Posted:
Originally posted by: Bhatakti_atma
Umm pata nahi. She doesn't blame Abdullah. She knows how he is plus she thinks depsite trying Abdullah didn't fall in love
i mean she will take revenge from sarwar
check your pm yaar
🏏IPL 2026: SRH vs DC, 31st Match, at Hyderabad 🏏
🏏IPL 2026: GT vs MI, 30th Match, at Ahmedabad
GUILT ON CASE 20.4
PATH TO TRUTH 21.4
Internet goes crazy after Anne Hathaway says InshaAllah
Celebrating Abhishek and Aishwarya’s anniversary
Akaksdeep Sehgal to play Ansh’s son
Anupamaa 19 - 20 Apr 2026 Written Update & Daily Discussions Thread
TV Serials, From Must-See to Missable Episodes: Where The Magic lost??
Rajshri Productions - Yeh Prem Mol Liya - 27 Nov 2026
Originally posted by: Bhatakti_atma
Umm pata nahi. She doesn't blame Abdullah. She knows how he is plus she thinks depsite trying Abdullah didn't fall in love
i mean she will take revenge from sarwar
check your pm yaar
I disagree with the bold. I studied feminism at uni and have always had a love/hate relationship with it. There are strands within feminism that abhor women who choose domestic life, they perpetuate the following:
1) Although these women claim they have chosen domestic life, this choice is down to patriarchal socialisation - so the women have no freewill vis-a-vis 'choice'.
2) These women are playing into and upholding patriarchy and are therefore 'part of the problem'.
These are legitimate takes within feminist discourse. So it's false to claim feminism unanimously upholds and appreciates women who choose domestic life.
In fact, with the onset of trans rights, feminism is becoming increasingly problematic as it chooses to uphold trans activists at the expense of women's rights.
Since you have studied feminism, you should also be aware that like many of the ideas it has also developed and come a long way. There was a huge difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism and between these and third wave or third world feminism. In this era of third wave feminism, feminism is about choice- the choice to be a housewife, the choice to apply bold makeup, the choice to study, etc.
What you have raised is an interesting point. such complications exist because it is an evolving concept. Women have been learning and revising their methods and ways and takes on things. Feminism doesn't say that only women have been socialised in a certain fashion. It says both men and women have been brought up in a way that makes them believe that this is how the world runs- men will perform the instrumental goal oriented roles and women will take on the affective responsibilities. Borrowing from Marxism, it says women operate under a kind of 'false consciousness'. And it is true. Socialization is for real. Without it, we wouldn't be what we are. Hence the emphasis on which school my child will go to, what kind of friends he will make there, which University he will choose,etc. Don't we say kaisi tarbiyat ki hai when someone does something wrong. So socialization has a place in our lives.
When since childhood you are told that you have to be a certain way- men don't cry, girls don't sit like that,etc- you begin to internalise it and see it as the 'normal'. And then you also propagate it. Both men and women thus become tools of extending this system.
It is a system that is exhausting and you are stuck in it. There is honestly no way out bcz it is so entrenched. But feminism also says that these women gradually learn to deal with these restrictions that this system puts on them by resisting them through micro resistance and how they also use the idea of patriarchal bargain that affords them certain levels of power, etc without actually granting them the freedom they yearn for .
Feminism is not exclusive. It includes within its folds everyone. It wants equality for all- men, women, queer people, etc. Also, a better phrase would be that feminism is becoming more inclusive after all. For a large part of our history, feminism was accused of not being inclusive enough. Like liberal feminism was attacked for completely boycotting the issues of the LGBT community. Radical feminism had its diverse stance on sex workers. So and so forth. So I would say feminism is reaching its true potentials and is being true to itself only now by including all the marginalized sections.
I am a sociologist and a feminist myself. I have read much diverse texts on feminism and I also write for a feminist magazine occassionally and for all my research it constitutes a major part.I know my feminist text, it's flaws, it's struggles and it's evolution. I can give you names of very many authors and texts that give due recognition to domestic work as carrying on its shoulder the capitalist structure or those vouching for its recognition and appreciation. Well for this argument even a basic Marxist text would suffice.
Also I would like to clarify I never said that feminism unanimously accepts the domestic life. I subscribe to choice feminism.
Also it doesn't ridicule this domestic life in general. It ridicules the system that makes it so.It recognises that it is a part and parcel of an inegalitarian system, which has to be changed so that women and men can choose to live a life of their liking.
Originally posted by: Bhatakti_atma
Since you have studied feminism, you should also be aware that like many of the ideas it has also developed and come a long way. There was a huge difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism and between these and third wave feminism. In this era of third wave feminism, feminism is about choice- the choice to be a housewife, the choice to apply bold makeup, the choice to study, etc.
What you have raised is an interesting point. such complications exist because it is an evolving concept. Women have been learning and revising their methods and ways and takes on things. Feminism doesn't say that only women have been socialised in a certain fashion. It says both men and women have been brought up in a way that makes them believe that this is how the world runs- men will perform the instrumental goal oriented roles and women will take on the affective responsibilities. Borrowing from Marxism, it says women operate under a kind of 'false consciousness'. And it is true. Socialization is for real. Without it, we wouldn't be what we are. Hence the emphasis on which school my child will go to, what kind of friends he will make there, which University he will choose,etc. Don't we say kaisi tarbiyat ki hai when someone does something wrong. So socialization has a place in our lives.
When since childhood you are told that you have to be a certain way- men don't cry, girls don't sit like that,etc- you begin to internalise it and see it as the 'normal'. And then you also propagate it. Both men and women thus become tools of extending this system.
It is a system that is exhausting and you are stuck in it. There is honestly no way out bcz it is so entrenched. But feminism also says that these women gradually learn to deal with these restrictions that this system puts on them by resisting them through micro resistance and how they also use the idea of patriarchal bargain that affords them certain levels of power, etc without actually granting them the freedom they yearn for .
Feminism is not exclusive. It includes within its folds everyone. It wants equality for all- men, women, queer people, etc. Also, a better phrase would be that feminism is becoming more inclusive after all. For a large part of our history, feminism was accused of not being inclusive enough. Like liberal feminism was attacked for completely boycotting the issues of the LGBT community. Radical feminism had its diverse stance on sex workers. So and so forth. So I would say feminism is reaching its true potentials and is being true to itself only now by including all the marginalized sections.
I am a sociologist and a feminist myself. I have read much diverse texts on feminism and I also write for a feminist magazine occassionally and for all my research it constitutes a major part.I know my feminist text, it's flaws, it's struggles and it's evolution. I can give you names of very many authors and texts that give due recognition to domestic work as carrying on its shoulder the capitalist structure or those vouching for its recognition and appreciation. Well for this argument even a basic Marxist text would suffice.
Also I would like to clarify I never said that feminism unanimously accepts the domestic life. I subscribe to choice feminism.
Also it doesn't ridicule this domestic life in general. It ridicules the system that makes it so.It recognises that it is a part and parcel of an inegalitarian system, which has to be changed so that women and men can choose to live a life of their liking.
First of all, yes, I know feminism isn't 'exclusive'. Most cultural movements do not stand alone; they intersect.
To be clear, my post was speaking to third/fourth wave feminism specifically (I'd argue we're still in the transitioning stage), which is evolving to discussions on 'choice' equality for all genders (including men), supporting the idea of gender being a spectrum / trans women being women, and intersectionality in general.
Fourth wave feminism does purport to be for free choice, irrespective of what that choice may be, which in theory is a positive development. The problem however is that this overarching goal is not unanimously supported by feminist commentary or the actions of feminist groups.
I think my post went completely over your head. I didn't say the concept of gender socialisation is false. This is a second wave critique put forward by Beauvoir, and I largely agree with it.
What I said was, within feminist theory there are arguments that women who claim they have 'chosen' a domestic life (i.e. to be a housewife) cannot be believed because they do not understand this choice is down to patriarchal socialisation. Hence they are not truly exercising freewill or do not truly have a choice.
The same argument is put forward about women who say they 'chose' to wear the hijab.
Whilst I agree, that generally women are socialised to be 'homemakers', and men are socialised to be 'breadwinners' I take issue with this being used to put women down when they say they have chosen to be house wives, or to wear a hijab. The suggestion that these women are simply too ignorant to realise they didn't really have any choice is crass, demeaning, and characterises women who choose a lifestyle that's difficult for mainstream feminism to swallow - as unintelligent.
And if this line of thinking is to be followed, why do we not tell women in the entertainment industry (especially in R n B), that their claims to feeling 'empowered' by displaying their sexuality is false. In actual fact they have internalised the male gaze, without which they cannot reach higher levels of success because the entertainment industry is largely patriarchal and run by men for men.
There is an unbalanced dichotomy here, which gives working women playing to the male gaze the benefit of choice but does not give women choosing domesticity or religion the same benefit.
These problems arise, because whilst feminism is now somewhat aspiring to intersectionality, it largely fails in this endeavour. It remains a predominately white led movement, and thus privileges white ideologies.
As for feminist support of the LGBTQIA+ movement, I have substantial concerns of how this is meted at the expense of women's rights - especially in relation to the trans movement. Again, there's no balance. And when women point this out - even feminist stalwarts like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia - they are de-platformed.
De-platforming is another issue; I won't get into it here...
Finally - I've studied feminism thoroughly (as well as Marxism, Socialism, Psychoanalysis), and have read widely across the movement (not limiting myself to white feminist polemics). Your assumption that our opinions and analysis not aligning means I need book recommendations is factitious.
ETA: I have no axe to grind here. I am a working woman, who does not live a domestic lifestyle, and does not wear the hijab. I was born and raised in the west (have never been to South Asia), as were my parents. So I'm not trying to critique feminism due to personal hangups. I'm critiquing the movement objectively, because these are very real problems.
Depending on where you're from our takes may differ. For instance in the west the trans movement is encroaching on women's spaces; and women who dare to speak out are being gagged, de-platformed, cancelled.
I disagree with the bold. I studied feminism at uni and have always had a love/hate relationship with it. There are strands within feminism that abhor women who choose domestic life, they perpetuate the following:
1) Although these women claim they have chosen domestic life, this choice is down to patriarchal socialisation - so the women have no freewill vis-a-vis 'choice'.
2) These women are playing into and upholding patriarchy and are therefore 'part of the problem'.
These are legitimate takes within feminist discourse. So it's false to claim feminism unanimously upholds and appreciates women who choose domestic life.
In fact, with the onset of trans rights, feminism is becoming increasingly problematic as it chooses to uphold trans activists at the expense of women's rights.
Can't agree more
First of all, yes, I know feminism isn't 'exclusive'. Most cultural movements do not stand alone; they intersect.
To be clear, my post was speaking to third/fourth wave feminism specifically (I'd argue we're still in the transitioning stage), which is evolving to discussions on 'choice' equality for all genders (including men), supporting the idea of gender being a spectrum / trans women being women, and intersectionality in general.
Fourth wave feminism does purport to be for free choice, irrespective of what that choice may be, which in theory is a positive development. The problem however is that this overarching goal is not unanimously supported by feminist commentary or the actions of feminist groups.
I think my post went completely over your head. I didn't say the concept of gender socialisation is false. This is a second wave critique put forward by Beauvoir, and I largely agree with it.
What I said was, within feminist theory there are arguments that women who claim they have 'chosen' a domestic life (i.e. to be a housewife) cannot be believed because they do not understand this choice is down to patriarchal socialisation. Hence they are not truly exercising freewill or do not truly have a choice.
The same argument is put forward about women who say they 'chose' to wear the hijab.
Whilst I agree, that generally women are socialised to be 'homemakers', and men are socialised to be 'breadwinners' I take issue with this being used to put women down when they say they have chosen to be house wives, or to wear a hijab. The suggestion that these women are simply too ignorant to realise they didn't really have any choice is crass, demeaning, and characterises women who choose a lifestyle that's difficult for mainstream feminism to swallow - as unintelligent.
And if this line of thinking is to be followed, why do we not tell women in the entertainment industry (especially in R n B), that their claims to feeling 'empowered' by displaying their sexuality is false. In actual fact they have internalised the male gaze, without which they cannot reach higher levels of success because the entertainment industry is largely patriarchal and run by men for men.
There is an unbalanced dichotomy here, which gives working women playing to the male gaze the benefit of choice but does not give women choosing domesticity or religion the same benefit.
These problems arise, because whilst feminism is now somewhat aspiring to intersectionality, it largely fails in this endeavour. It remains a predominately white led movement, and thus privileges white ideologies.
As for feminist support of the LGBTQIA+ movement, I have substantial concerns of how this is meted at the expense of women's rights - especially in relation to the trans movement. Again, there's no balance. And when women point this out - even feminist stalwarts like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia - they are de-platformed.
De-platforming is another issue; I won't get into it here...
Finally - I've studied feminism thoroughly (as well as Marxism, Socialism, Psychoanalysis), and have read widely across the movement (not limiting myself to white feminist polemics). Your assumption that our opinions and analysis not aligning means I need book recommendations is factitious.
ETA: I have no axe to grind here. I am a working woman, who does not live a domestic lifestyle, and does not wear the hijab. I was born and raised in the west (have never been to South Asia), as were my parents. So I'm not trying to critique feminism due to personal hangups. I'm critiquing the movement objectively, because these are very real problems.
Depending on where you're from our takes may differ. For instance in the west the trans movement is encroaching on women's spaces; and women who dare to speak out are being gagged, de-platformed, cancelled.
I agree that this argument is often put forth for both Hijabis and housewives and there is largely this belief that such women have no choice because of the patriarchal conditioning. All I am saying is that feminism has come a long way and it is no longer just the white, middle class, heterosexual dominated movement. Of course it is still not as accommodating as it is presented. Hence the segmentation and need for Black Feminism, Third World Feminism and so on and so forth.
I don't know what it is like in your country or your part of the world but for us here the focus is on intersectionality. Of course again there are roadblocks to it. India has a highly stratified social structure in terms of religion, caste, class, ethnicity,etc. So if the stance of the feminist discourse is not intersectional it is largely meaningless. In the present scenario when there have been blatant violent and brutal attacks on the Muslims, there has been much solidarity and sympathy expressed by these feminist groups and organizations and they have indeed made efforts to make sure a voice is given to the marginalized and they are included and made to feel equal.
My point of diversion is this gross generalization that most strands of feminism demean and devalue and in a way stigmatize the domestic labour women engage in. Intersectional feminism does not ridicule or blame these women. These new strands are vibrant and accepting and are hence called 'choice feminism'. Of course there can be an abyss between theory and practice but its evolving and in the right direction.
Agree with the unbalanced dichotomy point. Nonetheless, i still stick to my stance that like all movements and struggles and people are given chance to revise and better themselves, we should extend the same for Feminism. We should appreciate its advances while highlighting its lacunas. We don't have to demonize or discredit an entire movement that is struggling in this patriarchal, unequal setting.
When i said i can suggest you texts to prove my point, I in no way mean to say that you you don't have enough information or you haven't read enough. I wouldn't take offence if someone offers me suggestions in the academic world. Giving or taking suggestions is quite normal because there can always be stuff that people have not read. There is extensive literature available. Most people here must have read more than me. I am a student myself and learning. Anyway, learning new things has no link with studentship. One does not have to be mean when having a fruitful discussion. 'It went over your head' has a rude undertone. But you might not have meant it that way since it is difficult to judge tones over texts. Also, I never said that your argument states that gender socialization is false. My earlier post was not an attack. I don't do that. Idk if you felt that way. If so my apologies. When i was emphasizing on those socialization points I was actually agreeing with you.
Anyway you and I may not agree on certain points but having a good discussions is always enjoyable. Thanks for that. ❤️😃
Geet - Hui Sabse Parayee
