A feminism discussion thread - should all women's life choices be 'supported'?

There was a vociferous ’child-free’ lobby, who kept going on about how having children was a ‘lifestyle choice’, as though it was some sort of new-fangled self-indulgence

Perhaps that was an unintended consequence of contraception becoming more freely available to women in the late 60’s - it’s certainly true that it did give women the choice to become mothers or not. Prior to that, contraception did at least involve the co-operation of the man involved and only the arrival of the Pill gave women autonomy. Apart from just saying No.
The question is whether the choice is a right, or a self-indulgence, or a self-sacrifice.
I remember reading a book in the early 70’s called ‘The Baby Trap’, the title of which speaks for itself. It had the effect of delaying the arrival of DS by several years

Galaxy

Yes and I think your friend was offering input on a situation that she couldn't possibly judge. If she had been in the same workplace then the view might have had validity but as an outsider she couldnt possibly have known.

This is very true, and confirms my thought that it it a ‘one size fits all’ philosophy.

CanadianGran, yes, when my children were young I came up against the same sort of thing. There was a vociferous ’child-free’ lobby, who kept going on about how having children was a ‘lifestyle choice’, as though it was some sort of new-fangled self-indulgence. My line manager at that time was fixated on the idea of everyone having time off in August, when she knew I saved up my leave to take it in the school holidays to be with my children . It was silly of her, but every year was the same - she tried all ways to stop me from taking time off in the school holidays, but failed, as the others much preferred to take their leave when it was cheaper, and everywhere wasn’t full of other people’s children.

jane - I did argue, but my friend wouldn’t have it, and kept repeating the mantra that it was ‘unsisterly’ of me. You are probably right though - nowadays I would probably have laughed loudly and come back with a very short response .

On the flip side, I remember working with a woman who was quite vocal in her thoughts of having difficulties supporting women who chose to have children getting paid maternity leave. This was while I was expecting my first child, and the maternity leave at the time was only about 3 months.

She was of the mind that I was the one choosing to have a child, so should be prepared to take time of work without any government benefit. It's like I was getting a paid holiday.
I did remind her that the next generation would one day be working, paying taxes to help support her long retirement.

So no, we do not all support each other's choices. As for feminism, I am thankful for all those women who fought for the vote, for equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, etc. Even during my working life things have come a long way.

Yes and I think your friend was offering input on a situation that she couldn't possibly judge. If she had been in the same workplace then the view might have had validity but as an outsider she couldnt possibly have known.

Doodledog I always take these things to heart, though, and the criticism has stayed with me, although it was years ago. This might be why I responded when I heard the same accusation today
I’m sure you’re right, that the memory of this incident a long time ago triggered your response yesterday.
But I suspect that had the incident at work happened yesterday, the older, wiser and more assertive you would have responded to your friend’s criticism in a rather more robust way and not taken it personally

Galaxy

For me it wouldnt be about being obliged to be supportive of a woman because she is a woman, it would be more that was it seen as ambition in a man is often seen as something else in a woman. I am not saying that's what happened in that case but I think it's something we need to be wary of.

I completely agree, but I can guarantee that this was not the case, and also that a man doing what she did would have been every bit as annoying to colleagues (who were of both sexes).

It was the fact that I didn't support her that was pulled up by my friend. I don't know how I could have done so, and I didn't think to ask whether she would have felt that I should also have supported a male colleague - I'm the mistress of hindsight .

We can support a persons right to say/ believe act etc
But we do not / should not support the possible ensuing behaviour If we do not agree with said behaviour.

For me it wouldnt be about being obliged to be supportive of a woman because she is a woman, it would be more that was it seen as ambition in a man is often seen as something else in a woman. I am not saying that's what happened in that case but I think it's something we need to be wary of.

I remember while ago, when a young woman joined our team at work. She was very sycophantic and quite ruthless in her ambition, and irritated a lot of people by behaving in that way.

I mentioned it to a friend, who didn't work where I did, and didn't know the woman concerned, and was told in no uncertain terms that I was letting the side down and should support her because she was a woman. I was quite taken aback, as I would have felt the same if she had been a man, and wasn't seeing her behaviour as 'out of order' because she was a woman.

As the older woman, I could have explained why she was getting so many people's backs up, but it wasn't my place to do that, and there wasn't an obvious way to do it without seeming patronising. I couldn't really support her anyway, as she was managed by someone else, I didn't know her well (so taking her to one side to tell her something awkward 'for her own good' would probably have gone down badly) and I couldn't see what else I was supposed to have done.

I always take these things to heart, though, and the criticism has stayed with me, although it was years ago. This might be why I responded when I heard the same accusation today. I just don't know how or why women should act as one big support group, even when people are being annoying (and she really was!), and wondered what the thinking behind it was.

TBH, it felt as though women couldn't win - we should not only put up with bad behaviour, but act as therapists to those who display it, just because we are women. That doesn't seem very feminist to me, and it happens a lot in one way or another. Women are supposed to be 'nice', and act as peacemakers or mentors, which is not always how we feel or what is necessarily the best thing for us (personally) to do.

Has anyone had similar experiences, and how did you deal with them?

Short answer, it depends on what the choices are. As others have already said.

I feel differently, regardless of intent.

However if others feel this is a topic worthy of discussion I'll do it and the OP the courtesy of not commenting further.

janeainsworth

I think your criticism of Doodledog is most unfair Nell and as for ‘the spirit of GN’, I think we’ve had quite enough of that, thank you.
I didn’t see the posts/spat you’re referring to but I think this thread has value in itself as a stand-alone topic for discussion.

I’ve thought of another definition of support besides the not-judging one.

It’s quite possible to support a person whilst not supporting their life-style choices. The support can take the form of helping them change from a poor choice to a better one.
A parent may have a drink or drug problem and may be helped to change by a counsellor or a therapist. That doesn’t mean that the therapist supports the lifestyle choice.

Thank you Jane. I am between Zoom calls just now, so must dash, but will return to this when I'm finished. I did not mean to cause offence.

Ooof! It is not a personal attack. This thread was a way of exploring the idea that women should always support other women, which did not, IMO, sit well with the original thread. If I hadn't felt that, I would have tried to explore it on there, but it would not have been appropriate.

I think that it is interesting as a general question, and brings up a lot of things about what feminism means to different people. There is talk of a 'sisterhood', and I'm interested to know what that means, too - should women always promote other women at work, for instance? Should we gravitate towards other women and support them in the sense of helping them to get on, even when we don't feel that they are necessarily the best person for the job?

Life choices, such as staying at home rather than working have been done to death, so I would really rather this thread didn't go over that yet again. That kept coming up on the other thread, even when people were saying that they were not criticising choices, but pointing out the consequences.

I'm more interested in the general principle of whether women should support one another regardless of whether or not we feel that they are doing the 'right thing', whatever that may be.

I think your criticism of Doodledog is most unfair Nell and as for ‘the spirit of GN’, I think we’ve had quite enough of that, thank you.
I didn’t see the posts/spat you’re referring to but I think this thread has value in itself as a stand-alone topic for discussion.

I’ve thought of another definition of support besides the not-judging one.

It’s quite possible to support a person whilst not supporting their life-style choices. The support can take the form of helping them change from a poor choice to a better one.
A parent may have a drink or drug problem and may be helped to change by a counsellor or a therapist. That doesn’t mean that the therapist supports the lifestyle choice.

Doodledog

NellG

of course I wouldn't support any action I disagreed with just because it was done by a woman. I do think we are too quick sometimes to disapprove of a lifestyle choice just because it doesn't fit with some feminist ideal.

Doodledog I think it was my comment that prompted your OP. I've quoted sodapop as I don't think I can put my view any better.

I keep missing posts whilst I am posting mine - sorry!

Yes, it was your comment, and I hope you agree that it was better taken off the original thread for reasons of sensitivity?

Perhaps you can clear up what you meant by 'support'?

I also agreed with sodapop, and replied to her above. Her post doesn't really sit with your idea that women should all approve of/support one another, regardless, though . I'm not sure how the two things fit together at all.

My comment on the other thread was in direct context to that particular thread - a woman asked a question, and asked not to be judged for asking it.

She was judged for her life choices quite harshly by several posters, who didn't answer her original query, nor fully read her OP.

So in the context of that particular woman in her particular situation, given that she was asking a specific question about tax, and not whether 'we' agreed with her life choices I decided to make the point that in that specific situation it behooved us as women to not sit in judgement.

Perhaps I would have been clearer had I said that I felt she shouldn't be condemned for her life choices, as I don't believe all women should be supported no matter what.

So, if you're looking for an argument today by starting threads about other people's comments and taking them out of context to fuel the fire you're barking up the wrong woman. I'll just report you. So, I don't agree that you should have started this thread at all, as in all honesty it feels like a personal attack and not an abstract discussion on the various feminist interpretations of mutual support.

So, would you like to explain your OP and convince me it isn't a personal comment on my posts? Because I'm fairly sure what you're doing here is 'not in the spirit' of GN.

This thread is not about those things, though .

It is about whether women should support the lifestyle choices of others, just because.

Interesting that the original aims of the suffrage movement -the first feminists are dismissed as old hat now by some. Especially given the poverty some people now experience.That poverty I would argue is entirely the result of a patriarchal society which condemns those at the bottom to never earn enough to cover the expenses of living.
As for the two pensions/one contribution argument it is actually a non-argument. Those who are affluent enough can actually buy their way into pension schemes regardless of if both are working or not. Those who do not contribute or have few contributions can qualify for pension credit which tops up inadequate pension provision. Nothing feminist about it.

trisher, the original point came from a discussion of pensions, yes - but as it was a tangential point on that thread, I took it to a separate one. It is not about suffragettes, or the fact that their aims have been overtaken by events - surely you aren't suggesting that because one group opens a debate they should dictate the agenda in perpetuity?

As for the childrearing 'debate' - I agree that it is old hat. What was being discussed, however, was not whether someone should stay at home, but whether one pension contribution per household should entitle two people to claim a pension.

However often this was stated, there were repeated accusations that 'people are criticising the choice to stay at home', which was not appropriate for that thread.

This one is about whether women should support one another's life choices regardless of what they are - not about stay at home parents - so please let's not rehash that one again?

Women staying at home to look after their children isn't and shouldn't be a feminist debate but I've been in situations where it has been.

The freedom to choose by some more hard line radical feminists didn't include a woman's choice to do just that.

NellG

^of course I wouldn't support any action I disagreed with just because it was done by a woman. I do think we are too quick sometimes to disapprove of a lifestyle choice just because it doesn't fit with some feminist ideal.^

Doodledog I think it was my comment that prompted your OP. I've quoted sodapop as I don't think I can put my view any better.

I keep missing posts whilst I am posting mine - sorry!

Yes, it was your comment, and I hope you agree that it was better taken off the original thread for reasons of sensitivity?

Perhaps you can clear up what you meant by 'support'?

I also agreed with sodapop, and replied to her above. Her post doesn't really sit with your idea that women should all approve of/support one another, regardless, though . I'm not sure how the two things fit together at all.

I think perhaps this has stemmed from the debate about someone staying home to raise children. I don't actually think this is a feminist debate. If the parents of children can afford for one of them to stay at home and provide childcare I don't see why either of them shouldn't. The idea that it should always be the mother is of course not feminist.
On a wider debate I may consider some people's views are not particularly in keeping with my own, but much like in politics there is room for differing views in feminism. I do think some political views conflict wildly with the original aims of the feminist movement (the suffragettes) who were not simply concerned with winning the vote for its own sake, but believed that women needed the vote, because men could not be trusted to look after the interests of the poor and children. They campaigned against sweated labour, fed poor school children and wanted "Equal wages for equal work". Sadly those aims have been lost through time and there are now women who should be classed with men for their lack of concern.

I'm not sure that feminism comes into it really - if 'support' simply means not condemning or judging other people, then that should apply to men's choices as well as women's.

I agree with this, jane. I stupidly missed the first quotation mark from my OP, so it may not be clear, but Women should always support the life choices of other women - end of is a direct quote that inspired this thread.

I don't really know what 'support' means in this context either. If it means 'approve of', then I can't agree with that, for the reasons you gave.

If it means 'not judging', and refers to things like lifestyle choices, I support everyone's right to choose how they live, so long as they can afford it - given the chance, I would like a lifestyle that includes a mansion on Lake Geneva, but sadly it's not an option .

I would apply both of those ways of thinking to both men and women, though, so like you am not sure why it should be just women who are expected to approve of the choices of other women - that seems rather a sexist outlook really.

of course I wouldn't support any action I disagreed with just because it was done by a woman. I do think we are too quick sometimes to disapprove of a lifestyle choice just because it doesn't fit with some feminist ideal.

Doodledog I think it was my comment that prompted your OP. I've quoted sodapop as I don't think I can put my view any better.

I think women are the harshest critics of other women.
I don't flatter myself that my support, or lack of, would or should make the slightest difference to how others choose to live.

I'm not really sure what 'feminist ideals' are, to be honest. I think I know what you're getting at, sodapop - the idea that women should want more from life than housework and looking pretty - but whereas I wouldn't want that sort of life I don't think that there is anything wrong with others wanting it, and I don't see it as a betrayal of 'the sisterhood', I think that if people opt for that lifestyle, they should fund it themselves, though, and not expect others to pay for them.

Similarly, if women really want to have cosmetic surgery, or wear make-up every day, that is up to them, and it doesn't make them more or less of a feminist.

To me, feminism is fairly straightforward. Women should be able to do whatever men can do, and should not have obstacles put in their way because of their sex, whether these obstacles are legal or societal.

Outside of that, there are personal choices, and different lifestyles, and so long as women are not being coerced into them by lack of opportunity or other people's expectations, then those choices are up to them.