I'm giving up.

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

Women should make a stand.

I predict that a lot of forms in the future will contain tick boxes such as

Men
Non Men
Other.

If there is no tick box titled Women, then we should make a point of drawing lines through all the options and physically adding/writing underneath

Woman (plus a tick)

They can try to tell us what to do, but that doesn't mean we have to listen.

Green Party!

Way to go ! You have successfully alienated most of your female voters and I would imagine also lots of future females voters. (sorry, non male voters)

I struggle with the whole biology argument because it seems to put women back in their place, in the home, raising children.

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.

I also wonder if women are rejecting feminism because in cases of divorce, they are better off with a man working full time and contributing more CM. We see on here when exes want to go part time or change career, it's seen as practically child neglect, at best not providing for a child.

From the court's point of view, 'fairness' doesn't come into the equation.

Goodness Vestal.. I hadn't really thought about that. I don't know what I think about it either - something screams that it's the children that are the most important, but you're right, there's also something screaming that I grew them in my own body and that should count for something.

On the topic of children and divorces, I think I haven't mentioned it yet in this thread but ... women and men are not the same, and to pretend that they are is to discriminate against women.

Biology means that a divorced man can easily have another two children with his new spouse. A woman cannot.

Is it really fair if a woman who is a good parent gets to have a family with children only half the time, but her ex-husband gets to have his patchwork family with new children there all the time, and older children there half the time? (And more likely than not, all childcare done by the new wife ...)

Of course, there are women who are unfit parents, and in those cases, the children's needs have to come first.

But to deny that women invest much, much more, biologically, in children than men do, is to discriminate against women. (And that's even without taking into account that many fathers do much less than 50% of childcare once the baby is born)

I see this as part of the pattern of the whole trans nonsense. Invisibling female biology, and than claiming that that's "equality".

Reminds me of that quote about poor people and rich people being likewise not allowed to beg and sleep under bridges. Treating different people the same is everything BUT fair.

It boggles my mind that women should think they should stand up for men in general...

(Trying to think back to my naive days to see if I've ever thought that ... )

I quite liked this Guardian article on the subject:

"The problem with this approach is that it leads to a great big pile of nothing. The suggestion that women should unthinkingly celebrate one another purely out of sisterly feeling is about as patronising as the idea that women shouldn’t trouble their brains with opinions. ... So maybe the easiest way to deal with the kinds of arguments raised by choice feminism is to end with this simple truth: while the ability to choose is feminist, that doesn’t mean the choice itself is."

sunshowercap

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

You absolute star!

It wasn't until I read your sentence above that all of the suspicions in my head about the redefining of gender and identity over the last ten years suddenly cleared.

This is what we are facing: the constant redefinition of identities used as a political tool to both confuse society, neutralise complaint, and advance a neo-liberal political and economic agenda.

I used to wonder why no-one from the radical traditions was pointing out that a lot of the redefining and classification of "identities" was actually coming from the establishment or state structures themselves.

I also used to wonder why very few females over the last few years seemingly noticed that "feminist meaning" was being produced, almost uncontested, by elite voices Sheryl Sandberg, for example in a manner that pushed the line that the problem was not structural, but, instead, the fault of women themselves for their inability to perform in a manner that was pushed as an "ungendered business culture", as though the inherent structures and cultures of "modern business" were not built upon centuries of patriarchy and patriarchial performance.

I am in my 40s now, and was a fairly stark feminist in my twenties, influenced heavily by the feminism of the 1970s. But at some point during the noughties, I began to notice that campus "feminism" was becoming obsessed with minutiae, with young women asking things like "can you wear lipstick and be a feminist?"

This campus "feminism" then developed a total obsession with "equalities", which is, I believe, how we have got to the point where the Green Party Women has self-designated itself as "non-men".

And campus feminism is important to watch as it feeds heavily into mainstream feminism because it tends to mould the minds and perceptions of the next generation of politically-active women.

Part of me suspects campus feminism developed its social justice/equalities line because it really didn't know where else to go. And it was also very convenient for young feminists to adopt this line because the aims of social justice and the pursuit of "equalities" tends to require legislation to enact, and legislation requires the state -- so instead of young feminists challenging the state's hold over social and cultural meaning , this line actually reinforced the state's authority and power in these areas.

But this is the problem with campus feminism: it is formulated in a climate where women are young, tend to be rather privileged at that time and place, and, now more than ever, are largely inexperienced in how the world really works.

I now work in HE, and the difference between young feminists and myself is astonishing. Young campus feminists appear to see feminism's goal as being the achievement of equalities, whereas I see feminism as a route to liberation from social, cultural and political constraints placed upon biological females.

And here, in a nutshell, is the faultline between old-school feminists and fourth-wavers who support the new politics of gender.

At some point these young women are going to realise that feminism was never about equalities per se, but about something far more radical, fundamental, and revolutionary: freedom. The tragedy is that, by that point, they will have become invisible middle-aged women that no-one listens to.

I've got a feeling the study was in Australia if it's the one I'm thinking of Jessica (if that's any help. I could be completely wrong and no help at all ).

I don't know if this man was abusive Buffy but you see it all over the relationships board, abusive men wanting 50/50 so they don't have to pay. Usually they fail to understand what that means and when they realise they back down. Or they farm out care to other women in their family. Because they don't actually want to care for their children. They just want control .

Damn, I should have saved that study. I'll try to find it, though I can't remember where I read it. There's so few that compare outcomes for children within different residency arrangements, other than consistently showing that a good relationship with the parents is best.

This has some interesting things to say about outcomes for children, though it isn't specifically looking at what the optimal time patterns are:
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Would%20legislation%20for%20shared%20parenting%20time%20help%20children)OXLAP%20FPB%207.pdf

I agree that in a perfect world having a true home with each parent is absolutely ideal bertrand, but IMO (though I'm trying to find the research to back it up) it isn't really practical to have two homes and expect a person (adult or child) to cope as well as they do with one 'main' home.

That being a women who chooses to embody the 'stereotype' by being a SAHM should be afforded the same appreciation and respect as those that defy it.

I've become more feminist since becoming a mother and a SAHM. I don't feel disrespected by other feminists. It's mostly only other women who will appreciate the sacrifices involved, and mostly only feminists who understand the inner conflict it can produce.

I've always thought that, if only it were financially possible, the best thing would ever for the children to have a house and for the parents to live in it for half the week each. 50:50 parenting but 100% residency.

If you're a moderate, conservative feminist, Olivia, can you please tell me who are your moderate feminist role models?

Just a note on 50/50 residency - this is increasingly being seen as detrimental for the children (there was a huge study in the news recently). There is evidence to suggest that children do far better if they have a single main home. I think the study concluded that 70/30 or 80/20 would be optimal for the child as retaining a close relationship with the NRP is also very beneficial. (I will include a bias alert - my sister and I had about 80/20 and it worked really well for us.)

It isn't at all surprising that most mothers end up as RP as it is usually women doing the majority of childcare so the status quo argument means mothers get residency. It might be what the women want in the case of divorce, but that doesn't mean men are being discriminated against. The argument is simple - if you want to be sure of residency in the case of divorce, then you need to do more than half of the childcare and parenting.

I think we've shown quite categorically, that feminism is far from unpopular right now, so the rest of your muddled post is probably also shite.

SAHM is tricky - yes it should be afforded the same respect, but when that theory collides with the real world, women who become SAHMs are putting themselves at great risk by depending on a partner.

Personally I felt it was too much of a risk, and outside of the actual baby bit I've always been working or freelancing, so that should the worst happen, I'll still be able to support myself and my kids.

Also it needs to be concerned with the problems all people face across the races, social classes and the genders

This brings me to those Cancer Research bastards, ignoring Heart disease.. how dare they.

I agree that feminism needs to address problems across races and classes, but not for all people and not for all genders (whatever that means these days) - Feminism is womens rights and liberation - it's for human females - women and girls, and we don't need to centre anyone else (they would benefit tangentially, but they are not the point of feminism)