I'm giving up.

I do understand that men often feel disapproved of when they take up more of the childcare responsiblities.

BUT

How do they think I feel when I'm the only woman at networking events and meetings? How do they think I feel when it's assumed that I must be the one who takes the coats and makes the tea? How do they think I feel when sexist jokes are made at these events?

It is bloody isolating and depressing. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I say grow a pair and get with the program.

Just wanted to say that the Huff post linked by Scallops reads as very poorly researched fiction. The writer needs to do find out about family courts and the way they work rather than, seemingly, guessing - the telling signs are in the detail - very little of it rings true and is laughable in its attempt to deceive.

"The campaign should be encouraging cultural shifts of fathers being more involved right from birth."

What do you mean? If you mean a radical shakeup of working patterns then I agree with you. Otherwise, what's stopping men being more involved?

scallopsrgreat I wholeheartedly agree we should protect children from abusive parents like the father from your link or indeed this mother here: ^www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/mother-stamped-toddler-to-death-after-authorities-failed-to-spot/^

Believe me I am well aware both abhorrent men AND women can and do use their children to lash out at exes and as ever my sympathy lies with the children and innocent parent whichever gender they may be.

JessicasElephant I am both aware and agree with you. The gold standard for children with two homes is to grow up feeling they have access to either parent when they need them. The time is mostly immaterial (although obvs it has to be regular enough to not fade into the background). Saying that quantity and quality are not mutually exclusive one can have longer periods of high quality.

I am also a single father navigating this precise set of circumstances of shared care so perhaps it's a little too close to home for me to comment much more. Although I will say I oppose this popular men's rights push for 50/50. Rather than campaign for a change in law which broadly speaking putting the focus on a child's best interests is right where the focus should be. The campaign should be encouraging cultural shifts of fathers being more involved right from birth.

grimarse, I personally want men to act properly in the first place. A real father does far more than contribute sperm. As for the 'I contributed half the DNA so I have equal rights to the child' people, I want them to fuck off. I want the whole damn discussion changed from 'I have rights over this child' to 'I am responsible for this child'. Women who have borne the majority of the responsibility for a child, including from before birth, should be recognised.

That's exactly why I am of the opinion that if a woman sacrificed her health and her career for children, then she should get to keep them. If she wants to, obviously. If she'd rather have her ex-husband take over the remaining years of childcare, that's okay, too. But the fact that men have a right to babies to whom they only contributed sperm, is a huge injustice. There's enough mothers who want to get the hell away from the useless idiot with whom they had unprotected sex, but cannot because this useless idiot is a "father" in the eyes of society.

What exactly do you want from men, in terms of parental responsibility? To work or not to work? To parent, or to fuck off over the horizon? To be at the beck and call of the mother - 'show up when I want then disappear when I have had enough'? I really cannot see your point, unless it is that men are feckless idiots.

Sorry just realised my link went wrong: m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/9737350

I should add that I only mean in the case of good fathers. Not abusive ones, obviously.

I can't find that article, so I won't use it in my response, dervel, but the Nuffield foundation link I posted upthread clearly found that it is the quality of time spent with parents that matters far above and beyond physical time. I would never in a million years argue that a child shouldn't have a relationship with the father. And I believe the studies that consistently show that shared parenting is good. The problem is that shared parenting is not the same thing as 50/50 residency.

The pension stuff is really interesting. Especially because I never thought a government would act against older people, simply because older people are far more likely to vote. Why was I not at all surprised that it was older women that took the bigger hit?

So what about children's right not to have contact with abusive parents, Dervel? about this man [[http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/9737350]]? Why does what he want trump his children's wellbeing? Why are the dots refusing to be joined between abuse to partner and abuse to children?

It's that type of case which shows how the courts are stacked up against women and children. After all he bought the woman from CAFCASS lunch so he must be OK Was she Erin Pizzey I wonder

"No, I don't think feminism needs to look at itself. I think women need to look at patriarchy."

The real issue here is looking at feminism as if it is some political party, that needs to pander to the masses and make itself popular if it is to get (popularity) votes. This is totally the wrong way to look at it, and typical of those trying to derail feminism.

After all, feminism comes from the realisation that women have been systematically oppressed by a male dominated system since forever. Then there is only really one question to answer do you want this to change, or are you happy trying to make the best you can out of how things are at the moment. In effect, are you a feminist of some sort (since there is a lot of room for different opinions on what we should do in order to try and change things), or not? Obviously, it's to the advantage of those who benefit from this situation if more women make the second choice that there isn't a problem with the position of women relative to men. That isn't the fault of arguments within feminism, or different approaches to feminism! So altering those, having a more palatable brand of feminism isn't any good, if what you are actually dealing with a total denial!

It's would be like having various different christian sects, in a meaningless attempt to encourage atheists to believe in god! It ain't gonna work, when they don't believe the basic underlying premise (god exists). Similarly, you just won't convert anyone to feminism, however palatable your approach, if they just don't believe there is a problem with how women are treated in society in the first place, or that even if there is, this is normal and natural and unchangable (the 'gender' style argument in effect!).

Just read the blog on the woman who didn't get her pension at 60 and don't quite see the feminist point here. Is there any valid reason why women would have to retire earlier than men? Otherwise the blog is a very sad story reflection on the benefits system and how it affects everyone.

They've been sold a pig in a poke - neoliberal identity politics.

Yes!

The radical feminists always knew that legislation (equal pay act, getting the vote, making rape in marriage a crime, lesbian marriage), was only the start of the process. The liberal feminists seemed to think it was the end (you've got equal rights under the law now so what's the problem? O, it must be me!). So the only logical extension of that position was looking for more and other 'minorities' to legislate for. Hence the whole trans shebang.

But even more than that and the jenduh nonsense, what really grates is the ageism -- the idea that anyone over 30/40/50 (delete where appropriate) knows nothing, is useless and old-fashioned and out of touch and on the wrong side of history, not worth listening to, old, ugly, forgotten and forgettable. The worship of the young and the new, the novel and the latest fad.

A child has a right to a relationship to both parents, and have better life outcomes if that's what they get.

I really like werks post from upthread. I'm chewing on it for a while, but it's set me off thinking in some new directions - thanks!

One of the reasons I lean to the more radical side of feminism is that we are expected to work within structures that are inherently set up for men.

Indeed.
I understand why many women lean more towards the liberal side - working within existing structures seems so much easier at first glance.

It's just that while you can easily work inside the structures, achieving change is a very different thing.

"From the court's point of view, 'fairness' doesn't come into the equation." Of course courts aren't interested in fairness. They are designed by and for men. Fairness to women doesn't come in to it. That's why until relatively recently men got to decide who their children lived with or could rape their wives (In fact tbh men are still doing both those - they just dress it up in other language).

One of the reasons I lean to the more radical side of feminism is that we are expected to work within structures that are inherently set up for men. The court process is adversarial, yet women are taught to be conciliatory from an early age. It is always going to be difficult for women.

It's as if only women are interested in having children!

In fact, men are much more keen on having children according to recent research. Obviously, they do not have to think about how it might affect their careers, or their bodies, or endanger their lives ...

That's exactly why I am of the opinion that if a woman sacrificed her health and her career for children, then she should get to keep them. If she wants to, obviously. If she'd rather have her ex-husband take over the remaining years of childcare, that's okay, too.

But the fact that men have a right to babies to whom they only contributed sperm, is a huge injustice. There's enough mothers who want to get the hell away from the useless idiot with whom they had unprotected sex, but cannot because this useless idiot is a "father" in the eyes of society.

It's not much better then the days when children were considered the father's property.

Why should I be expected to sacrifice a career if I choose not to, because of biology. It feeds into the inequality in the workplace- I'm female, so why should I be promoted/given equal pay because my biology means I'll have children and be more invested than a male would.

Huh?

Women are the ones who give birth regardless of what people say.

If you want children with a man, you will have to give birth to them, because men can't do it. And this sacrifice of your health should be acknowledged by society, shouldn't it?

I don't say a woman should have to be the primary carer for her children after divorce - just that it is her choice.

It does not logically follow from the fact that you can give birth that you should do so. There is therefore no need to deny that fact.

Sweeping biology under the carpet will not make employers forget that you can get pregnant, believe me. The only ones who are deceived by the transideology are women.
Maybe you believe that, just because you are re-classified as non-man, that you are not discriminated against on the grounds of your sex - but you still are. The only difference is that you can't do anything against it, as employers can claim that they will happily hire non-men ... and just hire a transwoman, who conveniently cannot get pregnant. Which they know.

interested in!!