Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Feminism sold a lie - Women, today, are worse off than ever

888 replies

ConservativeC2 · 28/10/2025 20:58

Listening to the women I work with, it's been interesting to hear their views about feminism and they are not happy. We are all millennial age so not too young, not too old and I keep hearing that it's the millennial generation of women that have absolutely lost out the most.

I think feminism initially promoted some idea of independence, equality and choice. Phrases like 'men hold all the money and power' at the time were very emotive whilst not entirely true. The correct statement then (and still now) is some men hold all the money and power. Most men back in the 50s-70s worked very long hours and spent pretty much all their money on their family. It was hard for everyone, but I think women were more empowered then than now.

In contrast to today, most of the women my age have to work. Whilst feminism promotes choice, most of them do not actually have a choice today. Most men today do not earn enough to run a household which means most women have to work. The worst part is they still do a larger share of the domestic work and childcare. So I think women now have it worse than ever - it's not just me, my female colleagues feel the same way. They've come to point in life where they want to start a family but they know they will have to come back to work.

Now it's all to do with feminism. There are other factors which has driven up the cost of living (inflation, property prices, profit extraction from multinational corporates etc).

OP posts:
PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:38

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:33

Wed have loved to live in London, DH offered his dream job but sadly even on two salaries we couldn't do it. Life has some tough choices doesn't it.

It does indeed. We don’t live in London btw. Too expensive. We are outside. However for what we pay per month on our mortgage, we could be in a huge detached house up north. I am supporting my DH to work in the industry he wants to. I am ok with that as I want him to be happy, but it’s wishful thinking sometimes.

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:36

PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:24

Because they both co-exist.

Our current capitalist system relies on unpaid domestic labor, such as childcare, which is essential for the maintenance of the workforce but is often undervalued and disproportionately performed by women. No wonder women are burning out, and childcare is still unaffordable in the UK. Usually it’s women who have to reduce their hours to keep a home, and/or look after kids.
In addition to this, women also take on more caring responsibilities when it comes to ageing parents too. When you have both ageing parents and children, this is an added burden alongside having to work due to our economy (see sandwich generation).

The future for feminism should be anti-capitalist because under capitalism, women disproportionately suffer compared to our male counterparts - whose lives remain virtually unchanged following the birth of children or in the case of ageing parents, or moving in with their partners (as examples) because the bulk of unpaid labour falls onto women.

We really really need childcare to more affordable to help women maintain careers and that “choice.” Why can men progress in their careers and have children, while women still cannot for the large part. One way to address this could be affordable childcare… some countries do this well.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/government/2022/03/08/the-future-of-feminism-is-anti-capitalist/

I've got four adult children, all in relationships, all have children. All the men do their share, the two families with young children the dad's do nursery drop off and collection, do their share of cooking, washing etc. maybe what we need is women who don't have kids with men who don't do their share.

PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:36

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:15

Not quite the same thing. You also have to balance the cost of the house with what it was actually costing you monthly due to interest rates. How about the cost of living? Many many things were more expensive relative to wages, food was for example. Inflation was high.

Edited

Yes but inflation is much higher now compared to average salaries. University for you guys back then was pretty much free right? Great for feminism… that choice… look at it now… £9k+ a year. Women in stem jobs is lower than ever. Women are in debt from uni. Men overall still get paid more. Yes, we don’t all have to go to uni, but nice to have the choice and not be in so much debt.

I think progress for women has stalled… under capitalism mostly. Those are my views. We’ve definitely benefitted in many ways, but progress has now stalled.

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:33

PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:26

Would love to but sadly DH’s job is niche and based in London.

Wed have loved to live in London, DH offered his dream job but sadly even on two salaries we couldn't do it. Life has some tough choices doesn't it.

PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:26

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:20

Depends where you live, we aren't all in the SE. Also depends on the house, go and buy a two bed terrace in parts of the midlands or north, like I did, no fancy extensions, central heating or double glazing and you might be able to afford it on one salary, actually we couldn't do we both worked.

Would love to but sadly DH’s job is niche and based in London.

PeonyPatch · 31/10/2025 06:24

5128gap · 30/10/2025 22:39

I asked you yesterday if you could explain the link. Can you please, as I'm genuinely struggling to see it within the context of the discussion. In what way do you feel feminism has contributed to the unaffordablity of housing?

Because they both co-exist.

Our current capitalist system relies on unpaid domestic labor, such as childcare, which is essential for the maintenance of the workforce but is often undervalued and disproportionately performed by women. No wonder women are burning out, and childcare is still unaffordable in the UK. Usually it’s women who have to reduce their hours to keep a home, and/or look after kids.
In addition to this, women also take on more caring responsibilities when it comes to ageing parents too. When you have both ageing parents and children, this is an added burden alongside having to work due to our economy (see sandwich generation).

The future for feminism should be anti-capitalist because under capitalism, women disproportionately suffer compared to our male counterparts - whose lives remain virtually unchanged following the birth of children or in the case of ageing parents, or moving in with their partners (as examples) because the bulk of unpaid labour falls onto women.

We really really need childcare to more affordable to help women maintain careers and that “choice.” Why can men progress in their careers and have children, while women still cannot for the large part. One way to address this could be affordable childcare… some countries do this well.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/government/2022/03/08/the-future-of-feminism-is-anti-capitalist/

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:20

PeonyPatch · 30/10/2025 20:07

What the boomer generation fail to understand is that cost of house to salary now is disproportionately larger compared to back then… 🤦🏽‍♀️ It.is.not.the.same.

14% mortgage on a lower house price cost is not the same as what most of us face now. It is widely known how unaffordable houses are now. Salaries have NOT caught up.

Depends where you live, we aren't all in the SE. Also depends on the house, go and buy a two bed terrace in parts of the midlands or north, like I did, no fancy extensions, central heating or double glazing and you might be able to afford it on one salary, actually we couldn't do we both worked.

TheignT · 31/10/2025 06:15

PeonyPatch · 30/10/2025 20:03

relative to house prices at the time!!!

Not quite the same thing. You also have to balance the cost of the house with what it was actually costing you monthly due to interest rates. How about the cost of living? Many many things were more expensive relative to wages, food was for example. Inflation was high.

Goldenbear · 31/10/2025 01:55

Mrsnothingthanks · 30/10/2025 23:43

@Goldenbear I'm married. Neither of us made those vows and they're not legally binding. There are only actually very few words which are the legally binding part and which offically have to be declared.

Edited

Yes, you are right, there are only a couple (?) sentences that have to be stated for legal reasons. I think my point was in response to the poster who asked if you would give half of your income to your boyfriend. In our marriage it is family income and that is due to us being married, we wouldn't and didn't feel the same as boyfriend and girlfriend although tbh DH has always been a big gesture kind of man so indirectly did spend quite a bit on me to begin with. It wasn't expected though.

Mrsnothingthanks · 30/10/2025 23:43

@Goldenbear I'm married. Neither of us made those vows and they're not legally binding. There are only actually very few words which are the legally binding part and which offically have to be declared.

5128gap · 30/10/2025 22:39

PeonyPatch · 30/10/2025 20:22

I am obviously not aiming this at you specifically, however a very very large amount of elder generations fail to understand the economic disadvantage that younger generations face. And unless you have children and/or grandchildren, you’re not really exposed to it or understand.

I hear it time and time again - that old chestnut - well our interest rates were higher. Yes, but the average house prices were a lot lower in relation to average income.

Many of the boomer generation now have gained a lot of equity and made money on their houses in a short amount of time so they are in a position to help younger generations. My generation I think is the first, maybe x included, where we are worse off than our parents.

Sorry I feel I’m trailing off into economics again, but this isn’t separate to feminism I don’t think. They’re both linked.

Edited

I asked you yesterday if you could explain the link. Can you please, as I'm genuinely struggling to see it within the context of the discussion. In what way do you feel feminism has contributed to the unaffordablity of housing?

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 22:36

Mrsnothingthanks · 30/10/2025 22:20

@Goldenbear What's in the vows?

This, "to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to the law; and this is my solemn vow"

Legally binding words that are not bestowed upon a girlfriend and boyfriend.

shuggles · 30/10/2025 22:29

@Hohumdedum You can be a housewife without children. You cannot be a sahm without children.

That means SAHM is a sub-category of housewife... ...

Mrsnothingthanks · 30/10/2025 22:20

@Goldenbear What's in the vows?

Hohumdedum · 30/10/2025 21:54

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:46

... a SAHM is a housewife...

It isn't. You can be a housewife without children. You cannot be a sahm without children.

I'm a sahm. I view my job as looking after the kids 9-5 and outside of those times DH and I share the childcare and housework.

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:46

GagMeWithASpoon · 30/10/2025 21:35

You keep saying decades. That becomes a housewife , rather than a SAHM.

... a SAHM is a housewife...

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:45

@Hohumdedum No, because I'd want to be the one at home with the kids!

Obviously. Most people would choose to be a SAHP over their job.

We are living very comfortably and DH is not in the top 1% of earners. There's a huge difference between £37k and top 1%.

Yes, I know there is a huge difference between £37k and the top 1%. That was my point.

The vast majority of people earn something in the ball park of £37k. Hence why most people would not be willing to live with a SAHP.

I don't think many people define sahm like you though. After decades your kids would have left home. Maybe you'd be a housewife, but not a sahm.

I don't see how you can consider someone to be a SAHP in a temporary situation.

I think it's safe to say that most people would support their partner when needed.

By "SAHP," I mean a homemaker. Someone who focuses solely on domestic labour rather than trying to advance a job or career outside of the home. That's how the term is normally understood.

GagMeWithASpoon · 30/10/2025 21:35

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:12

A temporary situation then while he was training to advance his career...?

If DH wanted to be a SAHP for 20 years, and you earned an average salary, would you agree to that?

You keep saying decades. That becomes a housewife , rather than a SAHM.

Hohumdedum · 30/10/2025 21:31

shuggles · 30/10/2025 20:07

I'm saying that it's not possible for one person in the relationship to be a SAHP for a long time (decades) unless the other person is a top 1% earner (i.e. wealthy).

Trying to do it with an average or above-average salary would require a lot of frugality, and simply would not be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people. I would not accept it.

I always find it difficult to ensure I'm saving enough money. So how would it be possible for me to tolerate giving half of my income to another person?

If you were on an average salary (about £37k), would you be OK with a hypothetical husband or boyfriend being a SAHP?

No, because I'd want to be the one at home with the kids! But if it was a choice between DH being a sahd vs both working and sending the kids to nursery, I'd rather he was a sahd yes, at least until they started school. And it can be done on that salary because I know multiple couples who have managed it.

We are living very comfortably and DH is not in the top 1% of earners. There's a huge difference between £37k and top 1%.

And if I "gave" a sahd half my income to look after our children, I'd rather give it to him than to a nursery.

I don't think many people define sahm like you though. After decades your kids would have left home. Maybe you'd be a housewife, but not a sahm.

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 21:20

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:12

A temporary situation then while he was training to advance his career...?

If DH wanted to be a SAHP for 20 years, and you earned an average salary, would you agree to that?

No, not for 20 years but yes for when children are young.

shuggles · 30/10/2025 21:12

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 20:55

I think a husband I would as it's in the vows, not a boyfriend but I associate that with something more transient.

DH did do this, we are mid 40s but despite earning half of what I did his was the only income. He was still training to be an Architect so he needed to be in work for part three which you have to complete in a practice.

A temporary situation then while he was training to advance his career...?

If DH wanted to be a SAHP for 20 years, and you earned an average salary, would you agree to that?

PeonyPatch · 30/10/2025 21:02

pointythings · 30/10/2025 21:00

We're all aware of that. We're also aware that it hasn't happened because of feminism though.

Not sure how we got onto this now.

pointythings · 30/10/2025 21:00

PeonyPatch · 30/10/2025 20:07

What the boomer generation fail to understand is that cost of house to salary now is disproportionately larger compared to back then… 🤦🏽‍♀️ It.is.not.the.same.

14% mortgage on a lower house price cost is not the same as what most of us face now. It is widely known how unaffordable houses are now. Salaries have NOT caught up.

We're all aware of that. We're also aware that it hasn't happened because of feminism though.

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 20:55

shuggles · 30/10/2025 20:17

Well I did say "or," so that allowed the question to be answered without dodging it.

If you were on an average salary (approximately £37k), would you accept splitting half of your post tax income with a stay-at-home husband?

I think a husband I would as it's in the vows, not a boyfriend but I associate that with something more transient.

DH did do this, we are mid 40s but despite earning half of what I did his was the only income. He was still training to be an Architect so he needed to be in work for part three which you have to complete in a practice.

Midnights68 · 30/10/2025 20:54

JudgeBread · 28/10/2025 21:12

I had this conversation with my husband, having a moan before another 12 hour shift about how feminism failed women and I want it to be like the olden days where I could stay home. He gave me some bombastic side eye and said "you'd prefer it if I essentially owned you and you had absolutely no say about anything in your life?"

...and I went to work because he's right. Ok being forced into the choice of work or be skint kind of sucks, but at least I do actually have a choice, unlike my female ancestors.

Absolutely. It may be nice to imagine keeping house for a man who cherishes you and handles all the finances.

But the reality for many women for much for the 20th century was slaving away at work, being paid less than male colleagues (which was perfectly lawful) whilst being sexually harassed (which was perfectly lawful). Then coming home and handing over all your earnings (because you couldn’t open your own bank account) to a man who beat you (because you couldn’t get a court order to protect yourself from him) and raped you (which wasn’t illegal if you were married). Then pulling yourself together after all that to do all the cooking and housework, with no labour-saving devices like dishwashers or washing machines.

And let’s face it, even for those women who did live the 1950s stereotype, it certainly wasn’t a bed of roses for a lot of them - if you actually bother to seek out their stories.

Anyway, OP was saying how we have it worse in 2025?