I need feminism because...

27-06-2013 07:16PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't want to get into whataboutery. What I'm trying to say is that feminism, by being partial, did a lot of damage in its polarisation instead of considering the whole family. We qre interconnected.

The focus needs to be on family.

Women got hoisted on their own petards, even women who never wanted the petards in the first place.

That a very good point could you elaborate on how the family would be better without feminism and how women with different values have been marginalised because of social policies based on feminisms.

Your argument kinda reminds me of the belief that the pill has not freed woman but instead has freed men from any responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

eviltwin · 27-06-2013 08:10PM

MaxWig wrote: »

And to pursue your reasoning...can we assume that the single mother with 6 kids should just keep her gob shut about struggling to feed them.

After all, she is personally responsible

I've no problem with single mums. I don't know any who are in that position by choice. I personally know three, none of whom were single when they became pregnant. Single parents have a right to maintainance and if thats not being paid then I can see only one person to blame. And its not feminism.

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 12:30AM

mariaalice wrote: »

That a very good point could you elaborate on how the family would be better without feminism and how women with different values have been marginalised because of social policies based on feminisms.

Your argument kinda reminds me of the belief that the pill has not freed woman but instead has freed men from any responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

Families have been forgotten because it never paid attention to motherhood, only pursued your rights and obligations not to be a mother or wife.

While the baby boomers where burning their bras, the kids were microwaving Heinz beans left on the counter as they let themselves in from school. These kids are now grown up and helicoptering their kids. This would be now my generation raising kids. These kids will be the most spoilt kids in history due to over compensation. Be scared for who will be running things up the road. Wussy spoiled kids.

Feminists love single mothers because they are freed from the patriarchal shackles/slavery that is marriage, even if their kids are living on Heinz beans and in poverty.

Men also love feminism because they too are freed from the the shackles of marriage. When I heard all these gay men wanted to get married, I thought it might be the apocalypse. Feminists for so long moaned about marriage and now gay men want to get married. Both on the left, one day hate marriage the next day lobby for it. Whatever, it's not like I ever expected it to make sense.

Then you had them putting down the 50s housewife and now the burkha is alternative feminism. Go figure.

They are a chaotic divisive mess.

Frito · 28-06-2013 02:56AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Feminists for so long moaned about marriage and now gay men want to get married. Both on the left, one day hate marriage the next day lobby for it. Whatever, it's not like I ever expected it to make sense.

Marriage as an institution has evolved from that which feminists campaigned about to that which gay people now want to access. It's a different product.

fits · 28-06-2013 05:28AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Feminists love single mothers because they are freed from the patriarchal shackles/slavery that is marriage, even if their kids are living on Heinz beans and in poverty.
.

What???? What on earth are you basing that idea on?

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 07:31AM

Frito wrote: »

Marriage as an institution has evolved from that which feminists campaigned about to that which gay people now want to access. It's a different product.

I'm pretty sure that's what Claire has been saying also.

No one doubts that.

But the 'new product' has brought with it it's own problems.

--Kaiser-- · 28-06-2013 08:18AM

mariaalice wrote: »

This is slightly off topic, for all he people who think feminism is not relevant in the Western world....have a look at some of the treatment meted out to Julia Gillard the Australian prim minister, some of it was solely because she was a woman..she was even asked/shouted at ....is your partner Gay!!

Is the abuse that she received sexist because she is a woman? Or was it just tailored towards her because she is a woman (you can't call a man a lesbian, can you)? Australian politics is very rude and in-yer-face and Gillard herself has made some vile comments about men...were they sexist as well?

28-06-2013 08:25AM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Is the abuse that she received sexist because she is a woman? Or was it just tailored to-wards her because she is a woman (you can't call a man a lesbian, can you)? Australian politics is very rude and in-year-face and Gillard herself has made some vile comments about men...were they sexist as well?

I know politics in Australia is very in your face, but yes some of it ( not all ) was solely because she was a woman. I am not excusing any vile comments she made.

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 08:28AM

mariaalice wrote: »

I know politics in Australia is very in your face, but yes some of it ( not all ) was solely because she was a woman. I am not excusing any vile comments she made.

Is it possible she got elected because she was a woman?

--Kaiser-- · 28-06-2013 08:35AM

mariaalice wrote: »

I know politics in Australia is very in your face, but yes some of it ( not all ) was solely because she was a woman.

How did you work this out? Which insults, and how do you know the person who made them was being sexist rather than just impunging a political opponent? As I said, people generally tailor their insults

28-06-2013 08:37AM

Insulting single mothers like that is quite offensive

Feminists = marxists is hilarious though

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 08:42AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Insulting single mothers like that is quite offensive

Feminists = marxists is hilarious though

Controlling the means of production of humans!!

Fcukers

28-06-2013 08:49AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Families have been forgotten because it never paid attention to motherhood, only pursued your rights and obligations not to be a mother or wife.

While the baby boomers where burning their bras, the kids were microwaving Heinz beans left on the counter as they let themselves in from school. These kids are now grown up and helicoptering their kids. This would be now my generation raising kids. These kids will be the most spoilt kids in history due to over compensation. Be scared for who will be running things up the road. Wussy spoiled kids.

Feminists love single mothers because they are freed from the patriarchal shackles/slavery that is marriage, even if their kids are living on Heinz beans and in poverty.

Men also love feminism because they too are freed from the the shackles of marriage. When I heard all these gay men wanted to get married, I thought it might be the apocalypse. Feminists for so long moaned about marriage and now gay men want to get married. Both on the left, one day hate marriage the next day lobby for it. Whatever, it's not like I ever expected it to make sense.

Then you had them putting down the 50s housewife and now the burkha is alternative feminism. Go figure.

They are a chaotic divisive mess.

Claire, your points on any topic are ususly very interesting, however thats just a rant, there are extremes and crackpots in every ism and you are portraying that as the norm in feminism.

At the basic feminism is about human civil rights, the right not to be discriminated againts and the right to make a choice and have your choice respected, you are also making the classic mistake of mixing up tolerance with promotion.

The rise of motherers working in paid employment our side the home has more to do with capitalism than feminism.

I would have a problem with state provided child care such as they have in Sweden ( although we could do a lot more here ), however my point is that Sweden has one of the most equal and wealthy society in the world, so state provided child care and mothers who work out side the home has not lead to the collapse of society.

Your can have all the social policies in the world that support families and social policies that make men responsible for their family, BUT none of them will MAKE men want to be involved with their children, that is a choice and has to come from the heart.

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 08:53AM

mariaalice wrote: »

Your can have all the social policies in the world that support families and social policies that make men responsible for their family, BUT none of them will MAKE men want to be involved with their children, that is a choice and has to come from the heart.

I beg to differ.

The rise in single mothers was not as a result of a sudden increase in fuzzy, maternal feelings in 17 year old girls.

It was as a direct result of financial incentive.

Sweden has taken the simple step of eradicating the cultural preference of the mother as primary care-giver.

There is very little/no difference between men and women in terms of their desire to care for children.

We just all like cash

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 09:06AM

mariaalice wrote: »

Claire, your points on any topic are ususly very interesting, however thats just a rant, there are extremes and crackpots in every ism and you are portraying that as the norm in feminism.

At the basic feminism is about human civil rights, the right not to be discriminated againts and the right to make a choice and have your choice respected, you are also making the classic mistake of mixing up tolerance with promotion.

The rise of motherers working in paid employment our side the home has more to do with capitalism than feminism.

I would have a problem with state provided child care such as they have in Sweden ( although we could do a lot more here ), however my point is that Sweden has one of the most equal and wealthy society in the world, so state provided child care and mothers who work out side the home has not lead to the collapse of society.

Your can have all the social policies in the world that support families and social policies that make men responsible for their family, BUT none of them will MAKE men want to be involved with their children, that is a choice and has to come from the heart.

Obviously my points are not being understood. No need to call it a rant. It is no such thing.

I'm not talking about social policies and government enforcements. What I refer to are cultural and ideolgical shifts in family and particularly in how this unit relates to labor and employment and children and men too. Feminism did do damage.

I don't know why you are bringing up Sweden. I don't want to pay 80% in taxes and live in one of the most depressive cultures in the world, with one of the highest suicide rates do you? Nor would I want that much government interference.

28-06-2013 09:12AM

Female single parenthood is very culturally specific much higher in the UK that in Nordic countries, both the UK and Nordic countries have welfare states and both countries have very liberal sexual health policies amend at teenagers, so how come loan teenage parenting is much higher in the UK?, Of course men love their children but from what I have seen they are not as keen on the bit where you provide 24 hour care for them and not as keen on providing the hard cash it take to look after them( I know that a bit of generalisation )

I do think their is a point in the idea that modern sexual mores has freed men from responsibility for their sexual behaviour and the possibility( illusion?) of endless sexual choice has made it easier for men not to commit, which does have implications for family and commitment to family.

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 09:13AM

MaxWig wrote: »

I beg to differ.

The rise in single mothers was not as a result of a sudden increase in fuzzy, maternal feelings in 17 year old girls.

It was as a direct result of financial incentive.

Sweden has taken the simple step of eradicating the cultural preference of the mother as primary care-giver.

There is very little/no difference between men and women in terms of their desire to care for children.

We just all like cash

That's interesting in a social welfare state.

In the US with the rise of single parenthood, it's not financial incentive. It's one of the main root causes of poverty in the US. There is no money to be made out of it. It is definitely due to the breakdown of the family and expensive childcare and what keeps women out of the competition with men or with women with supportive husbands.

B0jangles · 28-06-2013 09:13AM

MaxWig wrote: »

I beg to differ.

The rise in single mothers was not as a result of a sudden increase in fuzzy, maternal feelings in 17 year old girls.

It was as a direct result of financial incentive.

Sweden has taken the simple step of eradicating the cultural preference of the mother as primary care-giver.

There is very little/no difference between men and women in terms of their desire to care for children.

We just all like cash

Apparently the rate of pregnancy in teenagers has been largely stable for the last 30 years.
in 2006, for example, there were 2352 births to women between 15 and 19, which was 0.4% of the total births that year

http://crisispregnancy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/facts-and-figureson-sexual-behaviour-and-teenage-pregnancy-2.pdf

Just wanted to point that out since I find a lot of people assume that teenagers make up the majority of first time single mothers and that's actually completely untrue.

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 09:17AM

mariaalice wrote: »

Female single parenthood is very culturally specific much higher in the UK that in Nordic countries, both the UK and Nordic countries have welfare states and both countries have very liberal sexual health policies amend at teenagers, so how come loan teenage parenting is much higher in the UK?, Of course men love their children but from what I have seen they are not as keen on the bit where you provide 24 hour care for them and not as keen on providing the hard cash it take to look after them( I know that a bit of generalisation )

Well there are many reasons.

That child allowance/benefits are paid exclusively to mothers is up there though. Very high up there.

Extend all benefits to fathers, including the length of paternity leave currently provided for maternity leave, and I'm sure the 'lax attitudes' of fathers will mysteriously change.

The current system is perverse.

Until it changes, the results will remain perverse

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 09:19AM

mariaalice wrote: »

Female single parenthood is very culturally specific much higher in the UK that in Nordic countries, both the UK and Nordic countries have welfare states and both countries have very liberal sexual health policies amend at teenagers, so how come loan teenage parenting is much higher in the UK?, Of course men love their children but from what I have seen they are not as keen on the bit where you provide 24 hour care for them and not as keen on providing the hard cash it take to look after them( I know that a bit of generalisation )

I do think their is a point in the idea that modern sexual mores has freed men from responsibility for their sexual behaviour and the possibility( illusion?) of endless sexual choice has made it easier for men not to commit, which does have implications for family and commitment to family.

Sorry I'm not just talking about teenagers, but adults, those who divorced or whom never married. Most mothers are single now in the US. And that is ironically what keep women on the lower rings and he kids in poverty.

This is the case even when the dads do see them every other weekend. Even worse with the ones completely missing.

It's childcare costs.

28-06-2013 09:19AM

One parent allowance is payable to either gender

So is childrens allowance

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 09:25AM

bluewolf wrote: »

One parent allowance is payable to either gender
So is childrens allowance

It is, but the default payee remains the mother.

It is an assumption so crass, that were the result not a cheque, I'm sure it would have been changed long ago.

Where access to children is split, the children's allowance is not. It is paid, by default, to the mother of the child.

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 09:26AM

Almost like a wage

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 09:28AM

MaxWig wrote: »

It is, but the default payee remains the mother.

It is an assumption so crass, that were the result not a cheque, I'm sure it would have been changed long ago.

Where access to children is split, the children's allowance is not. It is paid, by default, to the mother of the child.

It should be scrapped and go straight into education.

28-06-2013 09:29AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sorry I'm not just talking about teenagers, but adults, those who divorced or whom never married. Most mothers are single now in the US. And that is ironically what keep women on the lower rings and he kids in poverty.

I am curious what is you solution then, people should stay in unhappy marriages? or what.

Divorce dose make you less well off/poor thats true, middle aged couple who are married are the wealthiest in our society.

The Corinthian · 28-06-2013 09:38AM

mariaalice wrote: »

Your can have all the social policies in the world that support families and social policies that make men responsible for their family, BUT none of them will MAKE men want to be involved with their children, that is a choice and has to come from the heart.

By that logic programs to encourage or even discriminate positively twoards girls in schools or women in the workplace to enter traditionally male roles are a waste of time, as surely the desire to do so should be innate - from the heart.

It is very difficult to take on a role traditionally the preserve of the other gender, when social attitudes and even law scream at you that you should not. Even if there is a desire to do so, the barriers can be insurmountable; couples will often opt for the woman being the carer because it's easier - it raises fewer eyebrows and comes with advantages, such as parental leave, that do not exist with the other gender. With unmarried and separated/divorced couples the legal barriers are almost insurmountable for the non-traditional carer, and even if surmounted are often unenforceable - or more correctly unenforced.

It works both ways, of course. Just as one gender is effectively told at that child care is not their business, the other is told that it must be their business; this leads to a situation whereby a woman who's heart may be for her career is effectively socially forced to sacrifice it for the role that she is expected to fill.

Ultimately choices from the heart can't always overcome these realities, so presuming that because they have not, then they cannot be from the heart is more than a little presumptuous. That we seem to favour quotas over reform of this is another cypher for discussion.

MaxWig wrote: »

Extend all benefits to fathers, including the length of paternity leave currently provided for maternity leave, and I'm sure the 'lax attitudes' of fathers will mysteriously change.

I suspect it will take more than just that and take longer. To begin with you really have to address the legal biases too, otherwise you're hardly sending the right message.

Even if this were addressed, I think it will take a lot of time and effort to normalize the idea that men can be child-carers; as with many women in traditional male roles, such as engineering, it'll take a while.

MaxWig · 28-06-2013 09:41AM

mariaalice wrote: »

I am curious what is you solution then, people should stay in unhappy marriages? or what.

Divorce dose make you less well off/poor thats true, middle aged couple who are married are the wealthiest in our society.

Drive policies that encourages society to share the burden of childcare equally across the gender divide.

clairefontaine · 28-06-2013 09:42AM

mariaalice wrote: »

I am curious what is you solution then, people should stay in unhappy marriages? or what.

Divorce dose make you less well off/poor thats true, middle aged couple who are married are the wealthiest in our society.

Affordable childcare. It's the only solution.

28-06-2013 09:52AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Affordable childcare. It's the only solution.

Made affordable how?

meeeeh · 28-06-2013 10:05AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Insulting single mothers like that is quite offensive

Feminists = marxists is hilarious though

I mostly disagree with Claire's points (ok I mostly disagree with anyone's points about anything

) but marxist feminism is probably one of the main strands of feminism.

http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4i4c4.pdf

I need feminism because...

Comments