for free.
> 
> I've been reading a lot of Angela McRobbie, who has a superb way of writing about how capitalism has fucked over feminism, providing a post-feminism that is designed around creating maximum consumption.  Her book "the aftermath of feminism: gender, culture and social change", which I heartily recommend as a whole, comprises a bunch of papers she'd already published.  This is a particularly good paper/chapter about "the post-feminist masquerade", in which " the fashion and beauty system appears to displace traditional modes of patriarchal authority":
> 
> ...



what kind of behaviour might we deem as ‘shamelessness’ on social media ?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 24, 2020)

Jay Park said:


> what kind of behaviour might we deem as ‘shamelessness’ on social media ?


Read the paper and find out!


----------



## Jay Park (Nov 24, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Read the paper and find out!



can’t you just tell me ?

i’m a lazy man


----------



## kabbes (Nov 24, 2020)

Jay Park said:


> can’t you just tell me ?
> 
> i’m a lazy man





> In my data from MySpace profiles, self-exposure online comes in the form of more cele- bratory performances of shamelessness itself. In the profiles I have examined, young women often employ hetero-sexy female celebrities and icons in their dec- oration, and depict themselves drinking and partying in ‘laddish’ fashion in their photo galleries. The sexy, wild, laddish and generally ‘out there’ identity perform- ances of these feminine subjects are often framed for viewers by mottos or self- descriptive texts proclaiming confidence, and dismissing the potential criticisms or judgements of viewers on the basis of autonomy and self-acceptance. A display of shamelessness itself also appears to be connected to inhabiting femininity in this particular online social context.
> In this paper, I examine the meaning of this more celebratory kind of ‘shameless self-exposure’ performed in the online-mediated sphere as part of contemporary young femininity.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

If anyone is interested I would like to discuss this video. It is controversial. The spoiler or trigger warning if you want one is that it will be seen as transphobic, homophobic and sexist, so if you personally will find this upsetting then it would be best if you didn’t watch it.

It’s delivered by a teacher at Eton- so you can see why I immediately thought it a good idea to post here. (He got sacked for it, incidentally).



The reason I want to discuss it is that I think a lot of it is true. I do think male and female humans are biologically, anatomically, psychologically, and socially different. I don’t think pretending that we are not is in women’s favour.

I still consider myself a feminist because I think that just because we are different, does not and should not mean that women are less than men. That we deserve equal civil rights, such as the vote and political representation, and that in many (but maybe not all) aspects of life it is advantageous to have both sexes alongside.

Id be interested to hear your views.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Dear God Edie.  I've got through 11.5 minutes so far and its nails down a chalkboard unbearable. 

Even if we try and ignore the obvious charisma blackhole we are left with what he is saying.  I know you don't have to have any qualifications to be teacher at a private school (or background checks) but I do wonder what his subject was?  It ain't history or philosophy that's for sure.

He seems obsessed by conflict, violence and war.  I also feel like I was being lectured on what masculinity is and what it is to being a man. His _reality_ I do not recognise at all.  I don't recognise his depicture of male-ness and when I think about my girlfriend I think he's talking about another species than her. 

Fuck! I think I'm being mansplained by a unpleasant derp.  This is what happens if you start with a conclusion and work back from there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

Only 2 minutes in...

Challenging _patriarchy_ and how those institutionalised & lived power dynamics  negatively affect women's lives is not the same as 'rubbishing the very existence of men'. That's like saying talking about racism causes racism to exist. It's an excuse.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

3mins...

Outlining the priniciples of 'free speech' doesn't mean the nonsense you are saying is true.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Arrgghhh.

Context, context, CONTEXT.

Incidentally I've just googled derp and I regret using that word now.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Construction would all but cease if women were left to it?

Yeah, cos site handling limits aren't a thing.  This man has never been on a building site and has clearly just been playing call of duty a lot.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

Not watching the vid, but joining the thread if that's alright?


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> 3mins...
> 
> Outlining the priniciples of 'free speech' doesn't mean the nonsense you are saying is true.


I don’t think he’s claiming that.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> Not watching the vid, but joining the thread if that's alright?


Sure why not!


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

I felt like I need to ask permission - me  being over cautious about posting here again.  I don't want to just jump in and invade space,  as it were.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I felt like I need to ask permission - me  being over cautious about posting here again.  I don't want to just jump in and invade space,  as it were.


You don't need permission for anything


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't need permission for anything



Are you sure that's ok? 
Point taken.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I felt like I need to ask permission - me  being over cautious about posting here again.  I don't want to just jump in and invade space,  as it were.





Pickman's model said:


> You don't need permission for anything


Absolutely this. These are kinda difficult things to discuss though.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Ha ha ha.  We now have an extended clip of The 300.  That's it chaps.  That's what it is to be a man.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> I don’t think he’s claiming that.



He doesn't have to mate. He says a bunch of 'controversial' things then outlines free speech principles because he knows how people will react to what he's saying given it's bollocks  Having the right to say stuff doesn't make it true but the way he's ordered the first few minutes of this vid is deliberate and very much supposed to encourage the viewer to agree with him.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

Thanks edie

I'm still going through and questioning my views on stuff encompassing feminism and womens rights that keep changing with life experience. I don't know if I'll be great at discussing,  but I think I'm ok at listening when trying to work out an informed and fair opinion - and appreciate dog whistle stuff that I've missed being pointed out.

I'm here for the feminism, whatever shape that takes, I suppose. Really glad that theres a thread with the word in its title that popped up.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2020)

I thought it interesting, I watched all of it but was interrupted by a call in the middle. His idea of the patriarchy is one quite a lot of men and women will agree with but not all. 

provide procreate protect 

Hmm ...


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Dear God Edie.  I've got through 11.5 minutes so far and its nails down a chalkboard unbearable.
> 
> Even if we try and ignore the obvious charisma blackhole we are left with what he is saying.  I know you don't have to have any qualifications to be teacher at a private school (or background checks) but I do wonder what his subject was?  It ain't history or philosophy that's for sure.
> 
> ...


I’d like to reply to this but I’m not sure what to say. I dunno what a derp is and I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making. You don’t recognise his depiction of masculinity? You don’t think males dominate conflict and war cross culturally? Or you mean you individually aren’t like that (which is fair enough but kind of misses the point).


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

OK.  Finished now.  Its bizarre and frankly insulting to men.  He traduces us and makes out we are little more than biology with no context and no agency at all.  I don't think this man should be around young men at all so I'm glad he was sacked, if he was.

Sub Jordan Peterson tosh.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I thought it interesting, I watched all of it but was interrupted by a call in the middle. His idea of the patriarchy is one quite a lot of men and women will agree with but not all.
> 
> provide procreate protect
> 
> Hmm ...


It made me wonder if I’d misunderstood the whole thing to be honest. I do fundamentally think that men should protect and provide for women and children, and that the biological role of women with respect to being pregnant and caring for small children makes us vulnerable and needing that. I also think predominantly women’s work (caring work) is undervalued and want to discuss that. That’s feminism for me, not arguing there are no biological differences between men and women.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> OK.  Finished now.  Its bizarre and frankly insulting to men.  He traduces us and makes out we are little more than biology with no context and no agency at all.  I don't think this man should be around young men at all so I'm glad he was sacked, if he was.
> 
> Sub Jordan Peterson tosh.


Why do you find it insulting to men?


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’d like to reply to this but I’m not sure what to say. I dunno what a derp is and I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making. You don’t recognise his depiction of masculinity? You don’t think males dominate conflict and war cross culturally? Or you mean you individually aren’t like that (which is fair enough but kind of misses the point).



He's making out like its something inherent in us rather than something that is forced upon us.  Sure, there are some guys who want to go brain each other for 12 rounds but for the rest of us it is a situation forced upon us.  

His depiction of sport has no context at all.  I think its pretty clear now that given the opportunity young girls want to play football.  Want to play Rugby, hell even some women want to get into a boxing ring and fair play to them because I don't have the guts to do that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 5, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Only 2 minutes in...
> 
> Challenging _patriarchy_ and how those institutionalised & lived power dynamics  negatively affect women's lives is not the same as 'rubbishing the very existence of men'. That's like saying talking about racism causes racism to exist. It's an excuse.


that is longer than I made it - maybe half a dozen flat out lies by that point, and the Christina Hoff Sommers quote plus the "comedy" cartoon made it very clear where all this was coming from


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> He's making out like its something inherent in us rather than something that is forced upon us.  Sure, there are some guys who want to go brain each other for 12 rounds but for the rest of us it is a situation forced upon us.
> 
> His depiction of sport has no context at all.  I think its pretty clear now that given the opportunity young girls want to play football.  Want to play Rugby, hell even some women want to get into a boxing ring and fair play to them because I don't have the guts to do that.


Yes, he is saying it’s something inherent. Biological. That’s exactly what he’s saying. You disagree and think all gender is socially constructed?


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> Why do you find it insulting to men?



He's using the classic MRA trope that men have had it much harder than women because war and violence.  He then kinda goes on to elevate this as some sort of _male burden.  _Billions and billions of young men have died in the most brutal and pointless way because of this reasoning.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

Yikes.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> He's using the classic MRA trope that men have had it much harder than women because war and violence.  He then kinda goes on to elevate this as some sort of _male burden.  _Billions and billions of young men have died in the most brutal and pointless way because of this reasoning.


I think arguing about whether men or women have had it harder is meaningless. There are clear disadvantages to being either man or woman, especially working class upper class much less so. I do appreciate your point tho that there’s a bit of a MRA flavour to it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> It made me wonder if I’d misunderstood the whole thing to be honest. I do fundamentally think that men should protect and provide for women and children, and that the biological role of women with respect to being pregnant and caring for small children makes us vulnerable and needing that. I also think predominantly women’s work (caring work) is undervalued and want to discuss that. That’s feminism for me, not arguing there are no biological differences between men and women.


How do you reconcile wanting equality for women in terms of pay etc with wanting men to provide for women and children?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

Full disclosure...I couldn't watch past 4 mins or so where he was discussing men mostly doing the war stuff and had a black and white pic of a muscle-man solider up...it reminded me of the Athena poster I had up on my wall as a young teenager  and just how innocent and naive my thinking was then. The idea of a big strong bloke being ideal because as I am a girl I needed _protecting and cherishing  _that because of my gender I needed to conform to what the patriarchy told me my worth and qualities were. That there was no point in being or seeing things differently because things 'just are'.

For me that is the level of analysis in this vid Edie that of an adolescent, someone as we all were looking for answers, a sense of belonging and wanting to fit in. Sure there are biological differences and in context they will present commonalities in terms of what roles/responsibilities men and women assume. And of course our socialisation and experiences will influence the people we are/want to be. I am not sure in who's interests his position is though, most men I know don't want to be solely defined on the patriarchy/macho scale just as most women don't want to be defined by a scale that comprises everything men aren't _supposed_ to be.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

I try to listen to women when I've looked at   "gender critical" stuff; I try to avoid eg posie parker because reasons I cant put my finger on. The far right in the us are all over this, the links in england are definitely there too but in a slightly different context .  I feel uncomfortable dismissing opinions without hearing then though, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> Yes, he is saying it’s something inherent. Biological. That’s exactly what he’s saying. You disagree and think all gender is socially constructed?



Not entirely.  The more people I meet the more it strikes me that we're a bunch of oddballs and trying to assign characteristics based upon gender or whatever is futile.  I do agree that when we're young men we're a pushy fighty people (not all obvs) but I'd like to think we can move beyond the idea that its inherent because we need to protect the tribe and therefore our behaviour is OK. 

Its one thing to react out of anger its another thing to think its OK because nature.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Also I just feel like every time I read or listen to something like that there is a clear agenda.  They are pushing back and making it a competition over who has had it worst.  I don't want to play their game.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 5, 2020)

Lulz.  On a thread about feminism a man is talking about men.  Go figure.  

Let me make this about me for a bit...


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> It made me wonder if I’d misunderstood the whole thing to be honest. I do fundamentally think that men should protect and provide for women and children, and that the biological role of women with respect to being pregnant and caring for small children makes us vulnerable and needing that.


In Britain today women can earn as much or more than men so they can clearly "provide" for their needs, while they need sperm to "procreate" it is less certain that they need maleness for long. As for the "protect" part of it I am less sure. My feeling is that the traditional male might in certain circles be becoming redundant.  

The main difference between the genders is that only women can conceive carry, deliver a baby and breastfeed it. That might seem a dull truism, what I am saying is that for everything else there can be equality - if people want it. 



Edie said:


> I also think predominantly women’s work (caring work) is undervalued and want to discuss that. That’s feminism for me, not arguing there are no biological differences between men and women.


I agree that caring work is underpaid and that is is predominantly women who do it, but even there there is movement, at the birth of my son our midwife was a man. Initially we were a bit surprised but it was fine.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Lulz.  On a thread about feminism a man is talking about men.  Go figure.
> 
> Let me make this about me for a bit...



I think that's fair enough to be honest. My impression of that vid was it's about men/masculinity anyway so it makes sense to me the conversation would also focus/lead that way.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> How do you reconcile wanting equality for women in terms of pay etc with wanting men to provide for women and children?


I never said that?


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Full disclosure...I couldn't watch past 4 mins or so where he was discussing men mostly doing the war stuff and had a black and white pic of a muscle-man solider up...it reminded me of the Athena poster I had up on my wall as a young teenager  and just how innocent and naive my thinking was then. The idea of a big strong bloke being ideal because as I am a girl I needed _protecting and cherishing  _that because of my gender I needed to conform to what the patriarchy told me my worth and qualities were. That there was no point in being or seeing things differently because things 'just are'.
> 
> For me that is the level of analysis in this vid Edie that of an adolescent, someone as we all were looking for answers, a sense of belonging and wanting to fit in. Sure there are biological differences and in context they will present commonalities in terms of what roles/responsibilities men and women assume. And of course our socialisation and experiences will influence the people we are/want to be. I am not sure in who's interests his position is though, most men I know don't want to be solely defined on the patriarchy/macho scale just as most women don't want to be defined by a scale that comprises everything men aren't _supposed_ to be.
> 
> View attachment 241953


Thing is tho, you’ve not watched it so you’ve not really heard his POV.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> Thing is tho, you’ve not watched it so you’ve not really heard his POV.



Admittedly yes I only made it to 4 minutes because that's all I could stomach as the intro/premise he was building his arguments on seemed very juvenile.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Admittedly yes I only made it to 4 minutes because that's all I could stomach as the intro/premise he was building his arguments on seemed very juvenile.


Okay. So the central idea is that male and female are biologically determined by the size of gametes, females produce large resource intensive eggs, and males produce small cheap sperm. There is female choice, and male competition. There’s diamorphism between the sexes on pretty much every level, genetically and hormonally, and by extension physiologically, and behaviourally. Male roles include procreation, protection, and providing. Female roles include caring and nurturing. That male and female gender roles are to a pretty significant extent (even today), biologically determined. (Not every woman, not every man. But as generalisations over time and space). 

I was interested to discuss this and how it fits in or doesn’t with modern feminism. I just wanna think about it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 5, 2020)

On that video he claimed that Andrea Dworkin was a supporter of incest and paedophilia.   That's an extraordinary thing to say.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> On that video he claimed that Andrea Dworkin was a supporter of incest and paedophilia.   That's an extraordinary thing to say.


That bit definitely sounds dodge. There are lots of bits that are bollocks I reckon.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> Okay. So the central idea is that male and female are biologically determined by the size of gametes, females produce large resource intensive eggs, and males produce small cheap sperm. There is female choice, and male competition. There’s diamorphism between the sexes on pretty much every level, genetically and hormonally, and by extension physiologically, and behaviourally. Male roles include procreation, protection, and providing. Female roles include caring and nurturing. That male and female gender roles are to a pretty significant extent (even today), biologically determined. (Not every woman, not every man. But as generalisations over time and space).
> 
> I was interested to discuss this and how it fits in or doesn’t with modern feminism. I just wanna think about it.


Can you not see that this line of reasoning is:

1) Steal underpants
2) ???
3) Profit


----------



## kabbes (Dec 5, 2020)

... and the rest is begging the question on an industrial scale


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Can you not see that this line of reasoning is:
> 
> 1) Steal underpants
> 2) ???
> 3) Profit


I don’t understand


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 5, 2020)

It's a reference to a south park episode featuring underwear stealing gnomes, and coffee. That's all I can tell you..


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> It's a reference to a south park episode featuring underwear stealing gnomes, and coffee. That's all I can tell you..


Oh.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 5, 2020)

It means there is a gaping big hole where the evidence and argument should be.  It means you can’t start by stating a fact and then leaping to the conclusion you’d already predetermined without doing some proper work to connect the dots.

Men and women having different gametes doesn’t just leap to “women are caring”, for example.  Male and female turtles have different sex gametes.  So what?


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2020)

kabbes said:


> It means there is a gaping big hole where the evidence and argument should be.  It means you can’t start by stating a fact and then leaping to the conclusion you’d already predetermined without doing some proper work to connect the dots.
> 
> Men and women having different gametes doesn’t just leap to “women are caring”, for example.  Make and female turtles have different sex gametes.  So what?


Sorry yes I didn’t put all the intermediate arguments. Sexual selection leads to sexual dimorphism, which leads to (or determines, to a debatable extent) sex-influenced behaviours. 

I may be wrong but I feel as if a lot of feminism seeks to claim there are no differences. And I’m not sure this has always been to women’s advantage. For example, I’d like to see more emphasis on improving pay and conditions for ‘women’s work’ (caring) than just trying to get women into STEM. (I think it’s great women work in STEM if they want to). I’d like to see young women (and men) paid to stay at home with their children as another example.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2020)

But wouldn’t it be dangerous to pay men to stay at home with their children if they are not genetically predisposed to be caring or nurturing.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 5, 2020)

I don't think feminism has ever tried to say there's literally no differences between men and women. What feminism says is that we shouldn't treat women as lesser people than men simply because they are women. Saying that we're genetically predisposed to be better at wiping arses or washing dishes and men just genetically happen to be aggressive and violent is straight out sexism from the MRA handbook though and pretty much the opposite of feminism. Feminism expects better for women and men.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2020)

Edie said:


> ..
> I’d like to see young women (and men) paid to stay at home with their children as another example.



I found it bizzare government would subsidise us sending our son to a Ofsted approved nursery, they almost paid for it, but they wouldn't pay me to look after my own son at home instead. Pay other people but not the actual parents!

eta, well there are some child tax credits I suppose.

Also there is certainly a whole unpaid work issue going on, mainly done by women.


----------



## BristolEcho (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> It made me wonder if I’d misunderstood the whole thing to be honest. I do fundamentally think that men should protect and provide for women and children, and that the biological role of women with respect to being pregnant and caring for small children makes us vulnerable and needing that. I also think predominantly women’s work (caring work) is undervalued and want to discuss that. That’s feminism for me, not arguing there are no biological differences between men and women.





Edie said:


> Sorry yes I didn’t put all the intermediate arguments. Sexual selection leads to sexual dimorphism, which leads to (or determines, to a debatable extent) sex-influenced behaviours.
> 
> I may be wrong but I feel as if a lot of feminism seeks to claim there are no differences. And I’m not sure this has always been to women’s advantage. For example, I’d like to see more emphasis on improving pay and conditions for ‘women’s work’ (caring) than just trying to get women into STEM. (I think it’s great women work in STEM if they want to). I’d like to see young women (and men) paid to stay at home with their children as another example.



In regards to caring work I agree, but then in another thread when I was talking about exactly that and the value of work not being linked to it's pay rate or formal employment you sneered at that as lefty nonsense. There are all kinds of work, both paid and unpaid that certain elements of society don't respect and don't want to recomponsate financially. The majority of this work is, or has traditionally been done by women and I don't think it's a mistake. It definitely should change.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> It’s delivered by a teacher at Eton- so you can see why I immediately thought it a good idea to post here.



That made a bit of tea come out of my nose.


As a small aside, the mentions of Dworkin in the vid involve a scorched-earth approach to a whole lot of context.  They’re not something I agree with (and relate to a fairly esoteric debate around patriarchal control of the boundaries of meaning in terms of the erotic), but regardless, they have been cherry-picked (I think probably lifted wholesale from a completely different argument from the annals of the Eton debating society), and made to look like something very different to what they are in aid of an establishment conservative agenda.

edit:  the video still doesn’t seem such a terrible initial outline for one side to take in debating such things if the idea is that the other side is able to outline their own ideas and attack the stance taken.  I’d wonder about how that would go down in an elitist school for boys only that is grooming them for the establishment, though.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 6, 2020)

BristolEcho said:


> In regards to caring work I agree, but then in another thread when I was talking about exactly that and the value of work not being linked to it's pay rate or formal employment .... There are all kinds of work, both paid and unpaid that certain elements of society don't respect and don't want to recomponsate financially. The majority of this work is, or has traditionally been done by women and I don't think it's a mistake. It definitely should change.



Does this tie in with the second shift?








						The Second Shift - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				



Linking as a placeholder because it's a term I'm aware of but haven't really read up on.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> Sorry yes I didn’t put all the intermediate arguments. 1) Sexual selection leads to sexual dimorphism, 2) which leads to (or determines, to a debatable extent) 3)  sex-influenced behaviours.



1) Steal underpants
2) ???
3) Profit

Or, to be more specific, 3 is your claim that”sex-influenced behaviours” includes being caring.

Even the concept of “caring” is massively complex, being highly culturally embedded.  The claim that such culturally-specific, environmental, social behaviour is in turn determined through some unknown mechanism straight out of a couple of gametes is preposterous, let alone unproven by just stating it.



> I may be wrong but I feel as if a lot of feminism seeks to claim there are no differences. And I’m not sure this has always been to women’s advantage. For example, I’d like to see more emphasis on improving pay and conditions for ‘women’s work’ (caring) than just trying to get women into STEM. (I think it’s great women work in STEM if they want to). I’d like to see young women (and men) paid to stay at home with their children as another example.


Have a read of that Top Girls paper I posted a few pages ago.  There was indeed a subversion of feminism to serve the needs of capitalism, but I don’t know why you think it was feminists that did the subverting.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

I think I need to expand on that top point.

Human behaviour is highly unusual in the animal world.  Our key evolutionary strategy has been plasticity, the ability to adapt — the very opposite of mastering an environmental niche.  We have lived in jungle and tundra, primitive camps and modern cities.  You can’t have innate responses to master all those environments.  So instead, we have a unique defining characteristic, which is _culture_.  We pattern our behaviours, thoughts, beliefs using cultural tools (such as language), cultural scripts (such as what to do when we reach a traffic light) and cultural values (such as the idea that individual attainment is the best measure of success).  Culture provides us with a toolkit to navigate without even needing to think about it in a world that would be otherwise utterly overwhelming in its complexity.  Nobody could rely on evolved responses to tell us how to behave in a work meeting, as would be evident if you’d ever seen Kevin eating in one.  Even just trying to cross a road would be impossible, let alone being able to operate within a social network.

What you are calling “caring behaviour” is similarly a pattern of highly complex cultural scripts, cultural behaviours, cultural values and so on.  It varies from culture to culture, demonstrating just how cultural it is.  And in the full sense of what you would mean by “caring behaviour” (such as worrying if others are okay, having empathy for somebody’s concerns and so on), it doesn’t exist at all in the animal kingdom (notwithstanding that animals follow much simpler behaviours that direct their protection of their offspring until it is viable).

If you’re going to suggest that such highly complex, culturally-mediated behaviour is not only directly derived from genes but specifically derived from one particular source (i.e. sexual dimorphism) you really need to do a lot more than just claim it is obvious.


----------



## Winot (Dec 6, 2020)

I’m interested in what people find threatening about the idea that gender is a construct.


----------



## Poot (Dec 6, 2020)

Winot said:


> I’m interesting in what people find threatening about the idea that gender is a construct.


If you have been given a role and played it all your life, it's very difficult to accept that it was foisted upon you rather than being your lifelong destiny. 'But what have I been doing all my life in that case!'

I find it interesting that they thought that the best person to give this talk at a boys' school full of privileged young men was a man.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Winot said:


> I’m interesting in what people find threatening about the idea that gender is a construct.



That it will liberate women. And lots of men too. Can’t be having that now, can we.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

In Victorian times, it was obvious that being a woman involved being weak and helpless.  Of course, this was also a cultural construct and, as with all such things, was taken as obvious only by those to whom it applied, i.e. rich white people who had the power to make the construct hegemonic.  As Sojourner Truth neatly punctured with her 1851 speech:




			
				Sojourner Truth said:
			
		

> Well, children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of kilter, I think between the Negroes of the South and the women of the North - all talking about rights--the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this talking about? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody helps me any best place. And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm. I have plowed (sic), I have planted and I have gathered into barns. And no man could head me. And ain't I a woman? I could work as much, and eat as much as any man--when I could get it--and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne children and seen most of them sold into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain't I a woman? ...



These essentialist ideas about what being a woman means — well, the meta-construction of the feminine construction is as culturally embedded as the feminine construction itself.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 6, 2020)

Thanks for the trigger warning edie as this was the first thread I found on waking. I think ill start my Sunday in a nicer way


----------



## TopCat (Dec 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> How do you reconcile wanting equality for women in terms of pay etc with wanting men to provide for women and children?


My ex wife had this kind of confused thinking.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 6, 2020)

It's a bit daft this social construct vs biology dichotomy. All human experience is cultural and social.

I think people find the idea that gender is only something social threatening because life is frightening and unpredictable and often brutal and we like to have anchors and clear roles. It also implies we've been duped, robbed of something, that we might not be who we believe ourselves to be. Lots of reasons.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> But wouldn’t it be dangerous to pay men to stay at home with their children if they are not genetically predisposed to be caring or nurturing.


It’s an interesting thought, given the much higher levels of assault by men, what’s your opinion?


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> 1) Steal underpants
> 2) ???
> 3) Profit
> 
> ...


The idea that animal behaviour is influenced by gamete size is not preposterous, it’s pretty well established in evolutionary biology. The extent it influences complex human social behaviour is absolutely debatable though. I’m thinking about your interesting other post and will reply.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> It’s an interesting thought, given the much higher levels of assault by men, what’s your opinion?



Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.

So perhaps they are not and other factors are at play.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I think I need to expand on that top point.
> 
> Human behaviour is highly unusual in the animal world.  Our key evolutionary strategy has been plasticity, the ability to adapt — the very opposite of mastering an environmental niche.  We have lived in jungle and tundra, primitive camps and modern cities.  You can’t have innate responses to master all those environments.  So instead, we have a unique defining characteristic, which is _culture_.  We pattern our behaviours, thoughts, beliefs using cultural tools (such as language), cultural scripts (such as what to do when we reach a traffic light) and cultural values (such as the idea that individual attainment is the best measure of success).  Culture provides us with a toolkit to navigate without even needing to think about it in a world that would be otherwise utterly overwhelming in its complexity.  Nobody could rely on evolved responses to tell us how to behave in a work meeting, as would be evident if you’d ever seen Kevin eating in one.  Even just trying to cross a road would be impossible, let alone being able to operate within a social network.
> 
> ...


Great post. I do agree human behaviour is unusual, and I agree plasticity has been a crucial part of our evolutionary success, and I’m interested in what you call culture. I think you’re absolutely right when you say that there isn’t determinism over complex behaviour such as how to behave in meetings.

I guess where we might begin to disagree is the extent that male and female behaviour is strikingly similar between cultures. As you say, we have adapted to environments from the tundra to the jungle, yet aspects of human life remain the same.

Men fight, men make up the vast numbers in armed forces, they die in vast numbers during war. They have- the world over- much higher levels of violent crime. This is because of testosterone, because their bodies are bigger and stronger, and they are more likely to be aggressive. It’s not chance, it’s not plasticity, it’s underlying genetics, hormonal, and physiological influences on behaviour. If you are going to argue that this is a coincidence between all cultures, that they coincidentally have constructed gender in this way, then you are going to have to persuade me.

Similarly, I don’t think it is a cultural gender construction that women care for the young and old. I do not think it has arisen purely by chance across human cultures and time. I think it’s rooted in biology. Reproduction is costly for females. And it makes us vulnerable and in need of male protection especially when our children are young. You cannot easily work when you are heavily pregnant or breastfeeding or have toddlers at your ankles. I’m aware women have, and do, and will continue to do so. But you and your young are more vulnerable.

So in answer to weepiper I don’t think women are “genetically predisposed” to be better at wiping arses, but I do think there are underlying biological reasons why women tend to end up in this role more. But I agree (and so consider myself a feminist) that women should not be considered lesser people for it.

The reason that feminism claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women worries me Winot (ie the reason I find the gender is complete construct argument a problem) is that I think it is dangerous for women. The strongest women cannot compete against the average man. Women do need and deserve protection from males, especially when our kids are little. Women’s caring role needs to be recognised and compensated by society, especially now so many women are raising kids on their own. Like weltweit says, how insane the State will pay a stranger to mind your infant but not you.

I think there are all kinds of risks for women in assuming gender is completely culturally constructed, but I also just believe it to be fundamentally untrue and not consistent with the evidence. But I appreciate that is a conservative viewpoint, and the ‘progressive’ view is there are no biological differences it is all gender construct that if we can somehow change will eliminate sexism. Fantasy.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.
> 
> So perhaps they are not and other factors are at play.


Of course other factors are in play, but it doesn’t follow that testosterone doesn’t play a role in male aggression. There’s plenty of evidence it does I’m afraid.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Where do lesbians fit into this? No man will be providing for me when I have a kid. 😕

I appreciate you are making broad brush strokes, but fuck me.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> Where do lesbians fit into this? No man will be providing for me when I have a kid. 😕
> 
> I appreciate you are making broad brush strokes, but fuck me.


You’re taking offence?


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> You’re taking offence?



No, not at all. Not that thin skinned! Just think your view is centred around the idea that it is men and women who have babies. It isn’t.


----------



## kalidarkone (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> Where do lesbians fit into this? No man will be providing for me when I have a kid. 😕
> 
> I appreciate you are making broad brush strokes, but fuck me.


I'm not a lesbian and still no man provided for or protected me and my child. This is also the case for many many of my peers.
I think that its great if women or men as primary carers have someone who can provide and protect them but ime these have been women as well as men.
So based on that I personally do not relate to your black and white theory Edie  and feel that your view comes across as quite limited and exclusive as if there is only one way, one model, the nuclear model.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> No, not at all. Not that thin skinned! Just think your view is centred around the idea that it is men and women who have babies. It isn’t.


To state the obvious, you did need a man and a woman to make a baby until incredibly recently. I’m aware there are exceptions to this now, and I have no problem with that. What is your point?


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> To state the obvious, you did need a man and a woman to make a baby until incredibly recently. I’m aware there are exceptions to this now, and I have no problem with that. What is your point?



That I find the idea of women needing male protection old and outdated


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kalidarkone said:


> I'm not a lesbian and still no man provided for or protected me and my child. This is also the case for many many of my peers.
> I think that its great if women or men as primary carers have someone who can provide and protect them but ime these have been women as well as men.
> So based on that I personally do not relate to your black and white theory Edie  and feel that your view comes across as quite limited and exclusive as if there is only one way, one model, the nuclear model.


I’m aware there are a lot of ‘families of different shapes’ and I have nothing against them, I am one. That isn’t the point I am making.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> That I find the idea of women needing male protection old and outdated


It doesn’t really matter what your opinion is, the fact remains that human behaviour is influenced by biological dimorphism. Sorry.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> It doesn’t really matter what your opinion is, the fact remains that human behaviour is influenced by biological dimorphism. Sorry.



Lol. Okay. Great discussion!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

I’m sorry, Edie .  I’m having to write too much about this subject at the moment in my degree.  I don’t have the energy to also engage in a discussion about it on here beyond what I’ve already tried to explain.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’m sorry, Edie .  I’m having to write too much about this subject at the moment in my degree.  I don’t have the energy to also engage in a discussion about it on here beyond what I’ve already tried to explain.


No worries!


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> Lol. Okay. Great discussion!


You’re not discussing. You’re just saying you find it outdated. Well so what? I don’t. So what? I’m not being rude, it’s just not an argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 6, 2020)

Made it as far as the lion comparison. Won't go much further than that. Male lions do protect the females and cubs but in only a very narrow sense. What they are really protecting is their position as the pride's males from rival males. The females can cope perfectly well without males except for when they need to get pregnant.

It's a poor choice of comparison. A better comparison would have been with gorillas because the big silverback will defend his family from all threats. He is a genuine protector.

But why cherry pick like that? Gorillas are not monogamous. Monogamous gibbons share their duties far more equally.

And if we're limiting ourselves to mammals with a similar level of sexual dimorphism to humans and that also live in mixed sex family groups, where do bonobos fit in? Or orca? Not a huge amount is known about orca reproduction but female orca are thought to prefer large males as mates. Doesn't stop their societies from being female-led, with the larger males deferring to their mothers.

You cannot find answers in nature in the way this speaker thinks you can. That's not to say sexual dimorphism is irrelevant. But it isn't deterministic the way he thinks it is.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> The reason that feminism claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women worries me Winot (ie the reason I find the gender is complete construct argument a problem) is that I think it is dangerous for women.



I don't think feminism DOES claim that there are no biological differences.  That would be crazy.


----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

I don't have much to say because I am feeling decidedly dim-witted these days but...personally, my introduction to feminism was predicated firmly on reproductive biology. Having children, particularly the long gestation and even longer road to adulthood, totally defined a large portion of my life. The role of parent, with it's joys and discontents was my political entry (although I had been induced into the class struggle at a much earlier age). Even now, how we, as a society, negotiate the role of parenting is still a fundamental  question, with biology only slightly shifted from its primary perch.


----------



## kalidarkone (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’m aware there are a lot of ‘families of different shapes’ and I have nothing against them, I am one. That isn’t the point I am making.


So you and your children haven't been provided for or protected by a man? Yet you seem to be asserting that this is inevitable based on biology?

This is what I'm getting from what you are saying. Is this what you are saying?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> You’re not discussing. You’re just saying you find it outdated. Well so what? I don’t. So what? I’m not being rude, it’s just not an argument.


purenarcotic is making an argument, as I was...no one, feminists or other are failing to acknowledge that there are real, biological differences between men and women and that those in different contexts do influence roles and responsibilities that we commonly take on...there are obvious practical reasons for this.

Context though for me is key...we are not just influenced by biological drives...we are influenced by culture. It stands to reason that depending on the environment and our survival needs, that culture and a shift in understanding of what it means to be male/female and why will and does change. Our lives are far more complex now, our survival doesn't for the most part depend solely on having someone to provide for and protect us.

Also, 'so what'? That isn't an argument. That isn't discussion either.


----------



## Winot (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> The reason that feminism claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women worries me Winot (ie the reason I find the gender is complete construct argument a problem) is that I think it is dangerous for women. The strongest women cannot compete against the average man. Women do need and deserve protection from males, especially when our kids are little. Women’s caring role needs to be recognised and compensated by society, especially now so many women are raising kids on their own. Like weltweit says, how insane the State will pay a stranger to mind your infant but not you.



I don't believe that there are no biological differences between men and women - I just don't believe (to the extent that you seem to) that the differences automatically result in inherent and inescapable behavioural traits. Perhaps I should have used the term 'gender identity' instead of 'gender' as the latter is open to misinterpretation.

I think it's useful in these discussions to ask what the consequences are if a particular viewpoint is 'true'. So what are the consequences if it is true that women are inherently predisposed to childcare compared to men? I see only problematic consequences - that women who don't wish to take on a childcare role are forced into it and that men who wish to are denied it. Similarly, what are the consequences if it is true that men are biologically predisposed to fight (because testosterone)? The danger is that violent men get a free pass, and that women who wish to serve in the armed forces are denied that opportunity (or are discriminated against).

By contrast, if it is accepted that men can care and women can fight, that doesn't prevent the adoption and enforcement of laws which prevent discrimination and inequality. Indeed, it might allow men and women to escape traditional constraints of gender identity and ultimately be happier and more fulfilled.


----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

It's fair to say that the feminism of the 1970s (my era) had a very different  set of demands (for change) than the feminism my 37 year old daughter and 9 year old grand-daughter encounter. Some aspects (such as parity, respect, opportunity) have been consistent.  Whilst I have never fallen into the culturally defined dominant position of unpaid caretaker, requiring some masculine counterpart to bring home the bacon, it is also bloody true that there was no getting away from the many months of pregnancy and years of childcare...and the incredibly difficult balancing acts to gain a life not solely determined by parenthood. I found a lot of later feminist discourse, especially the have-it-all pressures of the 90s, to be disingenous and a furiously unfair dismissal of biological difference tbh. So, while I am OK with accepting the  imperatives of cultural changes, I have never been completely comfortable with the entire social construction of gender theories which came to dominate the discourse. And, of course, this very dichotomy has been one of the more difficult issues which has come to prominence in current questions of 'what is a woman' and where do we situate the many complex and contradictory questions around trans rights.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations.  Quite the opposite, in fact!


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

campanula said:


> I don't have much to say because I am feeling decidedly dim-witted these days but...personally, my introduction to feminism was predicated firmly on reproductive biology. Having children, particularly the long gestation and even longer road to adulthood, totally defined a large portion of my life. The role of parent, with it's joys and discontents was my political entry (although I had been induced into the class struggle at a much earlier age). Even now, how we, as a society, negotiate the role of parenting is still a fundamental  question, with biology only slightly shifted from its primary perch.


Same


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kalidarkone said:


> So you and your children haven't been provided for or protected by a man? Yet you seem to be asserting that this is inevitable based on biology?
> 
> This is what I'm getting from what you are saying. Is this what you are saying?


No it’s not


----------



## Doodler (Dec 6, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.



How much more and how do you know? Also, which sounds more likely: an evolved capacity for aggression in certain circumstances, or a trait which is indiscriminate and always switched on?


----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations. Quite the opposite, in fact!


 I certainly realise that...but  find it interesting how gender-critical feminists morphed into latter day villains in the nascent movements for trans rights...and feel we are at a difficult point in separating just how power relations operate when discussing the lack of justice and equality for groups of people who, although coming from different positions, are still culturally oppressed.


----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations. Quite the opposite, in fact!


 I certainly realise that...but  find it interesting how gender-critical feminists morphed into latter day villains in the nascent movements for trans rights...and feel we are at a difficult point in separating just how power relations operate when discussing the lack of justice and equality for groups of people who, although coming from different positions, are still culturally oppressed.


----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

I personally stepped back from the incredibly divisive and unhelpful theories of social identity because I am both invested in old and probably outdated arguments around difference, essentialism (and a Marxist analysis)  while feeling  utterly lost  in po-mo theories which  I find difficult to understand (hence feeling a bit thick). Wandering off from thread to eat toast.


----------



## Athos (Dec 6, 2020)

Surely, nobody is saying that ONLY biology or social construction matter?  They both do, independently and in the ways in which they inform one another (which varies over time and space).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> If anyone is interested I would like to discuss this video. It is controversial. The spoiler or trigger warning if you want one is that it will be seen as transphobic, homophobic and sexist, so if you personally will find this upsetting then it would be best if you didn’t watch it.
> 
> It’s delivered by a teacher at Eton- so you can see why I immediately thought it a good idea to post here. (He got sacked for it, incidentally).
> 
> ...



So I listened to all of this while doing the cleaning.

There are some truths and half-truths in there, but there is _so much _cherry-picking that it becomes worthless. It's a shame because human sexual dimorphism, its origins and its consequences are a topic worth exploring. But not like this, and not by him. Some of it is laughably wrong, especially coming from the mouth of this person, whose job is to transfer privilege from one generation of men to another. The subtext of the whole thing is 'women are in charge really'. But that doesn't explain Eton.

I agree with the poster who said it is adolescent in its simplistic approach. It sounds like something a sixth-former at Eton might have put together, not a teacher. Some bits of it are frankly just weird. His obsession with gangsters and murderers as the acme of masculinity, for instance, says more about him than anything else.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 6, 2020)




----------



## campanula (Dec 6, 2020)

I admit to listening to less than a minute tbh.  But in truth, the context of this - a video used as teaching material at Eton sorta disqualified it in my mind (personal prejudices shining thru'). Which, in fainess, relegates anything I have to say as just personal fluff...

I am pleased to see a revival of feminists threads though.


----------



## Poot (Dec 6, 2020)

There's plenty around evolution that is very interesting. Like the constant desire for more calorific food, which is an evolutionary adaptation to encourage us not to starve to death. Now that we have access to Krispy Creme and Nandos we don't need that particular characteristic anymore and we fight against it for the good of our health. The same is true of needing men to protect us or needing to be the ones who change the nappies. If it really does exist on a biological level then it's no longer a desirable characteristic and should be challenged. 

Also, in the 3 minutes of the video that I could stand to watch he didn't mention what men were protecting women from. Maybe if he sorted that out in his head he would understand why this is all bollocks.


----------



## Glitter (Dec 6, 2020)

I made it to two minutes. He’s basically every MRA subreddit made into a video.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think people find the idea that gender is only something social threatening because life is frightening and unpredictable and often brutal and we like to have anchors and clear roles. I



I think some people find the idea that our society and culture are written on a blank slate (that is somehow completely divorced from what we actually are) is comforting, because the alternative is frightening and riddled with uncertainty about the limits of our control.

Those limits, if they exist, are likely to lie somewhere very different to something laid out anything like in this video, though, imo - due to the kind of institution is has emerged from.  The kinds of limits to human nature it is positing are rooted in the function of the institution it comes from (as a couple of people have basically said).


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I think some people find the idea that our society and culture are written on a blank slate (that is somehow completely divorced from what we actually are) is comforting, because the alternative is frightening and riddled with uncertainty about the limits of our control.
> 
> Those limits, if they exist, are likely to lie somewhere very different to something laid out anything like in this video, though, imo - due to the kind of institution is has emerged from.  The kinds of limits to human nature it is positing are routed in the function of the institution it comes from (as a couple of people have basically said).



I haven't watched the video and I wasn't referring to it.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't need permission for anything


On second thoughts, i do. I generally try to ask for consent rather than forgiveness these days - I'm not a great fit for thelemic theory, going by my limited understanding of it.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 6, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I felt like I need to ask permission - me  being over cautious about posting here again.  I don't want to just jump in and invade space,  as it were.




I actively and specifically missed your presence when all the feminsist threads were bubbling away on the daily.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> On second thoughts, i do. I generally try to ask for consent rather than forgiveness these days - I'm not a great fit for thelemic theory, going by my limited understanding of it.


It's not thelemic

and you don't need to seek consent or ask permission here.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 6, 2020)

Oh
 Right. Got you - I thought it was a reference to "do what thou wilt"   
Thank you sheila


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> Oh
> Right. Got you - I thought it was a reference to "do what thou wilt"


It'd be more 'the word of sin is restriction'


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> It'd be more 'the word of sin is restriction'


I am going to get reading up a bit more. I used to know someone (who I remember thinking was you years ago) who was a big crowley fan - I like learning about other cultures and things and could do with a distraction project...


<prepares to re-enter the perfect potential cult candidate vortex, having just escaped from the reputed extreme Terfery portal>>


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So I listened to all of this while doing the cleaning.
> 
> There are some truths and half-truths in there, but there is _so much _cherry-picking that it becomes worthless. It's a shame because human sexual dimorphism, its origins and its consequences are a topic worth exploring. But not like this, and not by him. Some of it is laughably wrong, especially coming from the mouth of this person, whose job is to transfer privilege from one generation of men to another. The subtext of the whole thing is 'women are in charge really'. But that doesn't explain Eton.
> 
> I agree with the poster who said it is adolescent in its simplistic approach. It sounds like something a sixth-former at Eton might have put together, not a teacher. Some bits of it are frankly just weird. His obsession with gangsters and murderers as the acme of masculinity, for instance, says more about him than anything else.


I love you for doing that 

Largely agree with your analysis that the way he presents it isn’t a sophisticated argument. (There was one bit where he showed a table of evidence of papers which made me laugh because of course anyone could do that). And I agree that it contained truths and half-truths.

For me, males and females have different underlying biology. Genetics- obviously; neuroendocrinology- obviously; physiology- height, strength, grip strength, throwing ability, plus an absolute myriad of prevalence of diseases- uncontroversial in medicine; and at least some propensity for behavioural traits such as aggression, risk taking, mortality, care giving towards young children as we see these are all cross cultural. These biological differences  all just a fact. It’s not arguable.

Maybe it is a matter of so what. But maybe it matters because what we are wanting to change with feminism is wrong unless you accept this.

For example, the Nordic countries have been trying to make their societies as equal as possible, then seem to be counting the number of CEOs and company owners, then asking why their gender equality isn’t there.









						The 'paradox' of working in the world's most equal countries
					

Even Europe's most egalitarian countries struggle to put women on an even footing at work. In the Nordics, why do women still lag behind men in pay, management and company ownership?




					www.bbc.com
				




But maybe that’s the wrong end point? Maybe what we as women want is for ‘our’ work to be valued as men’s? Not to become CEOs. Turns out that even given the chance, a lot of women don’t want that, not at the expense of raising their kids. Most women want flexible but secure jobs and will trade this off against salary. Men, not so much.

We need to re-think what the goals are here, what the measuring stick is. Pay kinship carers, not plough millions into getting women into stem (I mean great, go for it, but why the fuck is this a feminist priority?!). All caring professions (nurses, OT, physios, HCAs, care home workers, carers, primary teachers, foster carers etc) should be paid more, not focussing on women owning companies (although great if you do).


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 6, 2020)

Why can’t we have both? Why can’t men take on more of the ‘feminine’ roles? I’m not interested in CEOs either, but I don’t see why we have to stop at traditional ‘women’s work’ being better paid. That’s the absolute bare minimum.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

purenarcotic said:


> Why can’t we have both? Why can’t men take on more of the ‘feminine’ roles? I’m not interested in CEOs either, but I don’t see why we have to stop at traditional ‘women’s work’ being better paid. That’s the absolute bare minimum.


I agree, but it’s about focus. How we measure success.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2020)

The Nordic Paradox, as I think it has been called in some quarters , is an odd one and certainly runs counter to my expectations.
I haven’t heard any convincing refutations or explanations.  Not to say there aren’t any.

The conservative line on this is that when you make people feel more free to go with whatever career they choose, their preferences tend to show a more rather than less marked gender difference.  Guess you could speculate that some of these preferences/expectations get formed at a very early stage of developing an understanding of gender, though.  There hasn’t been all that much time for things to feed through.

My experiences of working with women in STEM (I work in an area where there are lots) suggests it is nothing to do with capability, at least.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> I agree, but it’s about focus. How we measure success.



How things end up getting paid what they do might be something to explore.  Sometimes it is a case of an organisation wanting to pay the minimum possible (and they will use the degree of esteem afforded to particular roles as part of that), and sometimes remuneration is protected to a degree by professional associations.  The decline in working class power over the last 40 years or so probably plays into it somewhere too.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie, I still don’t get why you think it is “feminism” (by which I assume you must mean those directing feminist academia, because if not, what else?) that is pushing an agenda of successful have-it-all consumerist power via being a top worker as the priority of feminism.  This just isn’t the case.  The creation of “girl as winner”, being the idea that in the modern world, women can outcompete by working hard enough, is the work of the same capitalist machinery whose interests are served by having more and more efficient workers.  You’re punching at the wrong target.

Seriously, this is all addressed in the paper I posted just before you started this focus on the nonsense spewed by the Eton teacher.  I would strongly suggest that if you are properly interested in the subject, you read that. It does a much better job of taking the subject step by step than I could ever hope to manage.  Here it is again, to help;



			Sci-Hub | TOP GIRLS? Cultural Studies, 21(4-5), 718–737 | 10.1080/09502380701279044
		


From its abstract:



> The new sexual contract is also embedded within the fields of education and employment. Here too young women (top girls) are now understood to be ideal subjects of female success, exemplars of the new competitive meritocracy. These incitements to young women to become wage-earning subjects are complex strategies of governmentality, the new ‘career girl’ in the affluent west finds her counterpart, the ‘global girl’ factory worker, in the rapidly developing factory systems of the impoverished countries of the so-called Third World. Underpinning this attribution of capacity and the seeming gaining of freedoms is the requirement that the critique of hegemonic masculinity associated with feminism and the women’s movement is abandoned. The sexual contract now embedded in political discourse and in popular culture permits the renewed institutionalisation of gender inequity and the re-stabilisation of gender hierarchy by means of a generational- specific address which interpellates young women as subjects of capacity. With government now taking it upon itself to look after the young woman, so that she is seemingly well-cared for, this is also an economic rationality which envisages young women as endlessly working on a perfectible self, for whom there can be no space in the busy course of the working day for a renewed feminist politics.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Edie, I still don’t get why you think it is “feminism” (by which I assume you must mean those directing feminist academia, because if not, what else?) that is pushing an agenda of successful have-it-all consumerist power via being a top worker as the priority of feminism.  This just isn’t the case.  The creation of “girl as winner”, being the idea that in the modern world, women can outcompete by working hard enough, is the work of the same capitalist machinery whose interests are served by having more and more efficient workers.  You’re punching at the wrong target.
> 
> Seriously, this is all addressed in the paper I posted just before you started this focus on the nonsense spewed by the Eton teacher.  I would strongly suggest that if you are properly interested in the subject, you read that. It does a much better job of taking the subject step by step than I could ever hope to manage.  Here it is again, to help;
> 
> ...


I will read it, but that’s it’s _abstract_? Why is it so fucking _hard_ to understand? Surely it’s abstract should summarise the main finding, or what it adds, in plain English.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2020)

Edie said:


> I will read it, but that’s it’s _abstract_? Why is it so fucking _hard_ to understand? Surely it’s abstract should summarise the main finding, or what it adds, in plain English.



I guess the journal has a style guide and just saying: _the goals of feminism =/= 'girl powe_r' would have been rejected for excessive brevity.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 7, 2020)

Edie said:


> I will read it, but that’s it’s _abstract_? Why is it so fucking _hard_ to understand? Surely it’s abstract should summarise the main finding, or what it adds, in plain English.


Well, it is true that it’s not always straightforward to read these things.  But if I were to read a paper from your own academic field, would I not have expect to have to do some work in order to understand it?  Academia doesn’t become trivial just because it’s a social science rather than a biological science.  Sociological studies are built on years of analysis, theory, evidence gathering, analysis, theory, evidence gathering just as they are in your own area.  But that’s precisely why it’s a bit frustrating when people tread old ground without at least being willing to consider that others have already been there, and with considerable rigour.  Otherwise, it’s like insisting on one’s own views regarding the nervous system based only on one’s own observations and having watched a YouTube video about phrenology, if you see what I mean. It’s just a good thing to know something about the body of work already performed if you’re going to advance your own theories.

Of course, abstracts are never the easiest part of a paper to read anyway.  They compress the whole thing into a few hundred words, so don’t have time to explain anything.  Papers themselves are much easier to read than abstracts.

Now, this abstract: I’ll try to expand it based also on my understanding of what the paper itself discusses:



> The new sexual contract is also embedded within the fields of education and employment. Here too young women (top girls) are now understood to be ideal subjects of female success, exemplars of the new competitive meritocracy. These incitements to young women to become wage-earning subjects are complex strategies of governmentality, the new ‘career girl’ in the affluent west finds her counterpart, the ‘global girl’ factory worker, in the rapidly developing factory systems of the impoverished countries of the so-called Third World.


Here she’s saying that government strategies have encouraged and enabled certain education and employment practices.  These practices are all about turning women into the right kind of worker. They’re certainly not created in the interests of women.



> Underpinning this attribution of capacity and the seeming gaining of freedoms is the requirement that the critique of hegemonic masculinity associated with feminism and the women’s movement is abandoned. The sexual contract now embedded in political discourse and in popular culture permits the renewed institutionalisation of gender inequity and the re-stabilisation of gender hierarchy by means of a generational- specific address which interpellates young women as subjects of capacity.


This is saying that part of those education and employment strategies created by governments is to create a cultural value system that does not question the political structure.  Girls have been sold an individualist, meritocratic dream and sent out to  attain it. By design, this value system does not question hegemonic masculinity, ie (amongst other things)  the way the world is built around having power if you are within the working world that was traditionally a male preserve.  As a result, the cultural beliefs that give men power, which were being challenged prior to the late 90s, have been restabilised.



> With government now taking it upon itself to look after the young woman, so that she is seemingly well-cared for, this is also an economic rationality which envisages young women as endlessly working on a perfectible self, for whom there can be no space in the busy course of the working day for a renewed feminist politics.


This is saying that since girls have been sold the idea that they can now do and achieve anything, it becomes their own fault if they don’t manage it.  They just need to work harder on perfecting themselves.  Given the effort this takes, the last thing women then have time for is to challenge the status quo.

So in total, it’s raising similar concerns to yours, but it’s having an in-depth look at where the real blame belongs for the things you are concerned about. And the reason for me pushing this paper is that this _is_ part of current feminism.  When you say “feminism is saying X”, it doesn’t then seem fair to not actually read what feminism really is saying.  I’m pointing out to you that what you are claiming about feminism is not right, and I’m giving you the respect of doing so by actually giving you the evidence for my statement.


----------



## Edie (Dec 7, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Well, it is true that it’s not always straightforward to read these things.  But if I were to read a paper from your own academic field, would I not have expect to have to do some work in order to understand it?  Academia doesn’t become trivial just because it’s a social science rather than a biological science.  Sociological studies are built on years of analysis, theory, evidence gathering, analysis, theory, evidence gathering just as they are in your own area.  But that’s precisely why it’s a bit frustrating when people tread old ground without at least being willing to consider that others have already been there, and with considerable rigour.  Otherwise, it’s like insisting on one’s own views regarding the nervous system based only on one’s own observations and having watched a YouTube video about phrenology, if you see what I mean. It’s just a good thing to know something about the body of work already performed if you’re going to advance your own theories.
> 
> Of course, abstracts are never the easiest part of a paper to read anyway.  They compress the whole thing into a few hundred words, so don’t have time to explain anything.  Papers themselves are much easier to read than abstracts.
> 
> ...


kabbes I appreciate that. (I’m on a long day today but will reply when I can).


----------



## bimble (Dec 7, 2020)

What are you doing a degree in kabbes ?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 7, 2020)

bimble said:


> What are you doing a degree in kabbes ?


Psychology.  This year (part time, so one-sixth of the total) is chiefly critical social psychology, i.e. the interface between the social and the self with a particular focus on power relations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2020)

Edie said:


> I will read it, but that’s it’s _abstract_? Why is it so fucking _hard_ to understand? Surely it’s abstract should summarise the main finding, or what it adds, in plain English.


if it went in plain english they'd see the academic emperor was scantily clad


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

Scantily clad, you say?
Quick! Cover them up..


*Dangerous Coats*

Someone clever once said
Women were not allowed pockets
In case they carried leaflets
To spread sedition
Which means unrest
To you & me
A grandiose word
For commonsense
Fairness
Kindness
Equality
So ladies, start sewing
Dangerous coats
Made of pockets & sedition

*Sharon Owens*


^ I know bugger all about the writer/intent.  I just like pockets.  And coats*. *


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2020)

Was reading about how around 1910 a “suffragette suit” containing six pockets became quite popular in some quarters.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the political history of clothing on tinternet.


----------



## JimW (Dec 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> Was reading about how around 1910 a “suffragette suit” containing six pockets became quite popular in some quarters.
> 
> There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the political history of clothing on tinternet.


One thing I learnt translating some period texts was during the high socialist era when clothing was all quite similar in a sop to ending status distinctions here you could still spot an officer or senior cadre because their jacket got more pockets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2020)

JimW said:


> One thing I learnt translating some period texts was during the high socialist era when clothing was all quite similar in a sop to ending status distinctions here you could still spot an officer or senior cadre because their jacket got more pockets.


very interesting

found this about the mao suit









						Mao suit - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

The Sexist, Political History of Pockets
					

Why men were given pockets while women bought bags to carry




					www.vox.com
				






"As we become more civilized, we need more pockets," the piece says, "No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless."


----------



## JimW (Dec 7, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> very interesting
> 
> found this about the mao suit
> View attachment 242192
> ...


Without veering too far off topic, there's an argument that the significance of the number of buttons and pockets was an apocryphal story that didn't get started until the 1990s; the paper questioning the legend is here (in Chinese) 中山装"政治含义"考辨 - 百度学术 but only seen a summary so might have that wrong.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.

I've just been wondering whether he's still in  that headspace so got googling.... holy crap


http://triggeralert (dot) blogspot.com/

This was a review of his first mens rights song









						How Long Can You Listen to this Men's Rights Anthem Before You Tear Your Ears Off?
					

God, you guys, you know what sucks? How men are responsible for all human achievement (except, uh, actually making other humans) and women just shit all over them. But now, thankfully, the Men's Rights movement has found a musical prophet fit to deliver the message that men are fed up with the...




					jezebel.com
				






> the entirety of the piece is a this one guy looping the same guitar chord progression over itself as he gently bitches in whisper-falsetto about the fact that it's men who did cool shit like build bridges and fight wars and build houses and meanwhile women just sat around collecting alimony checks and emasculating their husbands with their stupid emotional needs and menacingly brandished rolling pins. It sucks lyrically; in fact, after I read through the lyrics, which are helpfully listed with the video's post on YouTube, I realized that the 30 seconds I took to read them is 30 seconds that I will not have to read another poem, a real poem, or to talk to my mother on the phone, or to take a moment to stop and smell the roses. It's 30 seconds that I could've spent going to the kitchen to get some green tea. I will never have those precious moments of my life back. Anyway, here's a sample,
> 
> Men have no doubt
> Just what they're for
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> The Sexist, Political History of Pockets
> 
> 
> Why men were given pockets while women bought bags to carry
> ...



Hmm.  Questionable wording.

As an aside, in many (very often “male”) jobs the kind of clothing that has the most pockets is typically seen as not very high status.  Even the military ditch most of their pockets when in ceremonial garb.

Magicians are probably a special case...

Further aside, I was told in work that my clothing was unprofessional on account of having too many pockets.

(sorry, going off topic)


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.
> 
> I've just been wondering whether he's still in  that headspace so got googling.... holy crap
> 
> ...



That's actually your ex-friend?


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

Yep. I have a little bit of sick in my mouth.
Not seen him since 2012? don't know what hes up to these days apart from being an angry little boy. (Apologies for ageist language)


----------



## Spandex (Dec 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the political history of clothing


The history of bloomers is quite interesting.

I always used to think of bloomers as comedy underwear beloved of fictional grannies, but when Amelia Bloomer popularised them in the 1840s and 50s as part of her Bloomer Suit they were radical and controversial. At the time in the US 'ladies' were expected to cover their lower half in numerous layers of ribbed petticoats, making it hard to walk, harder to manage stairs and impossible to sit in a dignified manner, while on their top half they were expected to wear ribbed corsets, making it hard to breathe. The Bloomer Suit enabled women to move freely, comfortably and to breathe. This was, of course, madness to traditionalists. The bloomer under-trousers evolved over time to become the underwear that is better known today.

Here's a picture of Amelia Bloomer in her eponymous suit:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 7, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.
> 
> I've just been wondering whether he's still in  that headspace so got googling.... holy crap
> 
> ...


I made it about four minutes in. tbf if you didn't understand English, it might sound like it's probably a pleasant love song


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

Sorry for the million brain tangents in my posts so far...
I've just remembered the virago book of wicked verse that I used to own and lost years ago - I've just found it for three quid on Ebay with delivery in time for xmas 

I will be posting relevant chunks of it when it lands.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> Hmm.  Questionable wording.
> 
> As an aside, in many (very often “male”) jobs the kind of clothing that has the most pockets is typically seen as not very high status.  Even the military ditch most of their pockets when in ceremonial garb.
> 
> ...


At least you have pockets  I'm not going to assume your gender though...

Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad  for years.  
If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff. 

If there isn't a current Pockets for Women campaign in the wider fashion industry, there should be.

I did warn you that I like pockets.


----------



## Poot (Dec 7, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> At least you have pockets  I'm not going to assume your gender though...
> 
> Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad  for years.
> If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff.
> ...


Pyjamas with pockets have made my life complete.

That is all.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

Im about to start reading invisible women, which discusses men being the default model in design and things like that. I think.

I shall keep an eye out for any talk of pockets


----------



## 8ball (Dec 7, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I made it about four minutes in. tbf if you didn't understand English, it might sound like it's probably a pleasant love song



Albeit about six and a half minutes too long.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 7, 2020)

I did try to join an offline feminist conversation group a couple of years ago, but the meetings were at a misogyny baked in venue,  and I was told it was understandable if I stayed away because I was uncomfortable going there 

Again,  thank you for this thread being here.  I've really missed posting on here.


----------



## On Fire (Dec 7, 2020)

Where has JudithB gone to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2020)

On Fire said:


> Where has JudithB gone to?


A bitter place


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 7, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> At least you have pockets  I'm not going to assume your gender though...
> 
> Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad  for years.
> If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff.
> ...


I got annoyed that the shorts I like mostly no longer have pockets. I'm down to a single brand that has em now. 

Also the latest design of m&s linin trousers have simplified again. No belt loops and smaller pockets. Not yet comedy size women's pockets but I don't like this trend.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Well, it is true that it’s not always straightforward to read these things.  But if I were to read a paper from your own academic field, would I not have expect to have to do some work in order to understand it?  Academia doesn’t become trivial just because it’s a social science rather than a biological science.  Sociological studies are built on years of analysis, theory, evidence gathering, analysis, theory, evidence gathering just as they are in your own area.  But that’s precisely why it’s a bit frustrating when people tread old ground without at least being willing to consider that others have already been there, and with considerable rigour.  Otherwise, it’s like insisting on one’s own views regarding the nervous system based only on one’s own observations and having watched a YouTube video about phrenology, if you see what I mean. It’s just a good thing to know something about the body of work already performed if you’re going to advance your own theories.
> 
> Of course, abstracts are never the easiest part of a paper to read anyway.  They compress the whole thing into a few hundred words, so don’t have time to explain anything.  Papers themselves are much easier to read than abstracts.
> 
> ...



I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?


Oh gosh me too, I just couldn’t.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?


I’m surprised you use “Interpellation” as an example of non-sociological terminology.  Interpellation is a key part of a lot of sociocultural theory, whose origins go back to the early 70s.  It’s a fundamental part of Butler’s writings about performativity, for example.  By responding to a system as if your allotted role is valid, you internalise the rules of that system.

And McRobbie is introducing “feminist masquerade” and “phallic girl” as her own terminology so yes, that’s non-standard.  But pretty obvious from context.

The paper is a neat encapsulation of the process by which governments have subverted and diverted feminist ideals in order to neatly achieve both a more compliant, willing workforce and also head off the risk of genuine political change.  It talks about the messaging around womanhood that is provided to girls and young women, positioning them as the privileged rather than the subjugated.  Women do better at education!  Women have protective rights!  More women are employed than men in this industry!  It talks about the way messaging has moved away from women as reproducers and towards women as agentic workers.  To use McRobbie’s own words, “as a result of equal opportunities policies in the education system and with all of this feminist influence somehow behind her, she is now pushed firmly in the direction of independence and self reliance. This entails self-monitoring, the setting up of personal plans and the search for individual solutions.”

The paper then looks at the consequence of this interpellation of the role of “one with capacity“ on feminist critique throughout the late 90s and 00s.  How it subverted concerns about things like equal status for different types of role into a push to the “lean in” politics of competing with men.  In other words, it became a masquerade.  But as McRobbie examines, the structural basis was not put in place to truly allow for equality even on this basis.  The dream had been sold to girls but there was no interest in creating a level playing field for women.  The difference now was that women couldn’t complain because, after all, governments had given them every opportunity.

What I like about the paper is that it doesn‘t take an ahistorical perspective.  I recall her even talking about her own failings in the 90s/00s to engage with and tackle the shift of focus from equality of experience to equality of opportunity, just so long as that opportunity is to do what men do.  (I can’t remember if that was in this specific paper or in the wider book of which this is one chapter, though).  It tackles the political context head-on, looking at how governments embraced the “girl-power“ attitude and puncturing just what a problem this came to be.

Not sure what more you want me to say without writing up an essay about it.  I’m very surprised that you didn’t like it, frankly.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

I’d also note that I’ve hardly posted up some obscure fringe author, either.  McRobbie is one of the most high-profile feminist writers at the very top of the academic tree.  Look at her Wikipedia page, ffs!  Angela McRobbie - Wikipedia — and the paper you are deriding is from _The Aftermath of Feminism_, which is mentioned in the introduction of that page about her.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’m surprised you use “Interpellation” as an example of non-sociological terminology.  Interpellation is a key part of a lot of sociocultural theory, whose origins go back to the early 70s.  It’s a fundamental part of Butler’s writings about performativity, for example.  By responding to a system as if your allotted role is valid, you internalise the rules of that system.
> 
> And McRobbie is introducing “feminist masquerade” and “phallic girl” as her own terminology so yes, that’s non-standard.  But pretty obvious from context.
> 
> ...



Interpellation was an example of jargon (not especially sociological was a further qualification that admittedly wasn't made clear but I'm busy). Lacan and all that follows is not obvious at all and feminist masquerade has a history in that.

I don't have time to write more as I'm getting my youngest ready for school.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’d also note that I’ve hardly posted up some obscure fringe author, either.  McRobbie is one of the most high-profile feminist writers at the very top of the academic tree.  Look at her Wikipedia page, ffs!  Angela McRobbie - Wikipedia — and the paper you are deriding is from _The Aftermath of Feminism_, which is mentioned in the introduction of that page about her.



I haven't derided it at all, i said it was full of specialist language that isn't readily understandable outside the field - jargon. I'm actually familiar with some of it, enough to recognise it, and i still found the paper very hard going.


----------



## chilango (Dec 8, 2020)

As an aside, and only because interpellation is a central concept in my work*, it comes from Althusser and was - initially - used to explain how ideology produces 'subjects' out of us. I could happily chat all day about the scope and limits of interpellation, despite not particularly liking Althusser. 

...but that's probably for a separate microthread.


*...and, sadly, am finding myself increasingly referencing Lacan too


----------



## chilango (Dec 8, 2020)

...so, yes, Red Cat is right, it is jargon, specific to a particular lens used by some social scientists. 

it's not, imo, a difficult concept, but if you're not familiar with it the short-hand use of the term is of course alienating to readers not versed in this particular lens.

All imho of course, and largely off topic I'm sure. Sorry.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

chilango said:


> As an aside, and only because interpellation is a central concept in my work*, it comes from Althusser and was - initially - used to explain how ideology produces 'subjects' out of us. I could happily chat all day about the scope and limits of interpellation, despite not particularly liking Althusser.
> 
> ...but that's probably for a separate microthread.
> 
> ...



I'm aware that its Althusser, although I noted he wasn't even in the references. Neither was Lacan because, I assume, its taken for granted in the field.


----------



## chilango (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I'm aware that its Althusser, although I noted he wasn't even in the references. Neither was Lacan because, I assume, its taken for granted in the field.



Yeah, was just commenting out loud.


----------



## Winot (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I don't have time to write more as I'm getting my youngest ready for school.



You see that’s why women are biologically unsuitable to be academics.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

To be fair, I never said it wasn’t jargon.  Of course it’s jargon.  I was just disagreeing within the claim that it wasn’t sociological.

So what do you actually have to say to Edie, Red Cat, rather than to my response to Edie?  Edie made a statement that feminism is trying to pretend men and women are the same, and blames it for not caring about true equality of experience rather than pseudo-opportunity.  I am attempting to show that feminism as an academic discipline is not the guilty party here.  My evidence is actual writings from an actual feminist academic, which, yes, includes jargon.  Do you have an alternative way of engaging in respect of this subject?  Do you agree with Edie?  If not, how would you best proceed to present why not, short of just stating it?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 8, 2020)

Why do you equate "feminism" with academia, kabbes?


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’m surprised you use “Interpellation” as an example of non-sociological terminology.  Interpellation is a key part of a lot of sociocultural theory, whose origins go back to the early 70s.  It’s a fundamental part of Butler’s writings about performativity, for example.  By responding to a system as if your allotted role is valid, you internalise the rules of that system.
> 
> And McRobbie is introducing “feminist masquerade” and “phallic girl” as her own terminology so yes, that’s non-standard.  But pretty obvious from context.
> 
> ...


kabbes I mean this kindly but you have no idea what the level of other non experts understanding is. None whatsoever. You do a far better job at explaining the ideas than the paper does. (I’m not deriding the paper- I have no idea, I literally cannot understand it).

I’m not trying to be difficult. I guess you could stick a nature reviews genetics paper up and hit the same problem (although science is a shit load easier to read even if you have to look up individual words, what it’s describing is usually straightforward whereas this doesn’t feel like that).

How does this all fit in with my argument? Should a goal of feminism be to eliminate differences between the genders with respect to social roles, or is this self defeating in some ways for women?


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> To be fair, I never said it wasn’t jargon.  Of course it’s jargon.  I was just disagreeing within the claim that it wasn’t sociological.
> 
> So what do you actually have to say to Edie, Red Cat, rather than to my response to Edie?  Edie made a statement that feminism is trying to pretend men and women are the same, and blames it for not caring about true equality of experience rather than pseudo-opportunity.  I am attempting to show that feminism as an academic discipline is not the guilty party here.  My evidence is actual writings from an actual feminist academic, which, yes, includes jargon.  Do you have an alternative way of engaging in respect of this subject?  Do you agree with Edie?  If not, how would you best proceed to present why not, short of just stating it?


Thank you for understanding what I was saying!


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> To be fair, I never said it wasn’t jargon.  Of course it’s jargon.  I was just disagreeing within the claim that it wasn’t sociological.
> 
> So what do you actually have to say to Edie, Red Cat, rather than to my response to Edie?  Edie made a statement that feminism is trying to pretend men and women are the same, and blames it for not caring about true equality of experience rather than pseudo-opportunity.  I am attempting to show that feminism as an academic discipline is not the guilty party here.  My evidence is actual writings from an actual feminist academic, which, yes, includes jargon.  Do you have an alternative way of engaging in respect of this subject?  Do you agree with Edie?  If not, how would you best proceed to present why not, short of just stating it?



Phallic, the Symbolique etc. are terms from Lacanian psychoanalysis and are not specifically sociological terms. 

I will try to respond to the rest later.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

weepiper said:


> Why do you equate "feminism" with academia, kabbes?


What do you understand by the statement “feminism says that...”?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Phallic, the Symbolique etc. are terms from Lacanian psychoanalysis and are not specifically sociological terms.
> 
> I will try to respond to the rest later.


Right.  But (a) I never said that feminism (and cultural studies, for that matter) are sociology; and (b) I never said that Phallic or the Symbolique are sociological terms.  I _did_ say that McRobbie introduces “the phallic girl”, which is not the same term as “Phallic”.  But I shouldn’t have said that in retrospect, because I don’t actually know it is true.  I do know that when other writers post-2008 refer to “phallic girl”, they reference this McRobbie paper.  But maybe it wasn’t originally her phrase.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 8, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Phallic, the Symbolique etc. are terms from Lacanian psychoanalysis and are not specifically sociological terms.
> 
> I will try to respond to the rest later.


in what ways does lacan use phallic that differ from how freud used the term?

e2a: found this which goes some way towards answering that


----------



## weepiper (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> What do you understand by the statement “feminism says that...”?


Feminism isn't restricted to or encompassed by people with degrees, was my point. Most women's experience of feminism is more likely to be from face to face interactions with our peers and maybe from reading columnists in the paper or online. Most women I know who would describe themselves as feminist got that way from being radicalised (for want of a better word) by our elder female relatives or friends, and/or by our own life experiences.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

weepiper said:


> Feminism isn't restricted to or encompassed by people with degrees, was my point. Most women's experience of feminism is more likely to be from face to face interactions with our peers and maybe from reading columnists in the paper or online. Most women I know who would describe themselves as feminist got that way from being radicalised (for want of a better word) by our elder female relatives or friends, and/or by our own life experiences.


I don’t disagree with that.  It isn’t the context within which I was responding, though.  You aren’t claiming anything about what “feminism says” based on that radicalisation.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 8, 2020)

weepiper said:


> Feminism isn't restricted to or encompassed by people with degrees, was my point. Most women's experience of feminism is more likely to be from face to face interactions with our peers and maybe from reading columnists in the paper or online. Most women I know who would describe themselves as feminist got that way from being radicalised (for want of a better word) by our elder female relatives or friends, and/or by our own life experiences.


I've watched this recently. I may not agree with all mumsnetters (I'm not even a mum), but I found it really interesting in terms of women organising and becoming/doubling down on being politically active,  as it were.  It's long, at about 1h 20...). Trigger warnings for discussion of/debate around transphobia etc)
Edie theres a fairly big chunk about women becoming politically active after the impact of motherhood,  I'll see if I can find the timing fir it.




Is this the "bitter place" you meant, Pickman's model  ?


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2020)

weepiper said:


> Feminism isn't restricted to or encompassed by people with degrees, was my point. Most women's experience of feminism is more likely to be from face to face interactions with our peers and maybe from reading columnists in the paper or online. Most women I know who would describe themselves as feminist got that way from being radicalised (for want of a better word) by our elder female relatives or friends, and/or by our own life experiences.


I think I’m at fault here not kabbes because when I say ‘feminists think’ I’m not clear who I mean (because I don’t know). So he’s just pointing out that it’s not (all) academic feminists, and has offered this argument that in fact women were ‘given the opportunity’ to compete with men, but not given a level playing field, but that’s okay cos women ‘had a chance’.

I’m not sure what I think about that idea. I wonder if the truth is that a lot of women (as a _generalisation_), when they have babies and small children want to stay at home and raise them for those important pre school years at least, and often part time after that. The biological pull is real, and given a choice, well that’s the choice. Income inequality will inevitably follow, and if the goal of feminism is for men and women to earn the same over a lifetime it’ll never be met like that.

Personally I don’t think the sex bias in occupation, at least in the West, is all down to social conditioning or culture. It’s laughable really, to think that when I think of all of our experiences even here on urban. It’s inconsistent with what women actually tell you they want!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2020)

Edie said:


> I think I’m at fault here not kabbes because when I say ‘feminists think’ I’m not clear who I mean (because I don’t know). So he’s just pointing out that it’s not (all) academic feminists, and has offered this argument that in fact women were ‘given the opportunity’ to compete with men, but not given a level playing field, but that’s okay cos women ‘had a chance’.
> 
> I’m not sure what I think about that idea. I wonder if the truth is that a lot of women (as a _generalisation_), when they have babies and small children want to stay at home and raise them for those important pre school years at least, and often part time after that. The biological pull is real, and given a choice, well that’s the choice. Income inequality will inevitably follow, and if the goal of feminism is for men and women to earn the same over a lifetime it’ll never be met like that.


Fay Weldon has spoken about this and considers it to have been a mistake made by her and others in the 1970s where the focus of many activists was too much on women _like them_ (ie educated, middle class, with career aspirations). One of the unintended consequences of the rise of double-income households has been the rise in housing costs to the point where there have to be two incomes in a household for people to pay the mortgage. That, in turn, has narrowed the possibilities for women who don't want to work _and_ have a family. Often these are women in low-paid, low-status, low-skill jobs who would be more than happy to have a few years off work to bring up the kids. People who don't have 'careers', just jobs.

I don't have great answers to that, other than that, indirectly, greater social justice and provision helps. Expanding social housing would help. Making education free again would help. Expanding social services would help. Raising child benefit would help. All things that open up possibilities rather than closing them off.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 8, 2020)

On another very specific tangent, I'm only just trying to read up on British feminist history  etc. I found out that sheila Rowbotham moved into a house in whitby with other women as part of her womens liberation writing/work in the 70s.. does anyone know anything further about that tiny bit of information? I love the idea of a hotbed of feminists in the middle of a pretty fishing town - I believe the beardy bloke-heavy hippy/alternative scene was thriving in the area at the time.

I'm a bit on a bit of whitby feminist thing -  st hilda being a bit of a star and an early female leader and all that. I might go on a womans history pilgrimage for my next hols...

Tbh I'd love to lock myself in the local archives- I think they're in Pannett park, and there's a literary and philosophy society IIRC.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 8, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I did try to join an offline feminist conversation group a couple of years ago, but the meetings were at a misogyny baked in venue,  and I was told it was understandable if I stayed away because I was uncomfortable going there
> 
> Again,  thank you for this thread being here.  I've really missed posting on here.




THere were loads of feminism threads for a while 

For instance









						Feminism and a world designed for men
					

Following on from JudithB 's thread again. Thanks to Poot for bringing up the subject of how the world is designed for men and and Winot for linking to this book  Invisible Women Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez – Invisible Women  It’s a smart strategy...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 8, 2020)

Thanks SheilaNaGig ! Added to the reading/catchup list!


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 8, 2020)

I also just checked my recent orders from the Bad Place - this is from when I decided to knit something for the mary wollstonecraft statue debacle. I will make sure it contains pockets (seditious ones) if I ever finish whatever it is. 



The magnesium ribbon is for a completely different project


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I don’t disagree with that.  It isn’t the context within which I was responding, though.  You aren’t claiming anything about what “feminism says” based on that radicalisation.


..._radicalisation _meaning influenced by the women around them and their own experiences, many of which didn't have degrees and weren't 'academic.'


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> ..._radicalisation _meaning influenced by the women around them and their own experiences, many of which didn't have degrees and weren't 'academic.'


It wasn’t my word


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Right.  But (a) I never said that feminism (and cultural studies, for that matter) are sociology; and (b) I never said that Phallic or the Symbolique are sociological terms.  I _did_ say that McRobbie introduces “the phallic girl”, which is not the same term as “Phallic”.  But I shouldn’t have said that in retrospect, because I don’t actually know it is true.  I do know that when other writers post-2008 refer to “phallic girl”, they reference this McRobbie paper.  But maybe it wasn’t originally her phrase.



You mentioned 'Sociological studies'.

I think its a complex paper that involves concepts from cultural studies (broadly speaking) that have a history and use that isn't obvious to the lay person.  Sexual contract, for example, appears to be a feminist critique of social contract theory ( a course module in itself). Feminist masquerade has a history in the feminine masquerade which was a (pre-Lacanian) psychoanalytic paper in which it's hypothesised that envy and rivalry with men and fear of retribution are defended against by being 'feminine'.  The phallic girl seems to be building on that use of the paper in Lacanian influenced feminist academia. The idea of the fall of public woman refers to the book the Fall of Public Man, again, another subject of its own.

It's actually an interesting paper because it combines all those threads but it's not accessible. I read it more than once  (struggling) and had to research to check out the meaning of some of the terms being used., so I didn't dismiss it at all. But it certainly wasn't an aha! piece of writing that clarified the political issues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 8, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I also just checked my recent orders from the Bad Place - this is from when I decided to knit something for the mary wollstonecraft statue debacle. I will make sure it contains pockets (seditious ones) if I ever finish whatever it is.
> 
> View attachment 242386
> 
> The magnesium ribbon is for a completely different project


Seditious Pockets were a Soviet era punk band from Lithuania


----------



## belboid (Dec 8, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Seditious Pockets were a Soviet era punk band from Lithuania


I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue thread ------->>


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> in what ways does lacan use phallic that differ from how freud used the term?
> 
> e2a: found this which goes some way towards answering that



That's more help than I can be. I don't really get Lacan, it's far too abstract for me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2020)

kabbes said:


> It wasn’t my word


Yes I know...you somehow didn't understand what was meant by it's usage in the context of the post you responded to though?


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 8, 2020)

I've got a beginners guide to lacan somewhere from when I attempted sociology...


My most recent encounter with him has been a picture  of this (sorry for the blurry).
 its from somewhere very "radical feminist" for context ; anyone know what on earth it means?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 8, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I've got a beginners guide to lacan somewhere from when I attempted sociology...
> 
> 
> My most recent encounter with him has been a picture  of this (sorry for the blurry).
> ...



It's a long way from Talcott Parsons


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2020)

Watched the Patriarchy Paradox by Will Knowland and read the McRobbie article posted by kabbes. Im an amateur as far as theory goes but did find it readable. Kabbes has explained article well.









						Teacher's dismissal exposes fissures over Eton college modernisation
					

Head trying to fight off revolt from those who say school is heading in ‘aggressively woke’ direction




					www.theguardian.com
				




Knowland has split Eton between those who support the modernising headmaster against those who oppose moves to a slightly more progressive education.

Watching the video and struck me that Knowland is expressing the view of masculinity of a previous generation of Public school teachers The kind of values inculcated when I was at school. He is not saying that biology is everything. He is advocating an education system where boys learn to "man up". This is through learning cultural codes of chivalry which he contrasts with machismo. Sport is presented as one route for this. Learning from the Classics is another one.

Its straight out of the old public school way of educating boys. 

Its also right wing and reactionary.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

Sorry, Kabbes, but you're making me feel like a right thicko. I do feminism by being a woman who tries to fight for her rights, where I can. An academic article that's aimed at other sociologists and not phrased in a way that outsiders are expected to understand is more interesting for sociologists than it is for people just living their lives.

You asked Edie how she'd expect an abstract from someone outside her academic discipline to sound, like there's an assumption that everyone on here is an academic. Many people on here have degrees, but they are not academics and do not read academic abstracts very often.



Edie said:


> I think I’m at fault here not kabbes because when I say ‘feminists think’ I’m not clear who I mean (because I don’t know). So he’s just pointing out that it’s not (all) academic feminists, and has offered this argument that in fact women were ‘given the opportunity’ to compete with men, but not given a level playing field, but that’s okay cos women ‘had a chance’.
> 
> I’m not sure what I think about that idea. I wonder if the truth is that a lot of women (as a _generalisation_), when they have babies and small children want to stay at home and raise them for those important pre school years at least, and often part time after that. The biological pull is real, and given a choice, well that’s the choice. Income inequality will inevitably follow, and if the goal of feminism is for men and women to earn the same over a lifetime it’ll never be met like that.
> 
> Personally I don’t think the sex bias in occupation, at least in the West, is all down to social conditioning or culture. It’s laughable really, to think that when I think of all of our experiences even here on urban. It’s inconsistent with what women actually tell you they want!



I think some of it, a non-negligible amount of it, is biology, specifically that it's women who give birth.

That means women who give birth _have_ to take some time off work. There are extremely rare examples of women not doing that in rich countries, usually high-powered office-based jobs. Then there are low-paid farm jobs in the poorest countries, where the maternal mortality rate also tends to be extremely high.

If women want to breastfeed, then it's only them that can do it. 

So it means a few months minimum off work, and often that can mean it's the woman who ends up being the primary caregiver by default. Being the primary caregiver means less time for work. 

There are huge, enormous reasons beyond that, of course, but being the person who gives birth can't just be discounted.

It's only a few months to a few, but it's at a prime working period, and it can and often does happen more than once.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

It’s not my intention to make anybody feel bad, my apologies.  I made the mistake of specifically addressing Edie because she was the one I was engaging with.  That wasn’t helpful on a public board, though — maybe I should have gone to PM.  Edie has a very high degree of academic training in a complex discipline that would similarly not be easy for me to just pick up and read.  That was the experience I wanted to draw on as an analogy.


----------



## smmudge (Dec 9, 2020)

I liked the McRobbie article, although it doesn't touch at all on Edie's main argument of sexual dimorphism and essential feminine characteristics (though I cba to read back over the thread to remind myself what the article was actually responding to, so I'm sure it's still relevant). 

But it is interesting and useful with a word of warning - if any government or company (that you work for or buy from) wants you to think that equality has been achieved and presents you with their policies to prove it, and especially where those policies put the onus of good choices and opportunity on you, chances are it's just another way to protect patriarchy from the threat of having to seriously reconsider gender relations. Could have done with a few more examples to back up her argument but what can you do. 

And personally I would say if you need any cultural theory to get the most out of the article, start with Foucault's biopolitics and governmentality.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> It’s not my intention to make anybody feel bad, my apologies.  I made the mistake of specifically addressing Edie because she was the one I was engaging with.  That wasn’t helpful on a public board, though — maybe I should have gone to PM.  Edie has a very high degree of academic training in a complex discipline that would similarly not be easy for me to just pick up and read.  That was the experience I wanted to draw on as an analogy.



So Edie is smart enough but the rest of us are thick, gotcha 😁


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> So Edie is smart enough but the rest of us are thick, gotcha 😁


Now you’ve got it!


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Now you’ve got it!



I know you're trying to be funny, but calling women stupid on a thread about feminism isn't actually that amusing.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

I can’t win here, can I?  

At no point did I call anybody stupid, explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> So Edie is smart enough but the rest of us are thick, gotcha 😁


I’m one of the few that really struggled with that paper  My head doesn’t work like that. It’s not that I just don’t have the knowledge about Phallic woman or whatever (which I don’t, none of those references mean anything to me). It’s the actual sentence structure, the argument itself. Science just isn’t like that, it’s much much more straightforward, which is why I can get it.

In general tho, no matter what you are talking about, if you can’t explain it in plain English you’re doing it wrong. Look at Feynman for gods sake, he never struggled. kabbes doesn’t either tbf, his description of culture and those ideas was bang on.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2020)

Lacan's "My Teaching" is quite readable/accessible (IME as a non psychoanalyst type) but doesn't really get into his ideas very much.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I can’t win here, can I?
> 
> At no point did I call anybody stupid, explicitly or implicitly.


You definitely haven’t ftr.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

I started reading the paper and gave up after my brain started making sputtering noises


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

I do agree that too much of this stuff is written in quite a pretentious language.  I have been specifically trained and examined in writing complexity in plain English, though (as part of my profession, not my studies) — it didn’t come naturally!

ETA: I missed the all-important last line, which was “... and I’m still not that great at it a lot of the time”


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’m one of the few that really struggled with that paper  My head doesn’t work like that. It’s not that I just don’t have the knowledge about Phallic woman or whatever (which I don’t, none of those references mean anything to me). It’s the actual sentence structure, the argument itself. Science just isn’t like that, it’s much much more straightforward, which is why I can get it.
> 
> In general tho, no matter what you are talking about, if you can’t explain it in plain English you’re doing it wrong. Look at Feynman for gods sake, he never struggled. kabbes doesn’t either tbf, his description of culture and those ideas was bang on.


it's a deliberate choice to obscure what they mean, to sprinkle jargon like they do. to keep understanding among the privileged.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 9, 2020)

I haven't read the paper because I have a full time job, three kids and a disabled partner, and I do 90% of the housework. The free time I have comes in small chunks and I can't really get into something long I would need to concentrate hard on and digest carefully. This isn't meant as a dig at kabbes at all, btw, please don't take it as such, more just musing about the irony of middle aged womanhood.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I can’t win here, can I?
> 
> At no point did I call anybody stupid, explicitly or implicitly.



You just did! I said "and the rest of us are thick" and you agreed. Like I said, I know you were joking, but it's not the thread for that kind of joke.

The reason I brought it up is that you said you should have shared that paper only with Edie because she would be able to understand it, in your opinion. The implication of that is that the rest of us wouldn't be able to.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a deliberate choice to obscure what they mean, to sprinkle jargon like they do. to keep understanding among the privileged.


I’m not as cynical as that. Jargon can be really useful for using short cuts to say something. Like using epigenetics instead of typing out ‘mechanisms that control the expression of genes that are heritable and usually in non-coding regions of DNA’ etc. But you should always be able to put the idea or arugument over simply. This is a big problem with Freudian stuff I find, it’s deliberately impenetrable. I dunno who this Lacan is but sounds similar (and that diagram of tufty79   ).


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

weepiper said:


> I haven't read the paper because I have a full time job, three kids and a disabled partner, and I do 90% of the housework. The free time I have comes in small chunks and I can't really get into something long I would need to concentrate hard on and digest carefully. This isn't meant as a dig at kabbes at all, btw, please don't take it as such, more just musing about the irony of middle aged womanhood.


Honestly I think YouTube really comes into its own here. It’s astonishing what you can learn on it.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> You definitely haven’t ftr.



Except in that last post there mate.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> The reason I brought it up is that you said you should have shared that paper only with Edie because she would be able to understand it,


 That’s not remotely what I said.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I do agree that too much of this stuff is written in quite a pretentious language.  I have been specifically trained and examined in writing complexity in plain English, though (as part of my profession, not my studies) — it didn’t come naturally!
> 
> ETA: I missed the all-important last line, which was “... and I’m still not that great at it a lot of the time”


It’s hard to do well eh. Feynman was an absolute genius


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I do agree that too much of this stuff is written in quite a pretentious language.  I have been specifically trained and examined in writing complexity in plain English, though (as part of my profession, not my studies) — it didn’t come naturally!
> 
> ETA: I missed the all-important last line, which was “... and I’m still not that great at it a lot of the time”



To be honest, if it's aimed at an audience of other sociologists, then the jargon is fine. But it means it's not really a suitable resource for a general audience.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

And this:





scifisam said:


> You just did! I said "and the rest of us are thick" and you agreed. Like I said, I know you were joking, but it's not the thread for that kind of joke.


I naively assumed you were joking, because it was such a misrepresentation of my position.  So I played along with the joke.  My mistake, clearly.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> This is a big problem with Freudian stuff I find, it’s deliberately impenetrable.


Teehee   
Sorry...srs thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’m not as cynical as that. Jargon can be really useful for using short cuts to say something. Like using epigenetics instead of typing out ‘mechanisms that control the expression of genes that are heritable and usually in non-coding regions of DNA’ etc. But you should always be able to put the idea or arugument over simply. This is a big problem with Freudian stuff I find, it’s deliberately impenetrable. I dunno who this Lacan is but sounds similar (and that diagram of tufty79   ).


in this case it's doing a good job of hiding its meaning from most of us here, even people who have postgraduate degrees.

i find lacan more impenetrable than freud


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Teehee
> Sorry...srs thread


You just had to slip it in there, didn't you?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That’s not remotely what I said.



You said you should have taken it to PM because Edie has a very high level of academic training. So yes, it is.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> You said you should have taken it to PM because Edie has a very high level of academic training. So yes, it is.


That’s also not what I said at all.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Teehee
> Sorry...srs thread


That made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That’s also not what I said at all.



It literally is though. I quoted your actual words.

Never mind. I can't be arsed here any more - I'll leave you to it. 🙂


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> It literally is though. I quoted your actual words.
> 
> Never mind. I can't be arsed here any more - I'll leave you to it. 🙂


You did not quote my words.  You paraphrased me. You actually reorganised my sentences to portray an entirely different narrative.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

I'm going to go back to the Eton mans video earlier, and MRA stuff,  and "balance" it with a piece by a WRA/radical feminist (with usual transphobia content warning) which I found way more accessible in terms of language - I am happy to delete anything like this if the source is problematic. I think it touches on some overlapping ideas...






						Towards a New Understanding of Caring - The Radical Notion
					






					theradicalnotion.org


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> You did not quote my words.  You paraphrased me. You actually reorganised my sentences to portray an entirely different narrative.



But I didn't. I cut out the bits before and after, but didn't change your words or reorganise your sentences:

It’s not my intention to make anybody feel bad, my apologies. I made the mistake of specifically addressing Edie because she was the one I was engaging with. That wasn’t helpful on a public board, though — maybe I should have gone to PM. Edie has a very high degree of academic training in a complex discipline that would similarly not be easy for me to just pick up and read. That was the experience I wanted to draw on as an analogy.

I mean, sure, you didn't mean to make people feel a bit dim, I'm sure that's true. These things can happen by accident as well as on purpose. But please don't accuse me of lying by rephrasing your words when I used your exact words.

However, I get the feeling that I'm very much not welcome here, so I'll put it on ignore.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’m not as cynical as that. Jargon can be really useful for using short cuts to say something. Like using epigenetics instead of typing out ‘mechanisms that control the expression of genes that are heritable and usually in non-coding regions of DNA’ etc. But you should always be able to put the idea or arugument over simply. This is a big problem with Freudian stuff I find, it’s deliberately impenetrable. I dunno who this Lacan is but sounds similar (and that diagram of tufty79   ).



What Freudian stuff are you referring to?


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

I assumed the phallic/phallus references were freudian at some points, and literal at others from the skim I gave it,  if we're talking kabbes' technical wording nightmare essay..

scifisam - stay with us!


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i find lacan more impenetrable than freud



You don't get away with that one either, Pickman's model


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> What Freudian stuff are you referring to?


I tried to read a book by Alessandra Lemma which was recommended as a good basic introduction to Freud’s ideas, but gave up. Don’t get me wrong, I think Freud was a great thinker in lots of respects, a genius even maybe if you believe in them, but my god these people cannot explain an idea in a straightforward way if their lives depended on it


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Leeds met uni's library decided loads of his stuff wasn't relevant back in the late 90s/early 00s I think. I briefly did a "reading gender" module as part of an english course there last decade. My tutor was incandescent because the de-stocked books were burned, and she was furious at the connotations around that. E2a and that the library didn't see him as a valuable resource worth retaining even if they thought his theories were outdated/wrong/whatever 

There used to be (possibly still is) an artwork/installation in one of the met's buildings off woodhouse lane, with etched glass books on the wall from floor to ceiling.  She chose to lobby for one of Freuds books to go up there. It did 

I sometimes get his ideas, I don't subscribe to most of them though.  I think


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

(Don’t go scifisam )


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

Freud’s genius was surely in realising that you need to approach behaviour and beliefs as something that goes deeper than what is apparent on the surface.  To some degree, it’s reasonable to review his actual theory in the same way that we review any other theory from his era.  It’s not like we still treat the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, of similar vintage, as the final word in atomic structure, let alone earlier attempts at it, but we respect the insight behind it and what it got right.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> Leeds men's library decided loads of his stuff wasn't relevant back in the late 90s/early 00s I think. I briefly d7d a "reading gender" module as part of an english course there last decade. My tutor was incandescent because the de-stocked books were burned, and she was furious at the connotations around that.
> 
> There used to be an artwork/installation in one of the buildings off woodhouse lane, with etched glass books on the wall from floor to ceiling.  She chose to lobby for one if Freuds books to go up there.
> 
> I sometimes get his ideas, I don't subscribe to most of them though.  I think


I’d _love_ to discuss Freud more, although probably not on this thread. He did notice important stuff for the first time, like the way we learn to interact with other people in early childhood unconsciously influences our relationships in adult life. And the unconscious in general. And lots of stuff about the expression of emotional problems as physical symptoms, which is now clearly recognised (and even more interestingly will no doubt be explained by shit like epigenetics and neuroendocrinology and neuroimmunology in this century too). Defences, they are interesting.

But the idea that when girls discover they lack a penis and are therefore inferior beings leads to them being disillusioned with their mothers and fantasising there fathers will impregnate them is... absolutely bonkers. Even if you don’t take it literally.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I tried to read a book by Alessandra Lemma which was recommended as a good basic introduction to Freud’s ideas, but gave up. Don’t get me wrong, I think Freud was a great thinker in lots of respects, a genius even maybe if you believe in them, but my god these people cannot explain an idea in a straightforward way if their lives depended on it



IMO Alessandra Lemma is a very clear and critical writer but I'm not aware of that book, I'm only aware of books she's written for practitioners. What's the book?

It would be more helpful to read a book that applies current psychoanalytic thinking to the field you're interested in - The Tavistock Series are written very clearly I think.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Freud’s genius was surely in realising that you need to approach behaviour and beliefs as something that goes deeper than what is apparent on the surface.  To some degree, it’s reasonable to review his actual theory in the same way that we review any other theory from his era.  It’s not like we still treat the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, of similar vintage, as the final word in atomic structure, let alone earlier attempts at it, but we respect the insight behind it and what it got right.


Yes I think so.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> IMO Alessandra Lemma is a very clear and critical writer but I'm not aware of that book, I'm only aware of books she's written for practitioners. What's the book?
> 
> It would be more helpful to read a book that applies current psychoanalytic thinking to the field you're interested in - The Tavistock Series are written very clearly I think.


I’ll take a look. I read two chapters of Introduction to the Practice of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. It wasn’t very... introductory! 

(as mentioned previously this might just be my brain)


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> IMO Alessandra Lemma is a very clear and critical writer but I'm not aware of that book, I'm only aware of books she's written for practitioners. What's the book?
> 
> It would be more helpful to read a book that applies current psychoanalytic thinking to the field you're interested in - The Tavistock Series are written very clearly I think.


On a vaguely related note... I've been wanting to find out a bit more about transactional analysis, but from a female centred perspective? Someone refused to lend me their book about it from the 70s or 80s? because she said it was hideously sexist and upsetting. I'm a bit less fragile than that but I get her point...


If anyone on thread has any recommendations that would be great - I don't want to waste time and energy looking for something that might not exist


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’ll take a look. I read two chapters of Introduction to the Practice of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. It wasn’t very... introductory!



I think that's for practitioners/trainees who will already have done a pre-clinical training.

Tavistock Series is also for a professional readership but are written to convey the breadth and range of psychoanalytic work done currently and although technical language is used, there are examples given. I'm sure I've recommended this one before: _Managing Vulnerability: The Underlying Dynamics of Systems of Care. _

If you let me know what you're interested in, i'm sure i can find something for you to give you a flavour.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think that's for practitioners/trainees who will already have done a pre-clinical training.
> 
> Tavistock Series is also for a professional readership but are written to convey the breadth and range of psychoanalytic work done currently and although technical language is used, there are examples given. I'm sure I've recommended this one before: _Managing Vulnerability: The Underlying Dynamics of Systems of Care. _


I’ll give it a go. 
I’ve had luck with this:


Which does explain ideas in plain English, and is short, and is also critical which is refreshing as I think the guy is a Freudian professor at Oxford. That’s where I got the description about the Oedipus complex above. Stuff like Kleins paranoid-schizoid position I’ve just given up trying to understand and have kind of concluded that and the Oedipus is just literally made up (then often dressed in massively complex language).


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Ooh I love that series


This one is usually good too.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> I’ll give it a go.
> I’ve had luck with this:
> View attachment 242563
> 
> Which does explain ideas in plain English, and is short, and is also critical which is refreshing as I think the guy is a Freudian professor at Oxford. That’s where I got the description about the Oedipus complex above. Stuff like Kleins paranoid-schizoid position I’ve just given up trying to understand and have kind of concluded that and the Oedipus is just literally made up (then often dressed in massively complex language).



I just wouldn't start with something like that, it's too abstract. That's why I said read something that applies the thinking to your field/area of interest, it would make more sense to you, and you might find it resonates in a way that a book like that won't.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I just wouldn't start with something like that, it's too abstract. That's why I said read something that applies the thinking to your field/area of interest, it would make more sense to you, and you might find it resonates in a way that a book like that won't.


Okay will give it a go over Xmas.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2020)

Re: the Eton teacher video controversy. The teacher has been criticised by former pupils who have written an open letter supporting the head teacher's decision to dismiss him:








						Former Eton students write letter backing under-fire headteacher
					

Video over which English teacher was fired was ‘intellectually feeble’ and misogynistic, says open letter




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> On a vaguely related note... I've been wanting to find out a bit more about transactional analysis, but from a female centred perspective? Someone refused to lend me their book about it from the 70s or 80s? because she said it was hideously sexist and upsetting. I'm a bit less fragile than that but I get her point...
> 
> 
> If anyone on thread has any recommendations that would be great - I don't want to waste time and energy looking for something that might not exist


Was it _Games People Play_?  It’s a brilliant book but very... of its time!


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Was it _Games People Play_?  It’s a brilliant book but very... of its time!


I don't know - she wouldn't even tell me the title


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> Okay will give it a go over Xmas.



Or I can try and find a paper or article or podcast for you if you have an area of interest. But, you know, it's not for everyone.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2020)

tufty79 said:


> I don't know - she wouldn't even tell me the title


I bet it was — fits the description perfectly.  It’s _the_ classic text — Berne was the pioneer of TA and he writes with real charm, simply and entertainingly.  There’s a lot to take from it but Berne would have been the first to say his kind of analysis is always embedded in a particular culture and he was writing from within an incredibly sexist culture of middle-class America in the 1960s.  Read it and mentally translate the messages to the 2020s, I’d say.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2020)

Im not clear why kabbes is getting stick here on the Theory, History and Philosophy section of U75 for putting up a short theoretical article on Feminism

Theory that goes counter to everyday commonsense is going to be difficult to grapple with at times.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Or I can try and find a paper or article or podcast for you if you have an area of interest. But, you know, it's not for everyone.


Don’t look especially but if you come across one about medically unexplained symptoms, non-epileptic seizures, or any kind of functional neurology particularly in children then great. Especially short YouTube videos, Ted talks, anything that explains Freud’s or psychodynamic ideas generally, in a straightforward and engaging way. I find them so hard to grasp, so even adding in a layer of jargon quickly becomes impossible for me to understand.

Same with feminism or sociology like what kabbes brought up. Any short ‘explainer’ videos then sling em up!


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> short YouTube videos, Ted talks, anything that explains Freud’s or psychodynamic ideas generally, in a straightforward and engaging way. I find them so hard to grasp, so even adding in a layer of jargon quickly becomes impossible for me to understand.
> 
> Same with feminism or sociology like what kabbes brought up. Any short ‘explainer’ videos then sling em up!



Absolutely this!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2020)

The Knowland video contains references for example to Karl Popper with no explanation of that. Yet that video is accessible and understandable. Apparently.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2020)

Edie said:


> Don’t look especially but if you come across one about medically unexplained symptoms, non-epileptic seizures, or any kind of functional neurology particularly in children then great. Especially short YouTube videos, Ted talks, anything that explains Freud’s or psychodynamic ideas generally, in a straightforward and engaging way. I find them so hard to grasp, so even adding in a layer of jargon quickly becomes impossible for me to understand.
> 
> Same with feminism or sociology like what kabbes brought up. Any short ‘explainer’ videos then sling em up!



I've just been doing some basic training about different learning styles and this is a great illustration - I can't stand YouTube videos and always want written text whereas it sounds like you are the opposite.


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> I've just been doing some basic training about different learning styles and this is a great illustration - I can't stand YouTube videos and always want written text whereas it sounds like you are the opposite.


I don’t mind written, but it quickly becomes ’academic’ whereas Ted talks and History of Ideas kind of stuff keeps it basic and accessible I find. If there was a Feynman or Dawkins or Medawar of psychdynamics or politics I’d be all over that. I read Talking to my Daughter about Capitalism by Yanis Varoufakis (Greek guy) and that was brilliant in explaining capitalism for beginners. Would love the same for Marx and Freud and feminism ideas.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not clear why kabbes is getting stick here on the Theory, History and Philosophy section of U75 for putting up a short theoretical article on Feminism
> 
> Theory that goes counter to everyday commonsense is going to be difficult to grapple with at times.



He didn't get stick, he was asked why that particular paper with its specialist language to illustrate his point.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2020)

Found this podcast version of Top Girls by Angela McRobbie.

Watched it and it contains a lot less "academic" jargon.

She is good speaker. 

Covers the Blair period up to the Cameron coalition government. 

She outlines other thinkers views. Nancy Fraser who thought Second Wave Feminism allowed itself to be eventually incorporated into the Neo Liberal project. 

In contrast she thinks there was an attack on Feminism portraying Second Wave feminism as old and not necessary anymore. 

The Blair years saw what she calls a new settlement. Young women were encouraged to get on. To have economic and more sexual freedoms. There was a de politicisation of Feminism to be replaced by individualised consumer freedom for young women. Ideas of politcal collective struggle / equality were replaced by consumer citizenship. The "Phallic" young women she explains as young women being allowed some of the freedoms of men to get drunk and have sex without criticism. She argues this was limited freedom. Get pregnant and become a single parent and the New Labour state didnt like that. ( I do remember Blair governments had partiular dislike of single parents)

She goes onto the Cameron government. Where saw the the rise of the Conservative feminist. Which she sees as continuation of the Blair government take on women. 

She does say at end more recently young women have started move to more political feminism.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 9, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.
> 
> So perhaps they are not and other factors are at play.


 There is alot more of it. Figures on violent crime/ murder show men commit much more violent offences than women.  I have no idea if this genetically programmed or learned behaviour - I suspect both are involved.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 9, 2020)

Glad to see feminism threads revived.    I would say there is no single unified view of what femisism is, but I know when I am oppressed, distrimated against, dismissed or insulted.


----------



## campanula (Dec 10, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Glad to see feminism threads revived.    I would say there is no single unified view of what femisism is, but I know when I am oppressed, distrimated against, dismissed or insulted.



Feminism   started to lose coherence and validity (for me) not long after the Greenham Common years. By the time I did a degree at Sussex  in the 90s, I admit to finding academic feminist writing especially unedifying, obtuse and suspiciously complex. The female fucking gaze and bizarre, irrelevant psycho-analytical rambling. Thankfully, I fled to film studies, economics, some shite called 'Shamanic Consciousness' and mostly history and still got my first.
Probably says more about me (and a somewhat chippy wc belligerence) but 2nd wave feminism seemed apolitical, ahistorical but far worse, elitist. With nothing whatsoever to address the lived experience of just about all the women I know...and most heinously of all, it seemed that to even mention stuff like childcare, parenting, working hours and opportunities and even our actual bodies (unless as commodities of course), was  largely dismissed. As FoD succinctly states - there are many shades of feminism but oppression is a overarching,  prickling, stinging, ever-present background hum (rising to a shriek).


----------



## campanula (Dec 10, 2020)

In fairness, amongst  the many demands of the first wave feminists was not just a call for equal opportunity but also a recognition of the value of nurture...not as some abstract compassion, but  having material value and economic consequence. Parenthood,  and caring in general should not be unpaid labour,  but should be valourised and rewarded...and equally shared by men. Yes, it seems ridiculously hopeful and even a bit hippyish, that 'women's work', if given value and respect, would be far more likely to be shared equitably, leading to a net gain for society. I know, it's almost laughable in its naivety... and distressing to see how rapidly the interests of capital managed to subvert feminism by holding up some meritocratic fantasy of success though labour exploitation. And how quickly was the rug pulled from our feet so that the  working parent became not just a lifestyle 'choice' (having it all) but a grinding necessity.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 10, 2020)

I think its a real shame that most people's exposure to psychoanalysis is through french academic psychoanalysis. There are politically committed psychoanalytic clinicians and academics in the UK who don't write in that way at all. I think psychoanalysis might have a lot to say about the idealisation of women (mothers,nurses) and their denigration (mothers again, teachers) etc.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think its a real shame that most people's exposure to psychoanalysis is through french academic psychoanalysis. There are politically committed psychoanalytic clinicians and academics in the UK who don't write in that way at all. I think psychoanalysis might have a lot to say about the idealisation of women (mothers,nurses) and their denigration (mothers again, teachers) etc.



True, but then again, I wouldn't have been exposed to psychoanalysis _at all_ if Zizek wasn't so obsessed with Lacan and if Lacan _didn't_ write in that French Academic style (that appeals to me, perhaps - sadly - for precisely the reasons it's so open to valid criticism).

...having said that, I guess that my exposure will remain largely at, and in, that abstracted bersion


----------



## 8ball (Dec 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I bet it was — fits the description perfectly.  It’s _the_ classic text — Berne was the pioneer of TA and he writes with real charm, simply and entertainingly.  There’s a lot to take from it but Berne would have been the first to say his kind of analysis is always embedded in a particular culture and he was writing from within an incredibly sexist culture of middle-class America in the 1960s.  Read it and mentally translate the messages to the 2020s, I’d say.



This was recommended to me many years back as a way of understanding why non-autistic people say the things they do, and what it is they actually want when they are saying things that on the surface are very confusing.  I found it massively helpful in updating my understanding of social interactions but yeah, you need to be very mindful of the time and culture in which it was written.


----------



## Edie (Dec 10, 2020)

campanula said:


> In fairness, amongst  the many demands of the first wave feminists was not just a call for equal opportunity but also a recognition of the value of nurture...not as some abstract compassion, but  having material value and economic consequence. Parenthood,  and caring in general should not be unpaid labour,  but should be valourised and rewarded...and equally shared by men. Yes, it seems ridiculously hopeful and even a bit hippyish, that 'women's work', if given value and respect, would be far more likely to be shared equitably, leading to a net gain for society. I know, it's almost laughable in its naivety... and distressing to see how rapidly the interests of capital managed to subvert feminism by holding up some meritocratic fantasy of success though labour exploitation. And how quickly was the rug pulled from our feet so that the  working parent became not just a lifestyle 'choice' (having it all) but a grinding necessity.


I’m really torn about this idea that caring for our families should be paid. I think it’s the case that women are better suited (as a generalisation) to caring. More patient, gentle, kind. Which isn’t to say kids don’t need fathers too (although they clearly survive and thrive without), but fathers usually play a different role in child-rearing.

That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions and that they shouldn’t be celebrated too- men who want to be the primary carer, or women who want to go back to work full time as soon as possible. But the idea that majority of women want to equally share wage-earning and child-rearing/homemaking does not meet my experience. I _wanted_ to stay home when my kids were little. That wasn’t the patriarchy, it was instinct. (I had to take shitty night time jobs ftr). Of all the dual parent families I know it’s maybe 9:1 female:male primary caregiver. I think we have to accept now that this is female as well as male choice.

I do want a situation where women’s roles do hold value. I’m not sure money is the answer, although I’ve a lot of time for Wages for Housework idea. And certainly believe kinship caring should be recompensed and care work generally should be paid double straight away.

But what as women do we _really_ want? Job flexibility, that would be most women i knows number one ask. The ability to wfh at times if possible, the ability to leave early (sick child, school play etc) or even just to work within school hours, excellent quality childcare for when necessary or wanted, holiday clubs for kids, youth centres to get our kids off the streets, better disciplined and delivered education for our kids, informal and formal care networks we can call on for help when we can’t get to elderly parents or relatives, more proper security for anyone raising kids alone where the man won’t support them (secure council housing with sufficient space), decent benefits (if necessary) for any woman with young children so she doesn’t need to work until they are 6 instead of paying fucking nurseries (madness). Those are my list from the top of my head. What are yours anyone?


----------



## Athos (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> That wasn’t the patriarchy, it was instinct.



What do you mean by this?  To what extent is 'instinct' informed by a sense of self that's been shaped by culture?


----------



## Edie (Dec 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> What do you mean by this?  To what extent is 'instinct' informed by a sense of self that's been shaped by culture?


What I mean is that even in the event that I didn’t have to work because my husband earnt enough money (he really didn’t at that stage), and even if he was prepared to be the primary carer (laughable to even consider, most men don’t mind you), I STILL would have wanted to be at home with my children to mother them when they were little.

And my assertion is that the majority of women feel the same. They might want a small part time job, but given the choice most want to spend the most time with their little ones, bond with their babys, form secure attachments, and just be there especially in those early years.

(I’d still want to finish work to be home by 3:30 for my teens if I could).


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2020)

I think it's the idea that this is a "natural" rather than a constructed identity that is contested, Edie.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> What I mean is that even in the event that I didn’t have to work because my husband earnt enough money (he really didn’t at that stage), and even if he was prepared to be the primary carer (laughable to even consider, most men don’t mind you), I STILL would have wanted to be at home with my children to mother them when they were little.
> 
> And my assertion is that the majority of women feel the same. They might want a small part time job, but given the choice most want to spend the most time with their little ones, bond with their babys, form secure attachments, and just be there especially in those early years.
> 
> (I’d still want to finish work to be home by 3:30 for my teens if I could).



Don't most/many/some men feel this too?


----------



## Edie (Dec 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I think it's the idea that this is a "natural" rather than a constructed identity that is contested, Edie.


Certainly both of course.


----------



## Edie (Dec 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> Don't most/many/some men feel this too?


Not going by the choices they make, not most, no.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> Certainly both of course.


Why "certainly"?  What's natural about 21st century life?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 10, 2020)

I would have much preferred to have stayed at home with the daughter when she was a nipper.

I think some men are socialised into thinking that _looking after their own kids_ is somehow beneath them.

Unfortunately my own experience was that it was very difficult for my partner to get back into work after having a kid and it was very easy for me to stay in a 9-5. So it wasn't really a choice, as we were both knackered and fell into the traditional roles, much as we tried to resist them.


----------



## Athos (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> ... I STILL would have wanted to be at home with my children to mother them when they were little.



Many men want to stay at home with kids; many women don't.

But, in your case, to what extent do you think that desire was a biological thing, and how much of it was a product of culture?

Perhaps more importantly, why does it matter, politically speaking?  Shouldn't we be aiming for a situation in which the important (and difficult) work of caring for children (and the elderly) is valued, and the burden/opportunity of any activity isn't based on sex?


----------



## weltweit (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> ..
> I STILL would have wanted to be at home with my children to mother them when they were little.
> ..


I think in one of your posts you said you had trouble with the idea of paying for childcare, I couldn't find it just then. I do too, it is a part of family which is mostly private. 

Yet, child rearing is also essential to the continuance of society, if women didn't conceive carry give birth to children, society would quickly fall apart. That women largely rear children is less critical because men could do some of that, but women do do most of the rearing. 

It is probably the only area of work "which is essential for the continuance of society" and that only women can do, that is not paid at all. I doubt people would appreciate the interference of ofsted in their child rearing, but were it paid by government you could be sure that would be involved.


----------



## Thora (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> What I mean is that even in the event that I didn’t have to work because my husband earnt enough money (he really didn’t at that stage), and even if he was prepared to be the primary carer (laughable to even consider, most men don’t mind you), I STILL would have wanted to be at home with my children to mother them when they were little.
> 
> And my assertion is that the majority of women feel the same. They might want a small part time job, but given the choice most want to spend the most time with their little ones, bond with their babys, form secure attachments, and just be there especially in those early years.
> 
> (I’d still want to finish work to be home by 3:30 for my teens if I could).


I disagree - in my experience most women don’t want to be at home full time with small children.
Most women want interesting/rewarding jobs, not “little jobs”.
Most parents would prefer to have a balance of work and time with their children.
Choices about who works and who stays at home are (in my experience of friends, family, people at school etc) driven by finances.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

I'm very conscious there's a large proportion of male posters here at the moment, so will try and hold back from posting for a bit.


(he says whilst posting )


----------



## Edie (Dec 10, 2020)

Thora said:


> I disagree - in my experience most women don’t want to be at home full time with small children.
> Most women want interesting/rewarding jobs, not “little jobs”.
> Most parents would prefer to have a balance of work and time with their children.
> Choices about who works and who stays at home are (in my experience of friends, family, people at school etc) driven by finances.


Really? So why don’t more young women choose to go back to work full time after kids, cos I think women and men earn about the same up until they have kids. If it was finance driven you’d expect about 50% of parents at primary school gates or toddler groups to be Dads and last time I checked (which in all seriousness was a while back now) it was female dominated.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Shouldn't we be aiming for a situation in which the important (and difficult) work of caring for children (and the elderly) is valued, and the burden/opportunity of any activity isn't based on sex?



This is the crux of it as far as I'm concerned.  The jobs which women traditionally do, such as childcare, nursing, support roles, elderly care, have always been undervalued.   Looking after the most vulnerable people in society should be highly respected and properly compensated.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> ..
> If it was finance driven you’d expect about 50% of parents at primary school gates or toddler groups to be Dads and last time I checked (which in all seriousness was a while back now) it was female dominated.


I collected my son from primary school. There were only two other men, the rest were women. 

I worked from home then, but my wife earnt more than me in a full time position.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 10, 2020)

As a single mam on benefits I wanted to work or study...but childcare is expensive! As someone who was unqualified and unskilled I simply couldn't have earned enough to cover my childcare. Its ok I guess if you have nice granny and grandad down the road who are willing to babysit for free...but lots of us don't have that luxury. So no little jobs for me and no time to myself or out of the house. Now don't get me wrong, those years were precious but they were also incredibly hard, lonely and soul destroying. I went from being a social, partying, creative fun person to an unpaid cleaner, sleep deprived, socially starved, mentally unchallenged and depressed person by the end of it. I had no life outside of being a mam. I had to wait till my youngest was in full time education before I could dig myself out of that catch22 by going to college to attempt to gain qualifications that would make me employable.


----------



## Thora (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> Really? So why don’t more young women choose to go back to work full time after kids, cos I think women and men earn about the same up until they have kids. If it was finance driven you’d expect about 50% of parents at primary school gates or toddler groups to be Dads and last time I checked (which in all seriousness was a while back now) it was female dominated.


Childcare is really expensive. The mother has been off on maternity leave so becomes default childcarer.
Say a couple both earn £18-£20k. Full time childcare costs £12k+, there are commuting costs, it doesn’t make sense for mum to go back full time and only make a few hundred a month.
Some couples might decide mum goes back full time and dad drops to part time or works around childcare, but there’s a social expectation about what set up is “natural”.

Our school gates I would say is about 50% mums, 50% dads/nans. There are some sahm and a few sahd but lots of families split it so for eg mum drops off and goes to work later, dad works early and picks up.  I’d say most of the sahm are single.

I personally don’t know of any women who have expressed an intense natural desire to be sahm, most can’t afford to anyway. I’m sure some exist but not enough to convince me it’s an instinct.


----------



## Thora (Dec 10, 2020)

For most women there aren’t all these choices available and you just do what your heart/hormones tell you - you have limited options due to social/structural factors.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

Yes. Childcare is crazy expensive, I was lucky enough to be well qualified, skilled and experienced yet the cost of childcare when I went back to work f/t (when my daughter hit about 2 years and needed the xtra socialisation and stimulation) still ate up my entire wage.

I've posted on here before about my experiences as a sahd, so I won't repeat myself, but it's no coincidence that stuff like Wages for Housework suddenly made sense to me.

I'm still the primary care giver and do almost all of the domestic labour. My career never really recovered from taking two years out, and I'm happier doing this than the rat race.

That said. the ongoing internal and external pressures on my sense of identity/self taking these roles can't be underestimated.

I'll try and shut up again now. sorry!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 10, 2020)

No, don't shut up chilango - your experience sounds very relevant.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 10, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This is the crux of it as far as I'm concerned.  The jobs which women traditionally do, such as childcare, nursing, support roles, elderly care, have always been undervalued.   Looking after the most vulnerable people in society should be highly respected and properly compensated.



 It 'should be' but it isn't. Why are they undervalued? What's the history of that? Why do they continue to be undervalued? Those would be my questions.


----------



## Winot (Dec 10, 2020)

Edie said:


> Really? So why don’t more young women choose to go back to work full time after kids, cos I think women and men earn about the same up until they have kids. If it was finance driven you’d expect about 50% of parents at primary school gates or toddler groups to be Dads and last time I checked (which in all seriousness was a while back now) it was female dominated.



Because there’s massive societal expectation that the role of women is to look after children and the role of men is to be a provider.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 10, 2020)

I think part of the difficulty in understanding this is the way issues seem to be posed as if its external vs internal, social vs natural/ instinctual. When you say there's a massive social pressure and the subjective experience is one of choice, it's hard to conceive of how that external becomes internal to the point that it feels natural.  How things appear or feel natural is what ideology is all about ( I think) but its hard to talk to describe that process without it sounding like something is imposed, mechanically, without any agency or resistance or negotiation.

I think this is partly where kabbes paper comes in, because he's interested in how identity is socially formed. And the dreaded psychoanalysis.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 10, 2020)

I was a SAHM until my youngest was 16 months (the others were three and nearly six) when I went back to work in my previous job two days a week. It cost me more than I earned to put the two youngest in private nursery and the eldest in after school club for those two days but because I was a single mum and we still had a Labour government at that point tax credits paid for 85% of the bill which made it viable. I was really lonely and bored by that point, having been a single mother for more than a year while living in a pretty isolated home situation (farm cottages five miles from the nearest town) so I was eager to get a bit of adult contact and feel like I wasn't 'just' Mummy. It was really hard going though because an eight hour work day sandwiched with being the only one looking after the three small children (so still getting up at night with one or more of them, feeding/dressing/nappies/potty training/collecting/dropping off at childcare/homework/washing dishes/housework, the fucking lot) meant on the days I was working I would pretty much not sit down between 6am and 10pm. It was pretty exhausting at that point and if they cried at nursery drop off or whatever I did sometimes find myself thinking is this worth it?

I don't know how it might have been different if I had a) been in a relationship with their father and b) lived somewhere less lonely. I might not have wanted to go back to work so soon. I don't know. I adored being their mum and miss them being tiny but it was pretty tough at the same time. I have contradictory feelings about it.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think part of the difficulty in understanding this is the way issues seem to be posed as if its external vs internal, social vs natural/ instinctual. When you say there's a massive social pressure and the subjective experience is one of choice, it's hard to conceive of how that external becomes internal to the point that it feels natural.  How things appear or feel natural is what ideology is all about ( I think) but its hard to talk to describe that process without it sounding like something is imposed, mechanically, without any agency or resistance or negotiation.
> 
> I think this is partly where kabbes paper comes in, because he's interested in how identity is socially formed. And the dreaded psychoanalysis.


Exactly so!  Possibly with or without the psychoanalysis.  Not seen enough yet to form an opinion on that one...


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> When you say there's a massive social pressure and the subjective experience is one of choice, it's hard to conceive of how that external becomes internal to the point that it feels natural.  How things appear or feel natural is what ideology is all about ( I think) but its hard to talk to describe that process without it sounding like something is imposed, mechanically, without any agency or resistance or negotiation.




Yep, this is how I'm using interpellation (and a bit of Lacan).

Althusser described interpellation as a form of "hailing" using the example of a police officer shouting "Hey you!" and the person turning around in response becomes the subject. Ties in a bit with Lacan's "the letter always arrives at its destination". This is how ideology becomes "as if natural".

It can be framed quite deterministically but there are theories of misinterpretation that I'm trying to build upon in my work a bit.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2020)

...and I guess I could hypothesise that we ensure an endless barrage of socially constructed ideologies of gender roles that we interpellate through our "choices" at moments such as who does the childcare, do the kids go to nursery etc etc.

But that's a very tough off the top of my head hypothesis which Is need to think through a bit.

edit to add: in a very crude sense it's a process of identification perhaps.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 10, 2020)

campanula said:


> Feminism   started to lose coherence and validity (for me) not long after the Greenham Common years. By the time I did a degree at Sussex  in the 90s, I admit to finding academic feminist writing especially unedifying, obtuse and suspiciously complex. The female fucking gaze and bizarre, irrelevant psycho-analytical rambling. Thankfully, I fled to film studies, economics, some shite called 'Shamanic Consciousness' and mostly history and still got my first.
> Probably says more about me (and a somewhat chippy wc belligerence) but 2nd wave feminism seemed apolitical, ahistorical but far worse, elitist. With nothing whatsoever to address the lived experience of just about all the women I know...and most heinously of all, it seemed that to even mention stuff like childcare, parenting, working hours and opportunities and even our actual bodies (unless as commodities of course), was  largely dismissed. As FoD succinctly states - there are many shades of feminism but oppression is a overarching,  prickling, stinging, ever-present background hum (rising to a shriek).



Congrats of the first!

Unfortunately (or is that fortunately?) I only studied or read feminist stuff in the 80s. Too busy living and being a lesbian activist after that. Seemed to me that by the late 80s feminism had become a niche interest, divisive and cliquey. Found myself rejected by many lesbians and feminists for wearing a frock. ffs. I aways enjoyed the the female fucking gaze!

I visited Greenham common, but only for the anniversary days. I was there for the 'surround the base' event - an amazing experience! never seen so many women of all kinds coming together - quakers, cnd, unionists, lesbians, pacifists, etc, etc of all ages and backgrounds.

Mysogeny is still everywhere and it still effect millions of women daily. It saddens me how little things have changed in so many ways.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> Yes. Childcare is crazy expensive, I was lucky enough to be well qualified, skilled and experienced yet the cost of childcare when I went back to work f/t (when my daughter hit about 2 years and needed the xtra socialisation and stimulation) still ate up my entire wage.
> 
> I've posted on here before about my experiences as a sahd, so I won't repeat myself, but it's no coincidence that stuff like Wages for Housework suddenly made sense to me.
> 
> ...


I think this is a really valuable post because for many women (me included) we believed that having children wouldn’t affect our careers and we found that to be completely wrong.

I have always been a single parent, went back to work when my son was 9 months but didn’t earn enough to employ a nanny. My inability to be there for 6pm or 8am meetings absolutely scuppered my career. Two well paid working parents can do it - or one with a SAHP. As a lone parent, my career was fucked.

 But I was desperate to go back. So much of my sense of self was/is tied up in my professional achievements. 

And there is a massive assumption that once you’ve had kids you’re not really focused on the job when you’re a woman. Because I think there’s a deep seated social belief that most women would rather be at baby groups and making cookies than leading a team or whatever, even if the idea of going to baby groups makes you want to stick pins in your arms. 

Financially speaking, for most women in two parent households, it’s better for the family for them to stay at home looking after the kids until they’re in school. I think the women who go back are the ones who need - rather than want - to work.

Of course the other issue is that women are massively financially vulnerable if they stay home to look after their children


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2020)

In my job we work in schools and colleges and have a set amount of clients to try to see in a day. We then have admin stuff to complete afterwards. A lot of us have kids and need to collect them from school. This has led to some of us requesting we see our clients earlier in order to leave in time. My bosses have insinuated that this is not fair on our childless colleagues ...that this is us finishing 'early' when in fact this is us not getting a break in the day in order to rush to pick up our kids and then complete our admin at home. Its more work, not less! A super sound colleague set my boss straight about this recently and I'm very proud of her for doing so. I hope this will result in a little more understanding and less sneering that we've somehow got it easier and are lucky.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> ...and I guess I could hypothesise that we ensure an endless barrage of socially constructed ideologies of gender roles that we interpellate through our "choices" at moments such as who does the childcare, do the kids go to nursery etc etc.
> 
> But that's a very tough off the top of my head hypothesis which Is need to think through a bit.
> 
> edit to add: in a very crude sense it's a process of identification perhaps.



Why do you say crude?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 11, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Exactly so!  Possibly with or without the psychoanalysis.  Not seen enough yet to form an opinion on that one...



Just to clarify, I wasn't saying you had an interest in that, i was saying that's where those theories come in, in terms of formation of identity.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 11, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> In my job we work in schools and colleges and have a set amount of clients to try to see in a day. We then have admin stuff to complete afterwards. A lot of us have kids and need to collect them from school. This has led to some of us requesting we see our clients earlier in order to leave in time. My bosses have insinuated that this is not fair on our childless colleagues ...that this is us finishing 'early' when in fact this is us not getting a break in the day in order to rush to pick up our kids and then complete our admin at home. Its more work, not less! A super sound colleague set my boss straight about this recently and I'm very proud of her for doing so. I hope this will result in a little more understanding and less sneering that we've somehow got it easier and are lucky.



It's an interesting process though, how more work can be distorted into less work. This is what seems to happen on a macro level isn't it? Women's work becomes invisible.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Why do you say crude?



'cos "identification" can be understood in lots of ways, I'd like to be more precise in what I'm meaning by it. I'd need to think through a bit more before then.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> 'cos "identification" can be understood in lots of ways, I'd like to be more precise in what I'm meaning by it. I'd need to think through a bit more before then.



...I think there might be an interesting tension and relationship between "identifying with" and "identifying as" going in the process of interpellation.

(I bring in a lot of Bourdieu at this point cos my focus is education, be interested in seeing it in other fields)


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Just to clarify, I wasn't saying you had an interest in that, i was saying that's where those theories come in, in terms of formation of identity.


Sure.  And while we’re back on that, actually, you said:



> How things appear or feel natural is what ideology is all about ( I think) but its hard to talk to describe that process without it sounding like something is imposed, mechanically, without any agency or resistance or negotiation.


As I understand it, it is that agency question which brings about the argument about interpellation.  That is, our social identity is not imposed on us so much as we are active in choosing to construct it.  However, whilst the choice may be made by us, that does not mean it is conscious.  It can be like a ball following a grooved path and every time it goes round the groove, it deepens the channel, making it more likely to be followed again.

I can relate that back to Vygotsky, and his famous observation that, “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.”  The groove starts with cultural tools that are used to introduce the child to the world.  As the child uses those tools, talking to him/herself and trying to understand the world, the assumptions embedded in that tool are internalised.  And so the groove grows deeper.

That’s just my own process of internally socialising a tool, by the way.  I’m not trying to lecture anybody else.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

"choice" is a very loaded word. It does a lot of ideological work in itself.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

weepiper said:


> I was a SAHM until my youngest was 16 months (the others were three and nearly six) when I went back to work in my previous job two days a week. It cost me more than I earned to put the two youngest in private nursery and the eldest in after school club for those two days but because I was a single mum and we still had a Labour government at that point tax credits paid for 85% of the bill which made it viable. I was really lonely and bored by that point, having been a single mother for more than a year while living in a pretty isolated home situation (farm cottages five miles from the nearest town) so I was eager to get a bit of adult contact and feel like I wasn't 'just' Mummy. It was really hard going though because an eight hour work day sandwiched with being the only one looking after the three small children (so still getting up at night with one or more of them, feeding/dressing/nappies/potty training/collecting/dropping off at childcare/homework/washing dishes/housework, the fucking lot) meant on the days I was working I would pretty much not sit down between 6am and 10pm. It was pretty exhausting at that point and if they cried at nursery drop off or whatever I did sometimes find myself thinking is this worth it?
> 
> I don't know how it might have been different if I had a) been in a relationship with their father and b) lived somewhere less lonely. I might not have wanted to go back to work so soon. I don't know. I adored being their mum and miss them being tiny but it was pretty tough at the same time. I have contradictory feelings about it.


Honestly I think all women have contradictory feelings about it. You know me well enough to know I don’t pretend mothering is a bed of roses or that those early years with my kids were easy. I do hear what other women are saying about _wanting_ to go back to work, and I did too when I could do something I wanted to do (I count myself as a sahm for their first 6 years but actually I worked in a pub on a night, and worked afternoons as a secretary for last couple but purely for money not for any love of the job).

I don’t understand the interpellation (not heard the word but have googled it). I mean obviously we do take on the values and norms of our culture. But again, no one has commented on the enormous and very improbable situation that all cultures across time and geography have coincidentally ended up with women caring for children and men providing.

Athos said:


Athos said:


> Perhaps more importantly, why does it matter, politically speaking?  Shouldn't we be aiming for a situation in which the important (and difficult) work of caring for children (and the elderly) is valued, and the burden/opportunity of any activity isn't based on sex?


That’s one of the thoughts I wanted to explore. I think it does matter, but I need help thinking it through.

Say we assume (and correct me if I’m wrong but this seems to be the ‘progressive’ view), that the aim is that there’s no difference in how children are raised or educated, that will result in women and men equally sharing the domestic and caring with the providing and financial roles, so women will achieve social/political/financial power equal to men’s.

But here’s the thing. What happens if it just doesn’t work like that? If, actually, women and men don’t _want_ to share these things equally, even given the chance. Then, that way of achieving power doesn’t work, and may actually leave women weaker (‘well you had your chance’). That is what that video made me wonder.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> . I mean obviously we do take on the values and norms of our culture. But again, no one has commented on the enormous and very improbable situation that all cultures across time and geography have coincidentally ended up with women caring for children and men providing.


It’s not coincidental.  That doesn’t mean there is a special set of caring-as-we-culturally-define-it alleles associated with the Y-chromosome though.  There are ways for things to be systematic other than via genetics.  I’d look instead to power structures and how the dominant structures are maintained.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 11, 2020)

Cultures are not static though. We have always travelled around and shared different practises and taken on aspects of other cultures.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> Honestly I think all women have contradictory feelings about it. You know me well enough to know I don’t pretend mothering is a bed of roses or that those early years with my kids were easy. I do hear what other women are saying about _wanting_ to go back to work, and I did too when I could do something I wanted to do (I count myself as a sahm for their first 6 years but actually I worked in a pub on a night, and worked afternoons as a secretary for last couple but purely for money not for any love of the job).
> 
> I don’t understand the interpellation (not heard the word but have googled it). I mean obviously we do take on the values and norms of our culture. But again, no one has commented on the enormous and very improbable situation that all cultures across time and geography have coincidentally ended up with women caring for children and men providing.
> 
> ...



If, when free to choose to look after kids or not, some women decide they want to, that's fine (as it'd be fine for men).  The point is that any such choice ought not to be constrained by sex.  And why can't it work like that?  Society could be ordered that way; biology is no bar to that. There's no reason to strive for things to better than they always have - slavey always existed until it didn't.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

Athos said:


> If, when free to choose to look after kids or not, some women decide they want to, that's fine (as it'd be fine for men).  The point is that any such choice ought not to be constrained by sex.  And why can't it work like that?  Society could be ordered that way; biology is no bar to that. There's no reason to strive for things to better than they always have - slavey always existed until it didn't.



I think the deeper question is what frames and shapes the process of  choice.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 11, 2020)

Winot said:


> Because there’s massive societal expectation that the role of women is to look after children and the role of men is to be a provider.


It would have been cheaper for me to look after my kids myself rather than have two in nursery. Their mother, an espoused feminist refused to let this happen saying bizarrely that it would undermine her role as mother.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

TopCat said:


> It would have been cheaper for me to look after my kids myself rather than have two in nursery. Their mother, an espoused feminist refused to let this happen saying bizarrely that it would undermine her role as mother.


Why is that bizarre to you? I don’t mean the surface of it, more what was underneath her perspective.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> I think the deeper question is what frames and shapes the process of  choice.



Yes. I nearly put the word in inverted commas.  It's the structures that dictate (limit) 'choices' that need to change.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> It's an interesting process though, how more work can be distorted into less work. This is what seems to happen on a macro level isn't it? Women's work becomes invisible.


Yes indeed, its a very strange kind of self deception. I'm glad we've heard from some dads on this thread that understand how much emotional and physical labour is involved with being a sahp too as I used to get really fed up of people assuming I had it easy back then too.


----------



## Winot (Dec 11, 2020)

Mrs W and I split the childcare equally (3 days in nursery and one day each at home). However I am well aware that the reason we were able to do this was that we were well-enough off to afford the drop in income and that I had the social capital at work to be able to go part time without it damaging my standing.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

My bil and sil now literally _share_ a job.  The same job.  They do two days of it each a week whilst the other looks after the kids.  The other day a week they both have off with the kids.  It works brilliantly but of course it’s a pretty unique situation where you both have the same qualifications and working history that allows the job share plus that job is well paid enough to be able to support a family on a single four-day-week income.

Also, they tried to get a promotion as a pair recently and I’m sure you can imagine how well that went down with managers.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

(Just wanted to say it’s been brilliant to discuss these things with everyone here, otherwise y’know it’s just me and Mr Knowland  plus lots of new things to think about).


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 11, 2020)

weepiper said:


> I was a SAHM until my youngest was 16 months (the others were three and nearly six) when I went back to work in my previous job two days a week. It cost me more than I earned to put the two youngest in private nursery and the eldest in after school club for those two days but because I was a single mum and we still had a Labour government at that point tax credits paid for 85% of the bill which made it viable. I was really lonely and bored by that point, having been a single mother for more than a year while living in a pretty isolated home situation (farm cottages five miles from the nearest town) so I was eager to get a bit of adult contact and feel like I wasn't 'just' Mummy. It was really hard going though because an eight hour work day sandwiched with being the only one looking after the three small children (so still getting up at night with one or more of them, feeding/dressing/nappies/potty training/collecting/dropping off at childcare/homework/washing dishes/housework, the fucking lot) meant on the days I was working I would pretty much not sit down between 6am and 10pm. It was pretty exhausting at that point and if they cried at nursery drop off or whatever I did sometimes find myself thinking is this worth it?
> 
> I don't know how it might have been different if I had a) been in a relationship with their father and b) lived somewhere less lonely. I might not have wanted to go back to work so soon. I don't know. I adored being their mum and miss them being tiny but it was pretty tough at the same time. I have contradictory feelings about it.



I also have contradictory feelings about those years.  My preference would have been to work part-time but finances didn't allow it.  So I went back to work full-time after my statutory 3 months of maternity leave.  At that time, feminism hadn't yet visited the ElizabethofYork household, so as well as working full-time, I also did all the domestic stuff and all the after-work childcare including getting up two or three times every night.  

It was a torrid time.  I remember sitting in my front room one night with a crying baby, thinking about work the next day, and wondering why the fuck I ever wanted children.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

Just a little more on interpellation to  - hopefully - demystify the term a little.

An example of how interpellation might function in the discussion here is looking at the role of advertising. (Judith Williamson's _Decoding Advertisements_ is a great book on this, if dated)

Obviously advertising's primary function is to sell us stuff. 

...but equally obviously the vast majority of commodities aren't sold/bought merely on a utilitarian basis (most stuff functions as well as most other simialr stuff in this regard).

So, the problem for advertising is how to get us to "choose" their product over other over comparable products. Cars, banks and fragrances are typical examples. They portray an idealised image of what they intend the customer to *identify with* (or to aspire to identify with) and through the act of consumption we can then* identify as *that idealised image (literally sometimes, "I'm more of Mac user personally..."

Of course, everybody doesn't buy everything, and wouldn't even if they could afford to. So, that moment of i"dentification with" that allows for the transformation into "identification as" is where I would locate interpellation as occuring in this secnario.

This only works if we have structures of socially understood meaning that we can use to read these idealised images, and the advertisers can use to write these idealised images.  This where semiotics (to use another bit of jargon) comes in. There is a language of signs and signifiers that we are immersed in from birth, all around us, all the time (the "Spectacle" as Debord argued). Look at that "products for fragile masculinity" thread for lots of examples of crude signifiers of masculinity. 

This language of signs includes (but is not limited to) the blue/pink binary, male and female roles and archetypes omnipresent in the media. It includes stuff like baby changing facilities being in the womens' toilets, not the mens'. That may be changing now, but we've all grown up with that message. It includes images of domestic labour almost always being carried out by women (and when it is by men, it's presented as "not quite right"), all that everyday sexism stuff too. You'll all have loads more examples I'm sure. 

So, yeah, that's interpellation (and beyond) from my pov.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> Just a little more on interpellation to  - hopefully - demystify the term a little.
> 
> An example of how interpellation might function in the discussion here is looking at the role of advertising. (Judith Williamson's _Decoding Advertisements_ is a great book on this, if dated)
> 
> ...


I’d just clarify within the above that interpellation isn’t just the act of others to create and use the semiotics of  society, but also the act of the self to recognise and accept them as applying to us.  It isn’t the hail of the policeman in Althauser’s example that is the interpellation, but our willingness to turn around and respond to it as if that hail has meaning.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’d just clarify within the above that interpellation isn’t just the act of others to create and use the semiotics of  society, but also the act of the self to recognise and accept them as applying to us.  It isn’t the hail of the policeman in Althauser’s example that is the interpellation, but our willingness to turn around and respond to it as if that hail has meaning.



yeah, good addition. we interpellate the signs.

Further edit: The bolting on of semiotics is mine. Not Althusser's.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

^^ the above is Butler’s route into performativity within feminism, of course.  By performing the roles allotted by society to women, a woman interpellates those roles and thus becomes them.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I also have contradictory feelings about those years.  My preference would have been to work part-time but finances didn't allow it.  So I went back to work full-time after my statutory 3 months of maternity leave.  At that time, feminism hadn't yet visited the ElizabethofYork household, so as well as working full-time, I also did all the domestic stuff and all the after-work childcare including getting up two or three times every night.
> 
> It was a torrid time.  I remember sitting in my front room one night with a crying baby, thinking about work the next day, and wondering why the fuck I ever wanted children.


Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> Just a little more on interpellation to  - hopefully - demystify the term a little.
> 
> An example of how interpellation might function in the discussion here is looking at the role of advertising. (Judith Williamson's _Decoding Advertisements_ is a great book on this, if dated)
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining that


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.



I think there's a couple of concerns (of mine) with this...

First, that it could easily be manipulated into a return to the more traditional confinement of women to domestic and emotional labour as mothers (and wives).

Secondly, it could be equally easily be simultaneously manipulating the father's role as more distant, less caring etc. and adding to the stigma that men face for "doing women's work".

Just a thought.

I'll shut up again for a bit now, give others a chance.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

kabbes said:


> ^^ the above is Butler’s route into performativity within feminism, of course.  By performing the roles allotted by society to women, a woman interpellates those roles and thus becomes them.


I _almost_ understand this. Can you just say it again in a slightly different way once more? (maybe with an example?)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> I think there's a couple of concerns (of mine) with this...
> 
> First, that it could easily be manipulated into a return to the more traditional confinement of women to domestic and emotional labour as mothers (and wives).
> 
> ...



I can only talk about my own experience, obviously.  Before we had children, my husband and I discussed the fact that I'd have to go back to work full time afterwards, and he agreed that he would take on his share of the childcare and domestic duties.  I believed him.

The reality was very different.  I think because his own family background was very traditional, with mum staying at home and doing the domestic stuff, and dad going out to work.  So he had no role models or any other example.  He honestly didn't realise that stuff needed doing.  He never thought about who did the cleaning, shopping, cooking - it just sort of "happened".  So when he  became a father, he didn't seem to understand that HE needed to be doing some of it!  

Of course, I asked him time and time again to help.  (the dreaded "nagging"!)  And he'd help for a while, but then forget again.  So I had to ask again.  And again.  In the end it was easier and more peaceful if I just did it all myself.

He'd come home from work, and sit down and relax.   I came home from work and started the domestic and childcare duties.  And he didn't understand why I was constantly tired and fed up.

Even now, we don't have children at home, but he thinks of his weekend as relaxing time, whereas I spend my Saturday shopping, cleaning, doing laundry, and all the other boring shit.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> I _almost_ understand this. Can you just say it again in a slightly different way once more? (maybe with an example?)


Sure.

Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all?  His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the _criminal the policeman is after_ that will turn around.  This process is more complex than it looks.  The policeman is representative of the state and its laws.  Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people _recognise_ this authority.  They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state.  The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around.  But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid.  The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) _subjectified_ by them.  He is _subject to_ the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is _a subject of_ the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.

So how does that apply to feminism?  Butler’s big play on this was what she called _performativity_.  You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman.  The “laws of society” regarding womanhood.  At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something.  When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become _subject to_ the applicability of that role to you and you become a _subject of_ womanhood.  This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”.  It feels natural because you have internalised that role.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I can only talk about my own experience, obviously.  Before we had children, my husband and I discussed the fact that I'd have to go back to work full time afterwards, and he agreed that he would take on his share of the childcare and domestic duties.  I believed him.
> 
> The reality was very different.  I think because his own family background was very traditional, with mum staying at home and doing the domestic stuff, and dad going out to work.  So he had no role models or any other example.  He honestly didn't realise that stuff needed doing.  He never thought about who did the cleaning, shopping, cooking - it just sort of "happened".  So when he  became a father, he didn't seem to understand that HE needed to be doing some of it!
> 
> ...


My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men _do_ actually 💯 want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy   🤔


----------



## nata33 (Dec 11, 2020)

sometimes i just wonder that what comes first ? feminism ? or own men ship ?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men _do_ actually 💯 want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy   🤔


Well, don’t forget that they are also subjectified as men.  Men also have allotted roles within the patriarchy, meaning they also interpellate these roles.

These are all dynamic processes, though.  People create new culture, they don’t just retread it.  Roles change over time as new thinking emerges.  Both men and women understand their roles very differently to 100 years ago.  But the change isn’t uniform over society and it doesn’t happen at a uniform rate.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

nata33 said:


> sometimes i just wonder that what comes first ? feminism ? or own men ship ?


Feminism or what was the second thing? Welcome btw  x


----------



## Thora (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.


I don't want my feelings about needing to be there for my kids to be accommodated so much as more social pressure on men to do domestic labour.


----------



## campanula (Dec 11, 2020)

Thora said:


> I don't want my feelings about needing to be there for my kids to be accommodated so much as more social pressure on men to do domestic labour.


Exactly. I am a but ambivalent about the idea of a career. I have never had one - just half a century of working...as has my partner. This is just something we do (and try to evade). However, we both live in a home with offspring, pets, laundry, shopping etc...and sharing the domestic stuff equitably has as much impact on our sense of fairness, identity but also externally realised value of such work.  By caring, cleaning, picking up, wiping mouths and bottoms, mending scratches and drying tears, I think my partner is a better, nicer, kinder person than someone removed from the domestic sphere which occupies 2/3rds of our lives. It sounds a bit wet and wishy-washy because thus stuff has no value (in the eyes of capital) but culturally, emotionally, socially, the role of nurturing is, I believe, as essential and valuable as any team managment in a 'career'.
Better for our offspring too, I think as 2 of them are male (and competent cooks, cleaners and caretakers and would consider themselves, if not exactly feminist, then certainly more aware of the importance of 'women's  work' (ugh). Politically engaged as well.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.



I don't think contradictory feelings are just about juggling childcare vs job, i think we have contradictory or conflicted feelings towards our children because they demand so much of us and sometimes we're overwhelmed by that. All that raw feeling when they're babies, and after. I do feel a need to be there for my children, and also a need to escape. It's too much for one person, either men or women, looking after children.


----------



## campanula (Dec 11, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> It's too much for one person, either men or women, looking after children.


O yes, I agree. It certainly overwhelmed me in a way no amount of (paid) labour has come close to doing. Of course, children were never just cared for by one person (the idealised mother) until comparatively recently.   Our private and domestic lives are always mediated by the public life of work, economics, politics...and in an era where work no longer guarantees enough income to allow for a non-working parent, while also fracturing the extended family connections because we are all expected to be continually mobile, the hard, but essential work of raising each generation, has become squeezed into badly fitting compartments.
I take issue with the whole idea of domestic work as undervalued, unrespected rubbish whilst all the plaudits are saved for the successful career achiever. Shit on that, frankly. I want a revolution where childcare, looking after our elderly, caring for the less able, being compassionate and kind is given more consideration, more respect and yes, more financial support. We would see plenty more men (and women) keener on doing this *vital* work then.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course, I asked him time and time again to help.  (the dreaded "nagging"!)  And he'd help for a while, but then forget again.  So I had to ask again.  And again.  In the end it was easier and more peaceful if I just did it all myself.



A huge part of the shit game that is, a tried and tested technique for shirking responsibility. Often accompanied by wanting a medal on the vanishingly rare occasions where a chore is actually performed, and then getting moody when no parade was laid on to celebrate the token gesture. Other variations on the theme include making such a fuss about doing it, or making such a poor job of it, that it doesnt seem worth the hassle to invite them to do it again on a sustained basis. Its a con, although not necessarily one done with conscious intent. One that kids often pick up on if thats the dynamic in their home, and quickly learn to imitate.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2020)

Edie said:


> My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men _do_ actually 💯 want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy   🤔



I have a very limited sense of what anybodies nature may be, because where are the opportunities to view such traits, free from the context of what that person experienced, learnt and immitated from others whilst developing?

I dont get the opportunity to study male behaviour that is free from the effects of being taught what level and type of responsibility, pulling their weight and caring for others is to be considered normal, acceptable, good enough, a virtue, justifiable, their fair share, and approved of and reinforced by male peers. Every personal act a triumph to be overvalued and overcelebrated, a reason to reward self with rest and play and feel terribly comfortable and justified in doing so. Whilst the work of others is reduced to a triviality, a series of mundane acts not worthy of commitment from those who would rather celebrate the smell of their own farts and their other great contributions to humanity. The merest momentary self-sacrifice walks like a giant jesus with a cross made of solid lead (a good days work went into the creation of that cross) across the dusty plains of self-aggrandisement and imaginary martyrdom, hunched over in such a way that the more sustained and daily sacrifices of others pass by almost entirely unnoticed.

Likely there are some 'natural' tendencies which cause the game to be played in this way, but the detail is an artifical construct that can be overcome, especially by big changes to experiences in formative years.  It might be for example that there is a male tendency towards singlemindedness and a narrow, one-dimensional sense of responsibility that falls far short of extending to every waking hour. In old fashioned terms, the whole 'bread winner' setup was perhaps the most obvious example, featuring attempts to clearly mark out a dull and unfair sense of what was important, how responsibilities were divided up, and clear demarcation of territory. That stuff is also taught and indulged and reinforced and woven into the fabric of things including the economic order, but that doesnt mean it has to be that way or is the real fundamental nature of things.


----------



## Edie (Dec 11, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Sure.
> 
> Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all?  His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the _criminal the policeman is after_ that will turn around.  This process is more complex than it looks.  The policeman is representative of the state and its laws.  Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people _recognise_ this authority.  They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state.  The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around.  But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid.  The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) _subjectified_ by them.  He is _subject to_ the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is _a subject of_ the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.
> 
> So how does that apply to feminism?  Butler’s big play on this was what she called _performativity_.  You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman.  The “laws of society” regarding womanhood.  At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something.  When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become _subject to_ the applicability of that role to you and you become a _subject of_ womanhood.  This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”.  It feels natural because you have internalised that role.


Thanks so much for this. I didn’t get Althauser’s example but I do now. I’m still not convinced that interpolation is the whole answer for those feelings though. But I do understand the argument now so thanks.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Sure.
> 
> Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all?  His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the _criminal the policeman is after_ that will turn around.  This process is more complex than it looks.  The policeman is representative of the state and its laws.  Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people _recognise_ this authority.  They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state.  The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around.  But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid.  The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) _subjectified_ by them.  He is _subject to_ the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is _a subject of_ the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.
> 
> So how does that apply to feminism?  Butler’s big play on this was what she called _performativity_.  You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman.  The “laws of society” regarding womanhood.  At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something.  When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become _subject to_ the applicability of that role to you and you become a _subject of_ womanhood.  This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”.  It feels natural because you have internalised that role.


Really good description! Thanks for taking the time


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 12, 2020)

Edie said:


> My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men _do_ actually 💯 want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy   🤔


My dad (non biological- he took me on cos he loved my mam) already had sons with his ex wife before I was born. He was submerged in traditional roles of being the breadwinner and had very little to do with the bringing up of his sons. When I was born he of course did not think he'd have to help out with my care, cos that was womens work. Now he's not a prick my dad, but that's all he knew. One time my mam went away and left me with him and he had to feed me, brush my hair, dress me and had no choice but to take me to the shops in my push chair. I remember him saying years later how awkward he had felt pushing a pushchair  it had been embarrassing and emasculating for him. He explained how its more normal to see guys pushing a pushchair these days but when he was younger it was sure to get you ribbed terribly and stared at...also carrying flowers! Seemed so funny to me when he told me but even just talking about it, he was cringing and bristling. I do remember him cleaning a bit and baking sometimes in his time off. I guess he had to step up as my mam was only just out of her teens and didn't know how to do any of that herself. When I look back with all of my current knowledge I do feel empathy for them and the roles forced upon them. Things have moved on a little since then but nowhere near enough...I think that's why I'm so put off having relationships or living with men...as its one thing doing everything myself when I live alone with my boys but its a real source of sadness and frustration to have a guy there not helping( making more mess, giving me more mouths to feed and shit to organise) and not understanding my frustration and tiredness carrying the  burden of _everything._
The absolutely least sexy thing a guy can do is nothing to help  and then they wonder why its hard for us to wind down of an evening. Its not cos we don't like sex, its cos we're still in cleaner, cook, mam, housewife mode and we're knackered. Fuck that like.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 12, 2020)

For all the unpleasant aspects of my stepdad he certainly did his share of housework. All the DIY and painting, all the gardening, ironing. Him and mum both cooked though her more than him and they shared the washing and shopping. 

My grandpa on the other hand did a lot round the house once he retired, but it was more projects/hobbies; the garden, making wine, bread, and preserves. My grandma still did the cooking, shopping and washing. As far as I know they both tidied, it was a small house they lived in for the last twenty years with zero room for clutter.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 12, 2020)

My experience of men doing their share of the housework is them choosing to do the bits they enjoy (cooking, garden/car/maintenance stuff) and the bits they don't enjoy (cleaning the toilet, supervising homework, changing nappies, the endless rotational nature of the laundry) happen by magic. NAM obviously. But quite a large proportion of men.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

I need to lower my game.  I’m letting the side down.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Really good description! Thanks for taking the time




Yes, thank you kabbes .

Much more helpful than being told “go do the reading yourself”. I’m now actually more likely to go read it up for myself having had your post as a livener.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I need to lower my game.  I’m letting the side down.




But even just making a joke like that just resets the patriarchal pattern.

Can’t you instead make a joke about how crap other men are for not doing it rather than taking the piss out of yourself for doing it?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Fair enough


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

I think a lot of men struggle with their partners doing unrequested and 'nonessential'* stuff around the house, then complaining the men don't do it.  They^ think: I'll do my share of the stuff that's necessary e.g. washing the kids' clothes (albeit they often don't, in practice), but, if you want clean windows, then clean them - I'm happy with them being grubby.

*I wonder how much of the perception about what's necessary is really internalised standards of a clean and tidy home that are expected of women, but don't apply to men in the same way.  I think there's still an element of the home being the women's domain - both in terms of the freedom to choose decor and the burden of housework - whereas men can leave 'their' areas e.g. sheds, garages, offices, exactly as they want them.

^If I'm honest with myself, I sometimes catch myself thinking this.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

I think there is a lot of truth in that in some cases.  In other cases, it’s just plain old self-identifying as not being the one that does stuff


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)

^ I'm not sure that applies in small flats/terraces where all space is shared and often cramped.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Individual cases are always going to be argued about.  But there’s a lot of evidence that one way or other, men collectively massively fail to do their share of basic household chores.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I think there is a lot of truth in that in some cases.  In other cases, it’s just plain old self-identifying as not being the one that does stuff



Yes, I'm sure.  And even leveraging sexist tropes like '_the nagging wife_' or '_the man who gets it wrong because his mum never taught him_' to bolster the _status quo_.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> But even just making a joke like that just resets the patriarchal pattern.
> 
> Can’t you instead make a joke about how crap other men are for not doing it rather than taking the piss out of yourself for doing it?



I was going to post something similar but didn't because I just felt deflated about the missed opportunity for kabbes to reinforce the idea that other men 'need to/can' do more.

This isn't a personal attack on you kabbes I do though think there is a 'default' dynamic at play here and it's easy for us all to fall back into the kind of _patriarchal_ thinking that masquerades as humour/light relief.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

chilango said:


> ^ I'm not sure that applies in small flats/terraces where all space is shared and often cramped.



I don't know. I've got mates who live in small places in which their (female) partners choose the decor and do the lioness's share of the housework.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I don't know. I've got mates who live in small places in which their (female) partners choose the decor and do the lioness's share of the housework.



No, I meant in those spaces men (and women?) don't really get separate domains. There's no room for leaving _anywhere_ a mess.

That it will still -usually - be the woman doing the cleaning I'm not doubting.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> My dad (non biological- he took me on cos he loved my mam) already had sons with his ex wife before I was born. He was submerged in traditional roles of being the breadwinner and had very little to do with the bringing up of his sons. When I was born he of course did not think he'd have to help out with my care, cos that was womens work. Now he's not a prick my dad, but that's all he knew. One time my mam went away and left me with him and he had to feed me, brush my hair, dress me and had no choice but to take me to the shops in my push chair. I remember him saying years later how awkward he had felt pushing a pushchair  it had been embarrassing and emasculating for him. He explained how its more normal to see guys pushing a pushchair these days but when he was younger it was sure to get you ribbed terribly and stared at...also carrying flowers! Seemed so funny to me when he told me but even just talking about it, he was cringing and bristling. I do remember him cleaning a bit and baking sometimes in his time off. I guess he had to step up as my mam was only just out of her teens and didn't know how to do any of that herself. When I look back with all of my current knowledge I do feel empathy for them and the roles forced upon them. Things have moved on a little since then but nowhere near enough...I think that's why I'm so put off having relationships or living with men...as its one thing doing everything myself when I live alone with my boys but its a real source of sadness and frustration to have a guy there not helping( making more mess, giving me more mouths to feed and sgit to organise) and not understanding my frustration and tiredness carrying the whole burden of everything.
> The absolutely least sexy thing a guy can do is nothing to help  and then they wonder why its hard for us to wind down of an evening. Its not cos we don't like sex, its cos we're still in cleaner, cook, mam, housewife mode and we're knackered. Fuck that like.




My dad was given custody of me and my sister when we were really little. It was the late 60s and considered so unusual that the case actually made the papers. He was earning a decent wedge so he eventually hired a woman to live in and take care of us but I remember a long-ish period of time when it was just the three of us. Looking back, I think he was really depressed and really at sea. As immigrants, neither of my parents had a family support network and all their peers (other immigrants of the same age) were also going through their affairs, divorces, child custody battles etc so my dad was on his own with us. I remember I had to talk him through how to wash and brush my hair, how to help me get dressed etc. I was still too small to be able to do it myself or to do it for my sister, but we all learned really fast. And I remember him cooking and cleaning and struggling with that too. He ended up being a decent cook and housekeeper. Much later, when we were teenagers and he was dating, one of his girlfriends turned up unexpected on a Sunday evening. We were doing what we always did on a Sunday, Dad would iron the shirts he needed for the following week and anything we wanted ironed, and we’d be watching the telly, all of us taking the piss and chatting, having a laugh. We would have had supper cooked by Dad, and breakfast too (it was his way of ensuring we came home after being out on Saturday night). So this girlfriend turned up and we all felt a bit interrupted (Sunday was always just the three of us, visitors were always on other nights, never Sunday) and she offered to do the ironing. We three all exchanged secret glances in silence and Dad said “No” in a way that forever afterwards became a running joke, kinda like shocked she’d ask, weirded out by the offer, taken aback and trying not to hurt her feelings all at once. 

So he’d traveled from being incompetent of domestic work and practical child care, to being confused by a woman offering to do his chores. 

I probably learned as much about feminism from my dad as from anyone else around when I was growing up, maybe more now I think about it. A couple of my friends told me when he died that they considered him the first male feminist they’d encountered. I suppose that must have been informed to a significant degree by his being cast into the “woman’s role” by the divorce etc.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

chilango said:


> No, I meant in those spaces men (and women?) don't really get separate domains. There's no room for leaving _anywhere_ a mess.
> 
> That it will still -usually - be the woman doing the cleaning I'm not doubting.



No, but I think many men will tolerate more mess, or at least claim to do so, confident that their partner will 'break' first, and clean up.  Possibly because women are judged more on the standards of their homes than men are.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, but I think many men will tolerate more mess, or at least claim to do so, confident that their partner will 'break' first, and clean up.  Possibly because women are judged more on the standards of their homes than men are.




When I was living with my LTP (not the vile one, the nice one) housework was one of the areas we clashed over, and this was one of the arguments he made: that it mattered less to him.

The instant he moved into his own place it suddenly mattered a great deal to him.

So was he dissembling when we lived together? Was he fooling himself, trying it on, what? Or did he somehow learn a new standard from me as a result of all the work I did around him?

When I went to stay with him for a week I told him I wasn’t going to lift a finger and he took good care of me. It was lovely. And when he was carrying yet another load of clean dry folded laundry up the stairs he said to me “Taking care of a house is quite a lot of work. I never realised before” , and that was his way of acknowledging and apologising for twenty years of taking my housework for granted.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> When I was living with my LTP (not the vile one, the nice one) housework was one of the areas we clashed over, and this was one of the arguments he made: that it mattered less to him.
> 
> The instant he moved into his own place it suddenly mattered a great deal to him.
> 
> ...



Like a lot of things that aren't explicitly valued by capitalism (albeit important to it, as reproductive labour is), it's true value is only realised when it's lost or threatened.  Like the environment, or simply spending 'non-productive' time with loved ones.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Individual cases are always going to be argued about.  But there’s a lot of evidence that one way or other, men collectively massively fail to do their share of basic household chores.



Even during lockdown.

With men and women both at home, some things are being shared out more equally, yet still women are doing more of the work.









						Coronavirus: 'Mums do most childcare and chores in lockdown'
					

A study suggests that the only situation in which dads pull their weight is if they're not working.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				













						How Covid-19 is changing women’s lives
					

As working mums perform more childcare and face increased job insecurity, there are fears Covid-19 has undone decades of advancement. But could the pandemic be a catalyst for progress?




					www.bbc.com
				












						Women’s and men’s work, housework and childcare, before and during COVID-19 - Review of Economics of the Household
					

Evidence from past economic crises indicates that recessions often affect men’s and women’s employment differently, with a greater impact on male-dominated sectors. The current COVID-19 crisis presents novel characteristics that have affected economic, health and social phenomena over wide...




					link.springer.com
				









						Women’s work, housework, and childcare before and during COVID-19
					

The social distancing measures adopted to slow the spread of COVID-19 have placed a particular burden on families. Using survey data collected in April 2020 from a representative sample of Italian women, this column asks how working from home – combined with school closures – has affected the...




					voxeu.org


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)




----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I think a lot of men struggle with their partners doing unrequested and 'nonessential'* stuff around the house, then complaining the men don't do it.  They^ think: I'll do my share of the stuff that's necessary e.g. washing the kids' clothes (albeit they often don't, in practice), but, if you want clean windows, then clean them - I'm happy with them being grubby.
> 
> *I wonder how much of the perception about what's necessary is really internalised standards of a clean and tidy home that are expected of women, but don't apply to men in the same way.  I think there's still an element of the home being the women's domain - both in terms of the freedom to choose decor and the burden of housework - whereas men can leave 'their' areas e.g. sheds, garages, offices, exactly as they want them.
> 
> ^If I'm honest with myself, I sometimes catch myself thinking this.


There is some truth to this in the sense that two humans sharing a house, no matter their gender will find that different things niggle at them and something important to one, just isn't to the other. But I think when it comes to hetero partners another aspect is that men have not been taught from a young age to feel shame about not being well presented, clean &  beautiful. They've also not been taught to feel shame or fear judgement if their home is not well presented, beautiful and clean. I think this explains why women care more as a rule about these standards of cleanliness...because actually you do get whispered about by neighbours or visitors if you don't adhere to these standards and it hurts us more because we are so primed for shame.
As much as I've tried to escape from and outgrow these internalised expectations ...if someone new is coming to my house I still feel I have to make it look much cleaner than I usually keep it. And its a relief when my friends are also a bit messy as it means I don't have to do that before they arrive.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2020)

Its also much easier to switch off, relax and indulge in me me me time when your expectations of responsibility are limited in time and space, and you dont have to spend almost every waking hours spinning plates. If the domains you are expected to maintain control and order over are diverse and numerous, its hardly surprising that there are less opportunities to switch off and chill. Compartmentalising doesnt really help if you still end up with responsibilities and chores in every compartment.


----------



## Thora (Dec 12, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> There is some truth to this in the sense that two humans sharing a house, no matter their gender will find that different things niggle at them and something important to one, just isn't to the other. But I think when it comes to hetero partners another aspect is that men have not been taught from a young age to feel shame about not being well presented, clean &  beautiful. They've also not been taught to feel shame or fear judgement if their home is not well presented, beautiful and clean. I think this explains why women care more as a rule about these standards of cleanliness...because actually you do get whispered about by neighbours or visitors if you don't adhere to these standards and it hurts us more because we are so primed for shame.
> As much as I've tried to escape from and outgrow these internalised expectations ...if someone new is coming to my house I still feel I have to make it look much cleaner than I usually keep it. And its a relief when my friends are also a bit messy as it means I don't have to do that before they arrive.


Me and Mr Thora are very equal in terms of housework and childcare, but I have always done all "clothes management" for the children.  Not laundry so much as buying clothes, choosing what they will wear, checking it fits, getting rid of stuff with holes in.
I think he just genuinely has no interest in whether they are wearing clothes that are too big/small (so long as they vaguely fit), has the odd hole or stain or whether they look "nice".
I really do care, so I do it all.
Of course the difference is, if he drops our child off to nursery with unbrushed hair, wearing their younger sibling's t-shirt with toothpaste down it, and clashing patterns - the staff will just chuckle "tough morning dad?  Bless him, he tried!  Mum having a lie-in?".  No one would think it was cute if I did it 
I know it's true because I instinctively have the same "give dad a break, at least he tried!" feelings whereas I would judge the mum who hasn't dressed her child well much more harshly.  Even though on an intellectual level I hate the double standard.  There's no reason at all why men can't take a little bit of care over their children's clothes/appearance and they should be judged for not being bothered.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Thora said:


> Me and Mr Thora are very equal in terms of housework and childcare, but I have always done all "clothes management" for the children.  Not laundry so much as buying clothes, choosing what they will wear, checking it fits, getting rid of stuff with holes in.
> I think he just genuinely has no interest in whether they are wearing clothes that are too big/small (so long as they vaguely fit), has the odd hole or stain or whether they look "nice".
> I really do care, so I do it all.
> Of course the difference is, if he drops our child off to nursery with unbrushed hair, wearing their younger sibling's t-shirt with toothpaste down it, and clashing patterns - the staff will just chuckle "tough morning dad?  Bless him, he tried!  Mum having a lie-in?".  No one would think it was cute if I did it
> I know it's true because I instinctively have the same "give dad a break, at least he tried!" feelings whereas I would judge the mum who hasn't dressed her child well much more harshly.  Even though on an intellectual level I hate the double standard.  There's no reason at all why men can't take a little bit of care over their children's clothes/appearance and they should be judged for not being bothered.



I prefer the idea of leveling-up, rather than leveling-down i.e. making women's lives easier, rather than men's harder (and not just for the obvious reason).

In which regard, maybe women - NAW, obviously - could take a little bit less care about their children's clothes/appearance, thus removing the pressure on themselves and each other (and, to a lesser extent, men)?

Was in two minds about posting that, as it sounds a bit 'victim-blamey', but I think it's worth acknowledging that women play a role in reinforcing some of these social attitudes, if we're to have any hope of change.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I prefer the idea of leveling-up, rather than leveling-down i.e. making women's lives easier, rather than men's harder (and not just for the obvious reason).
> 
> In which regard, maybe women - NAW, obviously - could take a little bit less care about their children's clothes/appearance, thus removing the pressure on themselves and each other (and, to a lesser extent, men)?
> 
> Was in two minds about posting that, as it sounds a bit 'victim-blamey', but I think it's worth acknowledging that women play a role in reinforcing some of these social attitudes, if we're to have any hope of change.


No. Caring about your children's appearance is part of looking after them properly. Leaving them in clothes massively too small or frayed or dirty because you can't be arsed is neglect and gets them picked on at school, never mind society judging you for it. Men need to pull the finger out.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I prefer the idea of leveling-up, rather than leveling-down i.e. making women's lives easier, rather than men's harder (and not just for the obvious reason).
> 
> In which regard, maybe women - NAW, obviously - could take a little bit less care about their children's clothes/appearance, thus removing the pressure on themselves and each other (and, to a lesser extent, men)?
> 
> Was in two minds about posting that, as it sounds a bit 'victim-blamey', but I think it's worth acknowledging that women play a role in reinforcing some of these social attitudes, if we're to have any hope of change.




It’s not victim-blames mate, it’s  just really weird.

It’s like a Viz TopTip.

Mums! Create more spare time and energy in your life by allowing your kids to go around in their jimjams all day! They’ll be ready for bed more easily too!


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

weepiper said:


> No. Caring about your children's appearance is part of looking after them properly. Leaving them in clothes massively too small or frayed or dirty because you can't be arsed is neglect and gets them picked on at school, never mind society judging you for it. Men need to pull the finger out.



Of course, I agree nobody should get away with leaving kids in dirty clothes that are far too small and full of holes etc., but I didn't get the impression that was what Thora was talking about; she mentioned toothpaste, unbrushed hair and clashing patterns.  Maybe we'd all be better letting those lesser 'infractions' slide, rather than judging one another.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> It’s not victim-blames mate, it’s  just really weird.
> 
> It’s like a Viz TopTip.
> 
> Mums! Create more spare time and energy in your life by allowing your kids to go around in their jimjams all day! They’ll be ready for bed more easily too!




It is when you take it far beyond what I actually said!


----------



## Thora (Dec 12, 2020)

weepiper said:


> No. Caring about your children's appearance is part of looking after them properly. Leaving them in clothes massively too small or frayed or dirty because you can't be arsed is neglect and gets them picked on at school, never mind society judging you for it. Men need to pull the finger out.


Yeah, I mean my children are currently dressed in joggers from Asda, tops I bought second hand, hand me down jumpers - I'm not saying they need to be dressed head to toe in Joules or whatever.
But clean, the right size, matching, weather appropriate, clean faces, hair tied up neatly.
Things I have laughed about dads doing (not Mr Thora though!) with other mums this week - toddler's leggings on back to front, 5yo wearing yesterday's skid-marked pants, dad "can't" put daughter's hair in a pony tail, no idea Christmas jumper day was a thing.  It's basics.


----------



## Thora (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course, I agree nobody should get away with leaving kids in dirty clothes that are far too small and full of holes etc., but I didn't get the impression that was what Thora was talking about; she mentioned toothpaste, unbrushed hair and clashing patterns.  Maybe we'd all be better letting those lesser 'infractions' slide, rather than judging one another.


I do think clean, hair brushed and not looking like a clown are minimum standards to be honest.


----------



## Thora (Dec 12, 2020)

I could probably let the clashing patterns thing go though


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Thora said:


> I do think clean, hair brushed and not looking like a clown are minimum standards to be honest.



I struggle to meet those standards for myself, to be fair.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course, I agree nobody should get away with leaving kids in dirty clothes that are far too small and full of holes etc., but I didn't get the impression that was what Thora was talking about; she mentioned toothpaste, unbrushed hair and clashing patterns.  Maybe we'd all be better letting those lesser 'infractions' slide, rather than judging one another.




Kids can be terribly bullied by their schoolmates for this kind of thing.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)

I dress my daughter everyday. Get her clothes out (which I washed etc.), lay them out on the radiator before she gets up so they're nice and warm when she puts them on. I make sure she's all buttoned up properly, tucked in, straighten her tie all that stuff. I brush her hair, (though Mum does the "styling", having a shaved head for last 20 years is, I think, a legit excuse for passing on that task. I did have to watch a YouTube video on plaiting hair though when my wife was away with work!).

I do this stuff, routinely, and couldn't imagine not doing it.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

And I can personally attest that kids who are grubby and scruffy can end up feeling really alone and neglected and uncared for.





PS
Thanks for the sad face sympathy xx But it did turn out okay in the end because it made me much more independent of standard fashion and forced me to develop my own style and hang the consequences!  And I took my revenge by repurposing my dad’s old suits etc. Met someone recently who remembered me glamming around in oversized men’s suits and a skirt I made with his 1970s ties...


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Kids can be terribly bullied by their schoolmates for this kind of thing.



...and teachers notice, it sets alarm bells ringing


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

O, this stuff about appearances is, to my mind, more shaded by class than gender, I know most working class parents put a lot of time and effort into how their children are presented. Middle class families (at least the ones I know) tend to be a lot more 'relaxed about standards (including, enragingly, the stressed issue of nits). I always felt judged as a poor parent. And on a very dissonant note, it was usually other woman doing the judging. I absolutely struggled with this feeling of betrayal and loss of sisterhood as the emphasis, within the loosely affiliated women's movement I had been involved in throughout the mid 70s and 80s, really started to erode a sense of commonality.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Kids can be terribly bullied by their schoolmates for this kind of thing.



In my experience, kids who need to be dressed aren't in the age group where that sort of bullying is a thing.   But, even if they were, where do you think the bullies get the idea that these things matter?  You point only reinforces mine: we'd all be better letting those lesser 'infractions' slide, rather than judging one another.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

chilango said:


> I dress my daughter everyday. Get her clothes out (which I washed etc.), lay them out on the radiator before she gets up so they're nice and warm when she puts them on. I make sure she's all buttoned up properly, tucked in, straighten her tie all that stuff. I brush her hair, (though Mum does the "styling", having a shaved head for last 20 years is, I think, a legit excuse for passing on that task. I did have to watch a YouTube video on plaiting hair though when my wife was away with work!).
> 
> I do this stuff, routinely, and couldn't imagine not doing it.




With sufficient time etc I suppose it’s a really lovely way to interact in an intimate and loving way with your child.

Like monkeys grooming, or something.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> With sufficient time etc I suppose it’s a really lovely way to interact in an intimate and loving way with your child.
> 
> Like monkeys grooming, or something.



Yeah.

I've (almost) always done since she was only a couple of months old, so it's pretty normalised for me. 

TBF I'm also the one making breakfast, packed lunches, finding keys, etc etc. for wife and daughter before waving them off at the doorstep in my PJs collapsing on the sofa straight after with a mug of tea before then getting myself ready!


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> In my experience, kids who need to be dressed aren't in the age group where that sort of bullying is a thing.   But, even if they were, where do you think the bullies get the idea that these things matter?  You point only reinforces mine: we'd all be better letting those lesser 'infractions' slide, rather than judging one another.




Not just dressed. Shopping, laundry, checking for holes and size etc. Children old enough to dress themselves (6, 9, even 12 year olds) are not in a position to take responsibility for all the rest of the clobber duties.



campanula makes a good point too. The aristos go around in scruffy clobber as well, don’t they. I mean, not all of them and not all the time, but very expensive jumpers with holes in the elbows isn’t frowned on as it would be for working class kids.


----------



## Thora (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> O, this stuff about appearances is, to my mind, more shaded by class than gender, I know most working class parents put a lot of time and effort into how their children are presented. Middle class families (at least the ones I know) tend to be a lot more 'relaxed about standards (including, enragingly, the stressed issue of nits). I always felt judged as a poor parent.


I agree with this too.

Thinking about it though, I do think it's interesting how "what to wear" expectations are very gendered and some things that to me feel so obvious they're instinctive, don't register at all with Mr Thora.
So for example this morning Mr T dressed our daughter in jeans, a dark red long sleeved top and a pale yellow (Summer) cardigan.  All clean and good condition and the right size.  But I had to change her cardigan, the colour clash was too much.  I doubt Mr Thora could identify the difference between a summer cardigan and a winter one 
Which colours or patterns go together or clash is something I have clearly picked up and he hasn't.  It's not important to him.
Athos is right that it absolutely shouldn't matter if the child is clean and comfortable, but to me it does.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Not just dressed. Shopping, laundry, checking for holes and size etc. Children old enough to dress themselves are not in a position to take responsibility for all the rest of the clobber ditties.



I'm not advocating that men shouldn't do their fair share of laundry and clothes buying etc.  I'm simply saying that, if some of the more minor failings - leggings back-to-front, clashing patterns,  etc. - can be laughed off in the case of men (as they often are), then why should women be judged more harshly for them (especially by other women)?


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

We all know the answer to that one, Athos. Because consumer capital, aspirational bollocks, etc. has been invested in an endless campaign to sell us stuff...which is deeply potent when shame, guilt, envy is leveraged to flog us shit (on which, for many of us, especially when we are lacking in social capital, becomes difficult to discard).


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I'm not advocating that men shouldn't do their fair share of laundry and clothes buying etc.  I'm simply saying that, if some of the more minor failings - leggings back-to-front, clashing patterns,  etc. - can be laughed off in the case of men (as they often are), then why should women be judged more harshly for them (especially by other women)?




Well yes, of course. Very obvious thing is obvious.

But you were saying that women should drop their game to make it easier for everyone, rather than saying everyone should stop expecting impossibly high standards from women while giving more slack to men. Which is harder to achieve of course.

Anyway, isn’t this one of the arguments in support of school uniform?


And also what campanula says.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> We all know the answer to that one, Athos. Because consumer capital, aspirational bollocks, etc. has been invested in an endless campaign to sell us stuff...which is deeply potent when shame, guilt, envy is leveraged to flog us shit (on which, for many of us, especially when we are lacking in social capital, becomes difficult to discard).



Quite. It's not inevitable, though.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> O, this stuff about appearances is, to my mind, more shaded by class than gender, I know most working class parents put a lot of time and effort into how their children are presented. Middle class families (at least the ones I know) tend to be a lot more 'relaxed about standards (including, enragingly, the stressed issue of nits). I always felt judged as a poor parent.


Yes, 100%. I was (still am I suppose, it's hard to shake) hyper conscious about turning my kids out nicely, because I knew I was already being judged in a small town way for being on benefits with three kids under 5, I was fucked if I was going to give them any more ammunition by the kids having holes in their knees or trouser bottoms up round their ankles or grubby faces or whatever. And I would send them to their dad's in good condition clothes that fit, and he would send them back dressed in too small faded stuff because he didn't care, because he wasn't feeling the judgement in the same way.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Thora said:


> I agree with this too.
> 
> Thinking about it though, I do think it's interesting how "what to wear" expectations are very gendered and some things that to me feel so obvious they're instinctive, don't register at all with Mr Thora.
> So for example this morning Mr T dressed our daughter in jeans, a dark red long sleeved top and a pale yellow (Summer) cardigan.  All clean and good condition and the right size.  But I had to change her cardigan, the colour clash was too much.  I doubt Mr Thora could identify the difference between a summer cardigan and a winter one
> ...




I’d definitely wear a red top with a yellow cardigan! 

RIght now I’m wearing a green top with a purple cardigan.

But I know loads of people, kids included, who don’t like that kind of thing at all. (One of my youngster friends used to really tell me off about my use of colour...)


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> But you were saying that women should drop their game to make it easier for everyone...



Not 'drop their game' so much as not hold themselves to such unnecessarily high standards. For themselves and each other mostly!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

This is where I’m glad I don’t have kids.  I don’t buy myself clothes because I have no idea what does and doesn’t look good and don’t care either way.  I wear stuff that I bought 15 years so that has holes in and has pulled and I don’t give a monkey’s what anybody thinks of me for it.  I wouldn’t even know where to start in assessing the clothes of a child.  If it fits and is clean, I’d consider that job done.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> Not 'drop their game' so much as not hold themselves to such unnecessarily high standards. For themselves and each other mostly!






Athos said:


> I prefer the idea of leveling-up, rather than leveling-down i.e. making women's lives easier, rather than men's harder (and not just for the obvious reason).
> 
> In which regard, *maybe women - NAW, obviously - could take a little bit less care about their children's clothes/appearance*, thus removing the pressure on themselves and each other (and, to a lesser extent, men)?
> 
> Was in two minds about posting that, as it sounds a bit 'victim-blamey', but I think it's worth acknowledging that women play a role in reinforcing some of these social attitudes, if we're to have any hope of change.




“Take a little less care ...” looks to me like dropping the game rather than dropping their standards.


But this isnt the point.

The point is that women (NAW) feel that they have to behave in certain ways because they are being judged while men (NAM) don’t, as a rule, have to factor that shit in to every single decision.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> This is where I’m glad I don’t have kids.  I don’t buy myself clothes because I have no idea what does and doesn’t look good and don’t care either way.  I wear stuff that I bought 15 years so that has holes in and has pulled and I don’t give a monkey’s what anybody thinks of me for it.  I wouldn’t even know where to start in assessing the clothes of a child.  If it fits and is clean, I’d consider that job done.




Well quite, but several women in this very thread have said that their men can’t even seem to achieve that basic standard (that it’s clean and it fits).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

Thora said:


> Of course the difference is, if he drops our child off to nursery with unbrushed hair, wearing their younger sibling's t-shirt with toothpaste down it, and clashing patterns - the staff will just chuckle "tough morning dad?  Bless him, he tried!  Mum having a lie-in?".  No one would think it was cute if I did it
> I know it's true because I instinctively have the same "give dad a break, at least he tried!" feelings whereas I would judge the mum who hasn't dressed her child well much more harshly.  Even though on an intellectual level I hate the double standard.  There's no reason at all why men can't take a little bit of care over their children's clothes/appearance and they should be judged for not being bothered.



For me, this is a very good personal example of this, posted by kabbes earlier... 



kabbes said:


> ^^ the above is Butler’s route into performativity within feminism, of course.  By performing the roles allotted by society to women, a woman interpellates those roles and thus becomes them.



For me it is very much a 'nurture' thing and there is a drip, drip, drip effect that has us internalising and becoming/applying the double standards that we actually hate.


----------



## Looby (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I prefer the idea of leveling-up, rather than leveling-down i.e. making women's lives easier, rather than men's harder (and not just for the obvious reason).
> 
> In which regard, maybe women - NAW, obviously - could take a little bit less care about their children's clothes/appearance, thus removing the pressure on themselves and each other (and, to a lesser extent, men)?
> 
> Was in two minds about posting that, as it sounds a bit 'victim-blamey', but I think it's worth acknowledging that women play a role in reinforcing some of these social attitudes, if we're to have any hope of change.


Fuck that! If you have enough clothes and the means to wash them, which many don’t, it’s a fairly basic thing to make sure your child is dressed in clothes that are clean, without holes and that fit. It’s not hard, it doesn’t need a ‘mother’s instinct’ it’s the bare minimum.

I know this is a fairly mundane example but I’m sick of women being told to lower their standards because the poor men just can’t live up to them.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> The point is that women (NAW) feel that they have to behave in certain ways because they are being judged while men (NAM) don’t, as a rule, have to factor that shit in to every single decision.



Very obvious thing is obvious.

My point was that part* of the way out of that would be for women not to judge themselves (individually and collectively).

ETA *The other part being the role of men, obviously.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> We all know the answer to that one, Athos. Because consumer capital, aspirational bollocks, etc. has been invested in an endless campaign to sell us stuff...which is deeply potent when shame, guilt, envy is leveraged to flog us shit (on which, for many of us, especially when we are lacking in social capital, becomes difficult to discard).




I'll take the shame/guilt angle a bit further...we are made to feel shame and guilt for being poor. Our poverty is consequently associated with our worth as people, our assumed intellect &capabilities. This is reinforced and institutionalised, we internalise it and we seek to escape it....it makes us feel ashamed to be alive. It causes existential angst and that to me is why the 'ideology of aspiration' has taken such a strong hold despite so many of us being quite happy with less and on an intellectual/conscious level knowing things 'shouldn't be' this way.

Edited to add...obvious thing being obvious...The patriarchy has the same dynamic in terms of women, their worth, what elements of 'femininity' are celebrated etc... so it isn't just for women not to judge or feel judged...women can't escape that process without men because without men patriarchy wouldn't exist as a 'thing'.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> Very obvious thing is obvious.
> 
> My point was that part of the way out of that would be for women not to judge themselves (individually and collectively).




See Looby ’s reply immediately above .


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Looby said:


> Fuck that! If you have enough clothes and the means to wash them, which many don’t, it’s a fairly basic thing to make sure your child is dressed in clothes that are clean, without holes and that fit. It’s not hard, it doesn’t need a ‘mother’s instinct’ it’s the bare minimum.
> 
> I know this is a fairly mundane example but I’m sick of women being told to lower their standards because the poor men just can’t live up to them.



I've addressed the issue of clean clothes that fit and are in reasonable condition being a minimum, and explained that my objection is to some of the 'requirements' that go beyond that.

Women have far more to gain from lowering standards than men do; the standards aren't applied to men, currently!


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

I am interested to see  where feminism is heading, after a fairly long absence (when I  kinda lost any point of engagement and  stopped feeling comfortable within the loosely affiliated women organisations and social/political groups I had been involved in...although, to be fair, I have been on a cowardly retreat from most forms of political engagement as I am very uncertain where alliances can be found or what foundation such potential alliances are built upon (iyswim).  Plus, any attempt at dismantling the patriarchy must, out of necessity, be both inclusive and cognizant that it has been as oppressive and damaging to (wc) men...and that there are fundamental power inequalities which we can only challenge as a class.


----------



## Looby (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I've addressed the issue of clean clothes that fit and are in reasonable condition being a minimum, and explained that my objection is to some of the 'requirements' that go beyond that.
> 
> Women have far more to gain from lowering standards than men do; the standards aren't applied to men, currently!


Then we work on making sure they are, not dropping them.
I know this is just about clothes but women get this shit all the time and I hear it from my friends in their relationships. ‘He never does x, so I stopped expecting/asking as it’s easier.’


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Looby said:


> Then we work on making sure they are, not dropping them.
> I know this is just about clothes but women get this shit all the time and I hear it from my friends in their relationships. ‘He never does x, so I stopped expecting/asking as it’s easier.’



Why extend those standards to men when they are unnecessary and harmful - for the reasons set out above by e.g. campanula and Rutita1 - and disproportionately affect the working class - as explained by weepiper?


----------



## Looby (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why extend this standards to men when they are unnecessary and harmful - for the reasons set out above by e.g. campanula and Rutita1 - and disproportionately affect the working class - as explained by weepiper?


I absolutely agree with those posters who point out that these pressures disproportionately impact lower income households and that’s not really what I’m arguing. I don’t like the free pass thing, the ‘bless him, he tried’ and I agree with Thora that I probably do it too and then pick myself up on it. I guess my point is more general and it made my blood boil seeing women once again told the solution is to lower their standards.

I’ll back off because I’m grumpy. 😊


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Looby said:


> I guess my point is more general and it made my blood boil seeing women once again told the solution is to lower their standards.



Part of the solution, insofar as those standards are one aspect of the patriarchy, by virtue of their unequal application in practice, and given that their application to men would have other negative consequences.


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

As for dropping standards, in anything, in a sort of race to the bottom - well, this spectacularly misses the point. The reason the more powerful class of men can dismiss the importance of stuff like cleaning, is precisely because these tasks are deemed worthless. Far from dropping standards, we, as a society, value them as intrinsically good things  - tasks which require the highest competences, reliability, creativity, consistency...which requires some radical transformations in how we value domestic labour. Most especially in our relationships to the means of production, the ridiculous skewed values of 'the market', a re-evaluation of what is worthy (not what can be monetised by a plutocratic class ffs).


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> As for dropping standards, in anything, in a sort of race to the bottom - well, this spectacularly misses the point. The reason the more powerful class of men can dismiss the importance of stuff like cleaning, is precisely because these tasks are deemed worthless. Far from dropping standards, we, as a society, value them as intrinsically good things  - tasks which require the highest competences, reliability, creativity, consistency...which requires some radical transformations in how we value domestic labour. Most especially in our relationships to the means of production, the ridiculous skewed values of 'the market', a re-evaluation of what is worthy (not what can be monetised by a plutocratic class ffs).



I agree with this to a large extent - that necessary reproductive labour should be esteemed and properly rewarded, which will only really happen outside the grip of capitalism. But, some of the standards we apply to one another don't have any intrinsic value; they're artefacts of capitalism. So we ought to give up on chasing them.  That doesn't amount to a race to the bottom at all.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos — whether the point you are making is right or wrong, you’re going to have to accept that such a fundamental shift in cultural values isn’t going to happen because a few people try to choose to do something differently.  This isn’t something that happens on the individual level.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Athos — whether the point you are making is right or wrong, you’re going to have to accept that such a fundamental shift in cultural values isn’t going to happen because a few people try to choose to do something differently.  This isn’t something that happens on the individual level.



I don't advocate just a few people choosing to try to do things differently on an individual level.


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

Hey Athos, I didn't bother with waxing my legs, following fashion, keeping up my home decor as a status symbol, buying into lifestyle choices/new sofas. But I still put a considered, valid and creative effort into raising my kids, maintaining good nutrition on a limited budget, looking out for my elderly neighbours, keeping the public green spaces clean... because these result in a net gain to society (while being ignored by financial markets). Caring and nurturing, putting other's needs in front of yours - this is being a decent human being (and socialist).
But yeah, this is often unrewarded, invisible and even derided. We really need a deep and broad transformative politics.


----------



## Sue (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> Hey Athos, I didn't bother with waxing my legs, following fashion, keeping up my home decor as a status symbol, buying into lifestyle choices/new sofas. But I still put a considered, valid and creative effort into raising my kids, maintaining good nutrition on a limited budget, looking out for my elderly neighbours, keeping the public green spaces clean... because these result in a net gain to society (while being ignored by financial markets). Caring and nurturing, putting other's needs in front of yours - this is being a decent human being (and socialist).


You sound like a monster, campanula .


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> Hey Athos, I didn't bother with waxing my legs, following fashion, keeping up my home decor as a status symbol, buying into lifestyle choices/new sofas. But I still put a considered, valid and creative effort into raising my kids, maintaining good nutrition on a limited budget, looking out for my elderly neighbours, keeping the public green spaces clean... because these result in a net gain to society (while being ignored by financial markets). Caring and nurturing, putting other's needs in front of yours - this is being a decent human being (and socialist).



I completely agree.  And I'd hope nothing I've said would lead to think otherwise.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I don't advocate just a few people choosing to try to do things differently on an individual level.


Your advice is directed towards individuals’ agency


----------



## campanula (Dec 12, 2020)

So those things (standards) you thought were unnecessary and harmfu. Athos l -we agree that those activities, in and of themselves, are neither harmful nor unnecessary - it is the equivocation, inequalities, the weaponising and malign judging of keeping (or failing) such standards which are damaging and unnecessary? Mostly, I think the devaluing of  neccessary domestic work is fundamentally dishonest., especially in terms of effort and skills. I have had a wide range of employment and can honestly say that the pressure and relentlessness of running a home and caring for dependents has been the most arduous and challenging areas of my life, while the financial rewards are zero.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Your advice is directed towards individuals’ agency



As a necessary (but insufficient) condition for cultural change.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

Looby said:


> I guess my point is more general and it made my blood boil seeing women once again told the solution is to lower their standards.
> 
> 😊



We don't need to lower our standards, , men generally need to and should do more. Thora admitting to judging women more harshly isn't evidence that our kids and homes don't need to be well kept and she should just abandon those standards, IMO,  it's evidence of how we can be indoctrinated to judge women and men differently.

I am someone who likes a tidy home because clutter and mess make me feel claustrophobic. I don't think this comes from an aspirational desire to live a middle class, lifestyle magazine, minimalist existence because I don't like that either.  I like to be able to use and enjoy the space I have, I can't do that when it's in chaos. I see it quite simply as something I can have control over and one less thing to be narked or irritated about, so I get on and continue to keep it the way I like to find it. I'm not married and don't have children though so my relationship with this stuff on a daily level isn't affected by the politics of parenthood and the distribution of care giving and house keeping. I resented it when I lived at home with my family, I resented that myself and my sister were expected to and made to do far more than my brothers.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> As a necessary (but insufficient) condition for cultural change.


Right.  But not only is the insufficient part crucial, agency is also not necessary for change.  We didn’t get here in the first place in an agentic fashion.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

campanula said:


> So those things (standards) you thought were unnecessary and harmfu. Athos l -we agree that those activities, in and of themselves, are neither harmful nor unnecessary - it is the equivocation, inequalities, the weaponising and malign judging of keeping (or failing) such standards which are damaging and unnecessary? Mostly, I think the devaluing of  neccessary domestic work is fundamentally dishonest., especially in terms of effort and skills. I have had a wide range of employment and can honestly say that the pressure and relentlessness of running a home and caring for dependents has been the most arduous and challenging areas of my life, while the financial rewards are zero.



I'm not sure I agree that it's just the unequal application of standards, or the malign judgements applied to those who fail to meet them, that makes some standards harmful. A number are harmful in and of themselves, because they 'require' us to waste our time and efforts on things that are neither socially necessarily nor individually rewarding.  But it is only some; I'm in no way suggesting that all standards associated with reproductive labour ought to be abandoned, nor denying the value (or difficulty) of it.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Right.  But not only is the insufficient part crucial, agency is also not necessary for change.  We didn’t get here in the first place in an agentic fashion.



I'm sorry, but I don't really follow what you're trying to say, here.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> We don't need to lower our standards, , men generally need to and should do more. Thora admitting to judging women more harshly isn't evidence that our kids and homes don't need to be well kept and she should just abandon those standards, IMO,  it's evidence of how we can be indoctrinated to judge women and men differently.



Don't you think that we'd all be happier if we relaxed some of the standards to which many of us hold ourselves and each other?


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2020)

jumping back in on page 70 and levelling up rather than down ..  different context, similar theme..


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

My partner has a greater tolerance for mess than I. Over the time we've been together, even when at his place, he has become tidier and more conscious of his own mess because he knows it bothers me. He makes that effort. We both benefit from it.

I also, over time in my life, had to learn that some people, both women and men were never taught to do or accepted the need to do certain things, to fit them in, to get used to doing them for the sake of everyone so that they no longer seemed like the worst thing ever...that 5 minutes of labour at home was and is more than a fair exchange than to risk building resentment, over burdening one or two members of the household. That 'I just don't see it' isn't a good excuse and falls absolutely flat on it's face when you also admit to liking to cook in a clean kitchen or having clean clothes to wear.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2020)

Thora said:


> I do think clean, hair brushed and not looking like a clown are minimum standards to be honest.





Athos said:


> I struggle to meet those standards for myself, to be fair.


same. in all relationships with men or women, i've always been the _most_ messy, untidy, appearance unconcerned slob out of either of us. i'm voluntarily childless and intend on staying single for at least a few years - for the sake of me and the wider world. i'm not "economically active" at the minute, and havent been for years due to health issues of various flavours....BUT i have seen so many women discuss this stuff over the years and get how everything ties in together.

i'm ?lucky? - my house needs tidying and my cat refuses to take the rubbish out  but i'm also not responsible for anyone else - looking after them, or being looked after by them.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't really follow what you're trying to say, here.


Where people systematically act in a particular way as a result of internalising roles, the resolution of inequality that arises from this role-performance does not come from individuals _electing_ to behave differently — not only is asking them to do so insufficient, it is not even a necessary precursor.  Alter the culture itself and the next generation will automatically behave differently.  After all, it’s not like the current behaviour happens as a result of choice.  Making it about personal choice is a very neoliberal perspective.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos

This idea that lowering our standards (in dressing children) will help create more equality...


Is this to happen in isolation from everything else? Or are you suggesting we need to lower our standards in all areas where we feel the burden of inequality? Of just in some areas and not others?

And would you also apply this policy to other aspects of society that suffer with entrenched inequalities?


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Where people systematically act in a particular way as a result of internalising roles, the resolution of inequality that arises from this role-performance does not come from individuals _electing_ to behave differently — not only is asking them to do so insufficient, it is not even a necessary precursor.  Alter the culture itself and the next generation will automatically behave differently.  After all, it’s not like the current behaviour happens as a result of choice.  Making it about personal choice is a very neoliberal perspective.



Whilst I agree that a social role (and the internalisation thereof) isn't a matter of individual choice, a group of individuals - a class - can, at least, go some way to reduce the reproduction of a culture.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Athos
> 
> This idea that lowering our standards (in dressing children) will help create more equality...
> 
> ...



I'm saying we need to abandon standards that do more harm than good.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Well that’s magic wand territory.

Let’s all abandon lthe expectation that (for example,) women have to appear to be sexually available and in a state of arousal in order to be considered attractive.

Your original suggestion was that women themselves lower the standards in order to reduce their own burden.

Can you really not see the problem with this position?


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Your original suggestion was that women themselves lower the standards in order to reduce their own burden.
> 
> Can you really not see the problem with this position?



I specifically said that was *part* of the solution (as, obviously, men have a role).  And, yes, of course I see the issue with that (and I alluded to it from the outset).


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 12, 2020)

In order to conserve energy for the good fight, I'm going to skip reading athos's posts entirely.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Athos said:


> I specifically said that was *part* of the solution (as, obviously, men have a role).  And, yes, of course I see the issue with that (and I alluded to it from the outset).




Your worry was that iit was victim blamey. Not that it’s a misunderstanding of the issue.

Going by most of what you've posted on these threads I’m surprised by this tbh. 

I agree that these bullshit standards help no one and cause real harm. I agree that it would be great if we could somehow dismantle them and do away with the whole stupid system that pushes us further into consumerism and conspicuous demonstration of some capitalist notion of worth or value , from dressing the kids to ourselves, our homes, etc.

But I take issue with the idea that the people on the shitty end of this stuff have the agency - or the responsibility -  to make a difference by lowering their standards.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 12, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> In order to conserve energy for the good fight, I'm going to skip reading athos's posts entirely.




Actually, yeah.

I’m going to lower my standards and let this bullshit go unchallenged.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> In order to conserve energy for the good fight, I'm going to skip reading athos's posts entirely.





SheilaNaGig said:


> Actually, yeah.
> 
> I’m going to lower my standards and let this bullshit go unchallenged.



No need, I don't want to monopolise this thread - I'll duck out for a bit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

I think the discussion about  'standards' has gotten a bit muddled over the last page. I think there is both a micro and macro level discussion happening.

There are certain _standards_, by way of necessary chores/tasks/things that we all do to live and maintain ourselves/homes/children  (housework/wifework) etc...these are the ones that women do not need to lower just because many (NAM) men don't do their share of them or only do when asked to even though they benefit from these things getting done.

There are other 'standards' by way of ideas/expectations that have become institutionalised as culture, often reinforced by arguments that they are caused by nature and biology,  that we have internalised as benchmarks/blueprints, that we both consciously/unconsciously measure each other on.

Is there a relationship between the two? Yes, of course.

What is that relationship?
Which part/s of the relationship is doing the 'damage' and needs changing?
Which standards are unrealistic and need lowering? Who needs to do that?
Which standards are necessary and need raising? Who needs to do that?


----------



## Edie (Dec 13, 2020)

Athos are you talking about what weepiper called performative wealth on another thread? Or people trying to signal social status through dressing their kids, house, selves?

Humans are social animals and status within society has always been signalled. I’d bet my bottom dollar this went on during communism, and goes on in indigenous cultures.

Again there is this almost naive belief that ignores all the evidence about how humans behave across all cultures.



kabbes said:


> Where people systematically act in a particular way as a result of internalising roles, the resolution of inequality that arises from this role-performance does not come from individuals _electing_ to behave differently — not only is asking them to do so insufficient, it is not even a necessary precursor.  Alter the culture itself and the next generation will automatically behave differently.  After all, it’s not like the current behaviour happens as a result of choice.  Making it about personal choice is a very neoliberal perspective.


What do these roles result from?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 13, 2020)

Status is signalled but what status is, what confers it and how it is practiced varies wildly.  For example, the kind of status signalling we’re talking about here — conspicuous consumption — was arguably not something practiced (outside the nobility, at least) in UK society before the late Victorian era.  It still isn’t the way status is signalled in many types of culture, even in the Western world.  You won’t find conspicuous consumption as the way status is signalled in Amish communities, for example.



			
				Edie said:
			
		

> What do these roles result from?


Well, that’s the question researchers try to grapple with.  It’s hard to give a pithy summary, but I would suggest “power relations” is probably as good a two-word phrase as any.

To expand on that, actually: the roles are embedded within the cultural artefacts of the society.  The very language itself is one of these, but so are the uses of that language (eg books).  Also things like laws, values, beliefs (such as the belief that all this is “natural”).  How childhood is interpreted and the nature of education, what family actually means, whether being human is something that is understood to take place individually or collectively.  All these get realised as roles, which in turn feed back to reinforce the culture.

How that culture developed in the first place is obviously deeply embedded in historical events, including the state of technology when those events happened.  That’s where we get into the nature of power — who had it, what did they use it for, how did they keep it?


----------



## Spandex (Dec 13, 2020)

kabbes said:


> This is where I’m glad I don’t have kids.  I don’t buy myself clothes because I have no idea what does and doesn’t look good and don’t care either way.  I wear stuff that I bought 15 years so that has holes in and has pulled and I don’t give a monkey’s what anybody thinks of me for it.  I wouldn’t even know where to start in assessing the clothes of a child.  If it fits and is clean, I’d consider that job done.


If you did have kids, and you did look after them, you'd learn how to do this, the same as you'd learn how to change nappies, heat milk to the right temperature, cut tiny finger nails and everything you have to do to look after little ones. None of this comes naturally to anyone and is all learnt on the job. If men have a reputation for being useless at this stuff, it's because they haven't done it enough to get the practice to be good at it. I couldn't keep a cactus alive before I had kids, but actually having a small person who's totally reliant on you forces you to do it and the more you do it the better you get. 

For mostly financial reasons I became a stay at home dad for 2 years and now have a 'little' part-time job so I can take care of the kids while my girlfriend goes to do a 'proper' job and earn the bulk of our money. It's interesting to see how that reversal of traditional gender roles has bought with it many of the things that often come up in discussions of gender roles. I do the invisible housework keeping the flat habitable. There's been plenty of 'silly mummy' moments where she's less used to doing aspects of child care that the kids take for granted I know how to do. There's days when I've spent 10 exhausting hours with the kids that she'll come home from work and slump on the sofa saying what a hard day she's had at work. And I'm happy with this. Of course there's been stupefying, stressful and difficult moments, but they're balanced against how brilliant I've found having kids.

I find it sad that men and women are forced into these roles by societal expectations and financial considerations. There's plenty of women who'd be happier at work than a baby group and plenty of men who'd be great at childcare if they weren't constrained by expectations of masculinity and a culture that values 'male' work more than 'female' work. We're still long way from genuine choice about who cares for the kids though, or being able to split the role equally. At present in the UK only around 3% of dads are the primary carer for kids, and having spent years as the only man at the baby group I can easily believe it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

Edie said:


> Athos are you talking about what weepiper called performative wealth on another thread? Or people trying to signal social status through dressing their kids, house, selves?
> 
> Humans are social animals and status within society has always been signalled. I’d bet my bottom dollar this went on during communism, and goes on in indigenous cultures.
> 
> ...



Where are you seeing this 'naive belief' Edie ?

I might be misremembering but I think we covered the natural differences = assuming of certain roles for practical reasons some pages back? I thought there was broad acknowledgement about that but also that culture evolves along with us as we adopt new technology, change environments, have different needs?


----------



## elbows (Dec 13, 2020)

If theres one claim about nature, very much including humans, that I would find easy to support, its the idea that we are quite adaptable to circumstances. With that in mind, I do not easily buy into too many other rigid ideas about what comes naturally to us. How can I, when such things are so often guided by circumstances that are variable, not fixed?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 13, 2020)

kabbes said:


> As I understand it, it is that agency question which brings about the argument about interpellation. That is, our social identity is not imposed on us so much as we are active in choosing to construct it. However, whilst the choice may be made by us, that does not mean it is conscious. It can be like a ball following a grooved path and every time it goes round the groove, it deepens the channel, making it more likely to be followed again.


some of us have had little choice in our up bringing or in society demands and expectations on us. As a girl I was constantly bombarded with messages of male superiority and messages defining male/female traits / expectations. Very firmly telling me which groove I should be in, constantly - in law, at school, in my family, in the media and in the world generally. 

It takes a lot of effort courage to get out out of such a groove.  For many that sheer effort is not a possibility.

It's all very well to witter on about 'agency' and 'standards' in a lovely thoeretical way.  If you haven't lived with that contant constraint / expectation / stress then it would be difficult to understand the cost on the individual.  it doesn't equate with 'choice'.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 13, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> some of us have had little choice in our up bringing or in society demands and expectations on us. As a girl I was constantly bombarded with messages of male superiority and messages defining male/female traits / expectations. Very firmly telling me which groove I should be in, constantly - in law, at school, in my family, in the media and in the world generally.
> 
> It takes a lot of effort courage to get out out of such a groove.  For many that sheer effort is not a possibility.
> 
> It's all very well to witter on about 'agency' and 'standards' in a lovely thoeretical way.  If you haven't lived with that contant constraint / expectation / stress then it would be difficult to understand the cost on the individual.  it doesn't equate with 'choice'.


You seem to be directing that at me, like I’m the one suggesting there is a choice in the matter?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 13, 2020)

No not at you personally - just further to what you said.


----------



## Totoro303 (Dec 19, 2020)

Spandex said:


> If you did have kids, and you did look after them, you'd learn how to do this, the same as you'd learn how to change nappies, heat milk to the right temperature, cut tiny finger nails and everything you have to do to look after little ones. None of this comes naturally to anyone and is all learnt on the job. If men have a reputation for being useless at this stuff, it's because they haven't done it enough to get the practice to be good at it. I couldn't keep a cactus alive before I had kids, but actually having a small person who's totally reliant on you forces you to do it and the more you do it the better you get.
> 
> Wholly agree. Any activity I am even semi competent at, is due to either lots of practice , or being cajoled , and/or compelled to do same..


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 19, 2021)

The Guardian had a great piece about radical feminism the other day Don’t write off radical feminism – it’s always been ahead of its time | Finn Mackay



> Feminism is often portrayed as a dinosaur rudely dying right in the way of progressive change. Younger people today are much more fluent in their understandings of sex, gender and sexuality. There are more terms available than ever before to describe identity categories (Facebook has more than 50 different choices for gender alone). Indeed, research has found pupils in UK secondary schools using more than 23 different labels for gender identity. In this climate, feminism, a movement led by the experiences of one identity, has become seen as backward, trapped in the past. Added to this are misconceptions that radical feminism in particular is uniquely transphobic, with the label of “terf”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, applied to anyone expressing trans exclusionary views, regardless of their politics or whether they are even a feminist at all.
> 
> In fact, far from being behind the curve or opposed to such changes, radical feminism was ahead of its time. The radical feminists of the 1970s were some of the first to take seriously the gender and sexuality debates currently raging through our society. Many of them looked forward to a gender-fluid world of polyamorous and pansexual relationships, where social roles were no longer defined by people’s sexed characteristics at birth. Their work helped to secure structural equality for women, more expansive definitions of the family and greater freedom of expression for gender and sexual identities that cut against the grain of heterosexuality.
> 
> ...



I was at university with radical feminists in the '80s and have supported them ever since. Their views seem like common sense to me. There's nothing radical about them. If the boot was on the other foot, men would be demanding all the same things as a basic human right.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The Guardian had a great piece about radical feminism the other day Don’t write off radical feminism – it’s always been ahead of its time | Finn Mackay
> 
> 
> 
> I was at university with radical feminists in the '80s and have supported them ever since. Their views seem like common sense to me. There's nothing radical about them. If the boot was on the other foot, men would be demanding all the same things as a basic human right.


How does this skew with your loathsome comments on the Dune thread?


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 19, 2021)

Well done, 1 internet point to you. Now fuck off to my ignore list and stop derailing this thread.


----------



## Flavour (Oct 19, 2021)

It does seem like an attempt to make up for what you said on the Dune thread tbh


----------



## xenon (Oct 19, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Well done, 1 internet point to you. Now fuck off to my ignore list and stop derailing this thread.



Stick me on ignore as well if you like. But having just read what you posted over there he has a point. you probably consider yourself a feminist. I bet you have even said that at some point.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

Judge for yourselves folks:


David Clapson said:


> I love this article. And although the long edit is a bit slow in parts, I find all of it believable. I have no trouble buying into every detail. I feel sorry for people who can't do that. They must be some other species. Also, I'm still in love with Lady Jessica. I'm a bit shocked that Paul didn't jump her.  If I was the writer I'd add that to the plot. Of course it would be wrong, but how can a man not lose control when she's there?  Miss "tell me of your homeworld, usul" is a poor substitute.  Hard to believe that she's the fragrant Rachael out of Blade Runner. Her unfortunate bun emphasises her pointy ears.  She looks like an elf extra from a lost Lord of the Rings scene set in a Bangkok ladyboy bar.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 19, 2021)

It's all about context. Think dark humour and bizarre violent fantasy films. And now fuck off for  being dense and trying to derail one of the few feminist threads we have, with a cross thread beef. That's against the forum rules, so report yourself to a mod while you're at, simpleton.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

It’s very relevant to this thread to mention that


----------



## BillRiver (Oct 19, 2021)

There's feminists, and feminist posts, in a lot of threads on here that I've read. They may not announce themselves as feminist, and it may not be in the thread title, but it is there nonetheless.

For example, the reactions to David Clapson  in the Dune thread...


----------



## JudithB (Dec 24, 2022)

I had to go and look after my family. And now I am back to try and stop the erosion of women.
Go chuckle


----------



## 8ball (Dec 24, 2022)

JudithB said:


> I am back to try and stop the erosion of women.



Not wanting to ejaculator-splain, but I more commonly hear the term "exfoliation" these days.

Ooh - and hi - and Merry Christmas in few mins!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 24, 2022)

It's more of a titter tbf but cheers yeah


----------



## JudithB (Dec 24, 2022)

I tried to post a thread called The Erosion Women And Are We OK Unless It's A Resource - and it wasnt allowed


----------



## 8ball (Dec 24, 2022)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's more of a titter tbf but cheers yeah



Merry Christmas - five mins to go!! 🥳


----------

