To think contraception has been a greater liberator to men than to women?

One of the less obvious downsides is that it's given men more opportunity to have sex and more means to pressure women for sex ('But why not, you won't get pregnant?'), which means they can get laid without commitment, so they can delay marriage age forever. This is not great if you are female and want a baby in a secure set-up before your fertility drops off a cliff, as a lot of the men in your cohort are essentially unavailable as potential fathers.

But a man who doesn't want commitment or marriage or children, or at least wants to delay them, isn't a great potential father for the women in his cohort anyway. I don't think it's a bad thing that those men can now live the life they want (or try to, anyway). Contraception frees women like me from having to become wives and mothers by default (while still enjoying sex), so... it's great that it does that for men too.

The kind of men who pressure women into sex aren't likely to be beneficiaries, really. They're not the sort of man I'd ever choose for casual sex.

Contraception has some obvious upsides for women, particularly for women who don't want DC at all.

One of the less obvious downsides is that it's given men more opportunity to have sex and more means to pressure women for sex ('But why not, you won't get pregnant?'), which means they can get laid without commitment, so they can delay marriage age forever. This is not great if you are female and want a baby in a secure set-up before your fertility drops off a cliff, as a lot of the men in your cohort are essentially unavailable as potential fathers.

It also provides men with far more excuses to opt out of having anything to do with any resultant baby ('She wasn't being careful enough... she could have had an abortion...she was trying to trap me...') and the women are left quite literally holding the baby.

As a pp says, Louise Perry explains all of this very clearly. It was on fact my DD who gave me her book: 'Mum! This is what I've been saying!'

And waiting to get married to have sex does?

As had been posted there is one (several) in development.
But even then, when it has come up on here, women (quite rightly) wouldn't trust a man to take it, and another prevailing view is that some women don't like that it takes away their control of fertility (but that is another thread).

You are free to not have hundreds of sexual partners, if you choose not to.

I've had hundreds of sexual partners thanks to the Pill and being single until I was nearly 50!

I never wanted children. Can you imagine how confined my life had been without the Pill?

Absolutely benefited women far far more than men

I'm pretty sure sex is natural 😂

Getting's story about her whiny male friend demonstrates very little about the effects of contraception on women's freedoms. It's a tired old tale of patriarchal entitlement, in which sex is a service provided to men by women. The superannuated twerp felt his girlfriend was short-changing him because she didn't have a good excuse!

I rather think she had an excellent reason not to shag him, and hope she moved swiftly on to a bloke who sees sex as mutual enjoyment, shared both ways.

There's a lot of truth in that story Sex became nearly compulsory, and maybe it still is. I remember it well. And don't get me started on 'Sex is natural' crap that was being tossed a round then!

@gannett I do understand that your career and sexuality are fundamental to your freedom and independence. I also believe women should never be financially dependent, and be able to provide for themselves in every way possible, whether single or in a relationship. I think that we were born into a system that was created by men, for men, although previous generations of women have fought to change it to better accommodate women. I don't know if a matriarchy or a co-operative matri/patriarchy would be any different, of course. I do think women are always trying to fit in or beat a system that was not originally designed for them.

True. But there has been a lot written about how the 60’s just saw men finding it easier to push women into sex.

its a psychological trick - social proof. ‘Everyone is doing it’ why not you?

of course women can set boundaries now, but it’s probably not due to contraception. Women’s lib is far wider than that.

and even then - look how many threads on here show lots of women have poor boundaries. While I wouldn’t want to live in a rigid society- it does at least make things black and white.

I think we are far better off as result of contraception btw! Thank god we have control over pregnancy, but I think we have to acknowledge that it wasn’t a silver bullet that killed the patriarchy

Men have always pushed women into sex and they weren't even seen as creepy for doing so in the past. It's not new and it's not because of contraception.

Women have more ability to actually set boundaries and push back if they don't want sex now.

Getting ahead in your career, sowing your wild oats, eschewing domestication seem to be a by-product of patriarchal values such as competitiveness, domination and ruthlessness. Such values are useful in war or in bringing order to hierarchical systems such as patriarchy.

I don't see it quite like that. To me - and one of the reasons I rejected a "home and hearth" traditional feminine life - domesticity within the nuclear family encapsulated a patriarchal, hierarchical system. Maybe it's because I spent my childhood fighting a man who thought he was the head of the household. But what my career and my sexuality mean to me is independence. They're liberation to me because they give me freedom - they are freedom, as much freedom as I can muster in late capitalism, to be and do what the fuck I want.

Unfortunately, even the choices of when and if to have children are partially dictated by your financial position and your relationships with men, areas which could be said to be under patriarchal control.

That's the crux of this thread isn't it? Not just children but having a heterosexual relationship at all. You depend on a man for that. Having sex with men, casual or otherwise; being their girlfriend or wife - all that entails doing what men want. There isn't much getting around that except to ensure it's also what you want, and to remember the men you choose to have sex with or marry aren't actually stand-ins for the patriarchy, or men as a class.

I don’t think OP is being goady.

and it doesn’t mean feminism is bad for women.

but practically speaking, contraception has changed the way we look at sex. There have been unintended consequences. And it’s all to do with how misogynistic culture has interpreted it.

people are more relaxed about sex - on the face of it, great! But as boundaries became blurred, it also gave creepy men license to push young women into having sex.

@OneAmberFinch I personally think liberation is challenging in a patriarchal system. Getting ahead in your career, sowing your wild oats, eschewing domestication seem to be a by-product of patriarchal values such as competitiveness, domination and ruthlessness. Such values are useful in war or in bringing order to hierarchical systems such as patriarchy. On the other hand, it's the dominant system, and if women want any say in it at all they have to be able to choose when and if they have children, as @Garlicworth has said. Unfortunately, even the choices of when and if to have children are partially dictated by your financial position and your relationships with men, areas which could be said to be under patriarchal control.

Caring about ‘home and hearth’ if it comes at the cost of not being able to support yourself, isn’t just not a feminist decision, though, it’s a dangerous form of economic vulnerability women should be warned off.

And I don’t think we do know the choices women would make, if they were free of gendered socialisation that makes them think it’s ‘natural’ to stop working when they have children, or in a society where high-quality childcare is freely available. In societies where it is, far fewer women choose to exit the workforce.

I don't think I disagree with that, @Garlicworth - if I sound like "Aunt Lydia" it's out of a frustration that women's liberation is often seen as conditional on not becoming a mother, not wanting a committed monogamous relationship, not caring about home and hearth over career ambitions.

I think feminism that treats all those things as just "optional extras" that some women might randomly choose from a menu of many different options for entirely arbitrary and unpredictable reasons is a little empty. I don't want anyone to be forced to have kids (and I'm a breadwinner-career woman with condoms in my drawer) but like it or not, those choices above are the ones that most women do want to make, and ones that provide fulfilment to many women. If the default in society is strongly pushing women away from them, that should be interrogated.

Me, too (and I didn't have children). It is, however, ridiculous to imagine feminism can be separated from women's role in reproduction. Reproduction is the only reason we exist in two sexes. It underlies everything about men's oppression of women.

Every trope about women's fragility, stupidity, incompetence, etc comes from a male desire for control over the reproductive sex - Afghanistan provides a useful, if disgusting, live example of that.

Female control over our own fertility is THE most critical factor in women's liberation: if men can subject women to endless pregnancies and baby care, they can keep us out of public life.

When women have the right to choose if, when and how often to reproduce, we're able to take up space in the public (male) arena and argue for the rights of all women.

Feminism can't break the link between our sex and baby-making. What it can do is assert that women are not only baby-makers; we're fully functional, adult humans with a full range of capabilities as well.

It's dangerous to fetishise motherhood. Parenting can be a path to fulfilment for both sexes but, if the creation of children is elevated above other achievements, the birthing sex ends up in male captivity.

Sorry, I should say gender identity

I somewhat agree that there seems to be a trend in modern/liberal feminism to break the link between women and childbearing/rearing. Without wishing to derail the thread, or to cause offence, it is a fact that being a woman is now very much linked to gender and feeling, rather than the anatomical equipment (functional or otherwise), to bear a child.

Agreed.

I don’t particularly want to live a “female pattern” life because I don’t want to my life plan to be pre-determined by the fact I was born with a uterus.

Like I’d be some sort of failed female if I didn’t ‘rear’ a child - I don’t think so, it’s not 1965.

When did men stop raising their kids?

Children are both peoples choice, surely. If planned, they’re discussed and contraception stopped etc.

Not to anywhere near the same degree that women were, and many weren’t at all.

It’s on women to take responsibility for themselves. If a man isn’t ready a woman doesn’t have to wait and potentially sacrifice her fertility - she can choose to leave and pursue having a child either alone or with someone that’s on the same as her. A man isn’t unreasonable for not being ready and choosing not to have a child if he doesn’t want one at either a certain time or at all.

Before the pill, men who abandoned women they had impregnated were socially ostracised and santioned. I also think many women remain on hormonal contraception whilst being future faked by men who " aren't ready" as their fertility trickles away.