I need feminism because...

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

So by your logic men must be made feel needed ( nothing wrong with that by the way ) or woman must be in a dependant position in order for fathers to be a involved in their children's lives, what about being involved in your children lives because you have a moral and legal responsibility to look after your children or what about doing it out of love.

No. That's not what I'm saying. If you want to twist it that way and rely on a benevolent, myopic perspective on feminism you might see it that way.

What I object to is this ra ra cheer leading of an ideology that brought with it consequences that the cheerleaders don't want to acknowledge.

MaxWig

I'm a man.

I would consider myself a feminist.

I love women, and I love men, and I love children.

I think I'm in the significant majority.

Feminism brings problems.

Of that there is no doubt.

But all in all, I have benefited greatly as a result of feminism - as has society as a whole.

I do however agree that in terms of the family, and the huge changes that it has gone through, we need to make changes.

Fathers from non-traditional families have become isolated and vulnerable.
There is no benefit to this for anyone

clairefontaine

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

Yes that would be a feminist perspective. Independent woman and all that. She doesn't need a man. What do you need men for? Supermom to the rescue!

Just don't look at her boobs or objectify her. That's naughty.

Wibbs

Tesco Frog Muffin clearly hasn't read the Ladies Lounge charter, nor the clear warning against this kinda guff earlier so gets a ban for his trouble and his posts deleted.

PS B0jangles, lets dial back the sniping towards others and their opinions please.

B0jangles

^^ Will do ^^

mariaalice

clairefontaine wrote: »

No. That's not what I'm saying. If you want to twist it that way and rely on a benevolent, myopic perspective on feminism you might see it that way.

What I object to is this ra ra cheer leading of an ideology that brought with it consequences that the cheerleaders don't want to acknowledge.

If you had read through the whole thread you will see that I do think femminis has contradictions like all isms, however some of the issue that feminism are being blamed for are ridicules IMO.

One of he thing Florance Nightingale did along with improving nursing was organise for solders to repatriate their wages to their family's back in England as before that men often spent all there money on alcohol despite being fathers and husbands...the idea that men only started to avoide responsibility for their children after the rise of femminim is silly...have you ever read account of the 1913 strike or have you read the colour purple.

Tigger99

I love men, my Dad, my brother, many other men I know.

I am a feminist.

These two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

If you had read through the whole thread you will see that I do think femminis has contradictions like all isms, however some of the issue that feminism are being blamed for are ridicules IMO.

One of he thing Florance Nightingale did along with improving nursing was organise for solders to repatriate their wages to their family's back in England as before that men often spent all there money on alcohol despite being fathers and husbands...the idea that men only started to avoide responsibility for their children after the rise of femminim is silly...have you ever read account of the 1913 strike or have you read the colour purple.

How did she do that?

Did the government take their wages and redirect them?

Obviously war makes it far more complicated. Who wouldnt want to stay drunk? And if they were drafted, surely the government has some accountability to their families? And ,maybe just maybe feminism might consider awareness against the militarisation of boys?

You can't compare a time during the draft to contemporary disenfranchisement.

I'm not saying it started after feminism, I'm saying it increased. You can't call it irresponsibility after decades off telling them they aren't needed in the first place.

mariaalice

This is off topic, the reason some men are marginalised in society has a lot more to do with the rise of technology and the decline in the need for manual work that it has to do with feminisms.

clairefontaine

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.

mariaalice

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

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

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

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

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

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--

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?

mariaalice

--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

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--

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

Insulting single mothers like that is quite offensive


Feminists = marxists is hilarious though

MaxWig

bluewolf wrote: »

Insulting single mothers like that is quite offensive


Feminists = marxists is hilarious though

Controlling the means of production of humans!!

Fcukers

mariaalice

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

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

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.

mariaalice

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

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

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

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

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.

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

MaxWig

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

Almost like a wage

clairefontaine

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.

mariaalice

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

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

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

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.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Affordable childcare. It's the only solution.

Made affordable how?

meeeeh

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

clairefontaine

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

I don't agree with you there. I don't think changes in child benefit would make a bit of difference to those who are missing and those who aren't.

Plenty of countries where there is no such thing as child benefit have missing dads, some who opt out and some who are missing because they are in prison and some just drift away after a divorce.

The bottom line though,is that it is one of the main causes of poverty, not just because kids are expensive, but also because the careers can't compete with childless women, married women, or with men, so they get lesser paying jobs because they can't do the hours and are perceived to be over committed.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

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

Still, saying that all feminists are marxists is still funny
I see what you mean anyway

Morag

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

Feminists NEVER burned bras.

The rise in single mothers in the 70s was due to the work of Cherish who worked to secure rights and assistance for single mothers so they had more options then the boat to England to have an abortion or to live there away from stigma or the Magdalene laundries.

http://www.onefamily.ie/about-us/our-history/

One Family began life as Cherish in 1972. In that year, a group of single mothers, led by Maura Richards (née O’Dea), set about reaching others in the same situation. Founder member, Colette O’Neill, suggested Cherish as a name for the group, taken from the 1916 Proclamation, which declared that Ireland would ‘cherish all of the children of the nation equally’.

Unfortunately in 1972, this was often not the case, and single pregnant women were often thrown out of their homes, lost their jobs and were rejected by their communities. Cherish was set up to provide such women and children with a voice, empowering women to help themselves and their families.

Mary Robinson, Cherish’s first President, who only resigned when she became President of Ireland in 1990, has described Cherish as one of Ireland’s first self-help groups.

As an organisation, Cherish not only provided services to single parents and their children, but also campaigned for change. While many changes were brought about, the two most significant were the introduction of the unmarried mother’s allowance and the abolition of the status of illegitimacy.

In 1973, after much hard lobbying work, Cherish celebrated the introduction of the unmarried mother’s allowance – the first social welfare payment to acknowledge the existence of women bringing up children on their own.

In 1987, after many years of campaigning, the Status of Children Act finally abolished the status of illegitimacy.

When developing the Strategic Plan for 2004–06, it became clear that the society in which we offer our services is very different and that one-parent families exist in many forms in Ireland today. It is in recognition of these changes that we extended our services to all members of all one-parent families, and renamed ourselves One Family.

As One Family we continue to work to affect positive change and achieve equality and social inclusion for all one-parent families in Ireland. In 2009 One Family merged with Gingerbread Ireland and assumed operational responsibility for them. As part of our Strategy 2010-2012 we look forward to marking 40 years of our leading and radical organisation.

In the 80s and 90s being a single mother lost some of it's stigma as it was seen to be better then taking the boat and having an abortion. The book the snapper shows the shift in attitudes, it was written in 1990 the movie came out in 1992.

So as education about contraception in this country has increased and attitudes towards abortion has changed, so to is the attitude towards single parents. Which is something I don't agree with, I know many who have worked and their children went on to college and worked.

Tbh I find the stuff clairefontaine is spouting both ridiculous and dangerous as it seems to be only about setting women against women.

Being pro choice means accepting and supporting all choices women make in a crises pregnancy situation, abortion adoption and raising the child.

clairefontaine

Sorry Morag but if you can't criticise an ideology, it's nothing more than another brainwashing cult. That is what is dangerous. Not what I am "spouting" as you so rudely put it.

This thread is about feminism, not pro choice and has a far wider reach than crisis pregnancies. Single parenting also includes divorced women who had planned pregnancies. The myopic view of feminism not to include a family perspective is what has led to all this conflict around childcare and working vs stay at home mothers. Single parents, including divorced mothers are part of this picture, but it also includes mothers, fathers, divorced, single, and married.

The crisis pregnancy picture pushes yet anther myopic view of single parenting and one income households. Everyone is one argument, one affair, one nervous breakdown, one episode of chronic malaise from finding themselves in a one income household. The western rates of divorce are phenomenal. No one can or should think they are invulnerable to this. Do I expect feminism to solve this? God no. But I will point out its part in it.

So no, I'm not too concerned about high heels or my boobs, but I am concerned about the roots of poverty connected to the breakdown of the family. It would appear to me to be a much bigger fish to fry.

Morag

clairefontaine can you back up what you have asserted please.
Otherwise I am going to given it as much credit as that myth about bra burning.

clairefontaine

Morag wrote: »

clairefontaine can you back up what you have asserted please.
Otherwise I am going to given it as much credit as that myth about bra burning.

There is plenty of available criticism you can google. It not as if I invented this perspective.

Morag

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is plenty of available criticism you can google. It not as if I invented this perspective.

Nope but you have presented it here and the normal route of discussion is that you back up your claims when asked to.

clairefontaine

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/good-day-care-was-once-a-top-feminist-priority-and-it-should-be-again/275027/

https://pathwaystofamilywellness.org/component/option,com_crossjoomlaarticlemanager/Itemid,80/view,crossjoomlaarticlemanager/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/03/opinion/la-oe-hymowitz-unmarried-mothers-20120603

You can start with this.

Morag

Actually how about you start a new thread for this rather then clutter up this one which is meant to be about people expressing why they feel/think they need feminism.

clairefontaine

Morag wrote: »

Actually how about you start a new thread for this rather then clutter up this one which is meant to be about people expressing why they feel/think they need feminism.

Oh sorry I didn't realise this thread was just for proselytising.

Didn't know I was in the religion fora.