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

Feminism has many facets and means different things to different people.
I wouldn't support an action that I don't approve of by any woman. That is not my own personal idea of feminism.

EASY answer is no ,peoples choices are theirs to make but I dont need to either support or condemn them.Sometimes I do find them difficult to understand that doesn't mean they're wrong...just wrong for me .In the case of something I dont agree with I'd probably just ignore it...in the case of a friend having an affair I did even though I believed it was the wrong thing to do.It didn't affect my life and I had no idea what would happen in hers if I interfered .

If a woman's life choice is to steal and cheat, use violence and abuse the weak, then there is no reason why I should support her in it just because she is female. If she has chosen an occupation or lifestyle which would not suit me, but which is harming no-one, that is her business.

I dont feel the need to support all womens choices, I think however it's quite important to understand the system within which womens choices are made. I dont agree for example with many of Thatchers choices, I would however fight for her rights as a woman.
I think feminism is for all women not just the ones we agree with. Not sure if I have answered your question there.

What happened to standing on your own two feet ? I've been independent of both men and women in my life. This way, any mistakes made I only have myself to blame thus saving on unpleasantness throughout life.

For me feminism is and always has been as in your OP Doddedog "fighting to ensure ensure that women have the same chances as men, and are not discriminated against as a sex".

Like AGAA I wouldn't support something a woman chooses to do that I personally disapprove of, so no I don't think or see how everything that women do can be or expect to be supported by all women.

Smileless2012

For me feminism is and always has been as in your OP Doddedog "fighting to ensure ensure that women have the same chances as men, and are not discriminated against as a sex".

Like AGAA I wouldn't support something a woman chooses to do that I personally disapprove of, so no I don't think or see how everything that women do can be or expect to be supported by all women.

I agree with your last paragraph Smileless 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.

I also think that some are too quick to class others as second class feminists if they don't support everything their 'sisters' choose to do sodapop.

An interesting question Doodledog.
It seems to me that there's a spectrum of actions ranging from things that any moral person would condemn outright (child abuse or murder), through things that we personally might not do ourselves but wouldn't condemn or judge others for doing (eg adopting a vegan diet), to things that we wouldn't have qualms anyway about doing ourselves.

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.

So I think what I'm saying is that we shouldn't condone something because it's a woman's choice, if we wouldn't have condoned it if it had been a man's choice.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

This thread is not about those things, though .

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.