I'm giving up.

"The interests of women need to combine with men's rights"

How about we say men's responsibilities, rather than rights?

"The interests of women need to combine with men's rights"

Interesting. Whst are men's rights?

Incidentally, I think you have misinterpreted the comments on SAHMs- but I wasn't involved in that bit of the discussion, so I'll leave clarification to those who were.

I appreciate you asking and its nice to get a polite response/question. I think feminism has to appeal to its hard-line, radical wing, and its more conservative, moderate one. So it needs to be inclusive of both these POV's in its emphasis and goals. Also it needs to be concerned with the problems all people face across the races, social classes and the genders. As I said earlier, the radical and the moderate pov's need to be given equal voice and appreciation. Its my view that it isn't.. I'm not blaming the 'hard liners' here, if anything I blame my fellow moderate, conservative feminists, for not speaking up more. But I think that's the nature of mild-mannered moderates, they dont really like confrontation, argument and subjecting themselves to insults and rude comments. For proof see the responses muskateer got earlier for making what I felt was a perfectly reasonable point. 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. We were told to clear off and find another thread. I was called a Troll, a female impersonator, etc etc. Whilst this didn't bother me , muskateer felt compelled to come back and apologise to the very same bullies who said this to her and she hasn't (on this thread) been seen since. Maybe she's just too busy I dunno!

Feminism it seems to me has to operate in a way that includes everyone or its doomed to end up being nothing but a talking shop for a few eccentrics. I think that young women especially, need to reclaim it from the far more radical, grievance-led voices that seem to dominate it, and bring about some balance.

So feminism is unpopular? Blame the media cos they're all men anyway, (mainstream and social), blame complacency among your fellow woman, who isn't as well read a we are. Blame "The Patriarchy. Oh and you're a Troll for mentioning it. You see most women look at this and turn away with a shudder because they just dont identify with it..

The interests of women need to combine with men's rights IMO, to create a movement that seeks to make everyone, women and men, equal,. A movement that shuns conspiracy theories and rejects this divisive notion that we' are more oppressed than you. 'Egalitarian' or 'humanist' I dont know what it should be called. But I think when that happens, it will have a real enemy to fight. It's going to be difficult to have a movement that represents all of us and I dont know how it'll be done.

Apologies, ignore my comment about no fault divorce. That's not what Faludi concluded at all! It is better for women that fault based divorce but divorce generally works out economically worse for women than men regardless. A number of factors contribute to this including child support payments (or more importantly lack of) from ex partners.

"But if it doesn't reform it will continue to spiral towards irrelevancy and that saddens me."

So how do you think feminism should reform?

Just going back to no fault divorce. This generally disadvantages women. Backlash by Susan Faludi is good on this. In fact it's excellent on many of the topics discussed on this thread, probably because backlash is what we are talking about. Women make in roads and then men reassert themselves.

There seems to be an assumption that so many women reject feminism. But I think there is plenty of evidence that feminism is going through an upsurge at the moment. There are young feminist organisations, social media has a wealth of feminist discussion and argument (not always a bad thing). To paraphrase another wonderful FWR regular "their feminism may not be my feminism" but starting to recognise structural inequality can only be a good thing.

I should have read my post back Cote, much shame!! Seems to have gotten to you that, but cant be helped. I'm at work and flipping hell if this isn't time consuming??? Yes at work, at a job that used to be 100% male dominated. And I'm still here!!! (Snuck in while the "Patriarchy" were having a snooze).. Hear that? I'M STILL HERE YOU BASTARDS!!! Shakes fist at patriarchy!

DP and I both work full time.

There's a primary carer, and it's me (and this is very common - in the majority of relationships I am privy to any information about)

I'm the one who knows where they have to be when, who goes to sportsdays, who takes the time out if kids sick, who's freelancing so I can be at home for 5pm every day. If I didn't make him, DP would not do the bedtime routine (and I still remind him what time to do it). I keep an eye on their toenails, the state of their clothes, which toys are their favourites.

So I would likely get residency, and I should have residency, because DP could do any of the above things and chooses not to.

Perhaps that's not the case with your DP, but I feel that he would be the exception then.

The Courts start with no presumption as to which sex of parent is to get residence. It'd always determined by whats best for the child. In my experience, its generally the father that leaves the home. Its generally better for the child to stay in the home they've known, live in the same neighbourhood, same friends, same school - so its generally the woman that gets residence.

*In fact, I don't believe what I said is even true - I actually believe that they start from 50/50 residency these days, and you away from there.

Woman as default is absolutely not the case (or not because she's a woman, it's because she's always been primary carer)*

They do start at 50/50, but with only one house, it's often not possible unless the money is there for two appropriate properties.

With both parents working full time, there was no primary carer. Dh was told by his solicitor than in such cases the decision always went with the mother. He was told by the court that as a man he was expected to be able to start again financially. A woman is seen as having less earning potential due to having kids.

In fact, I don't believe what I said is even true - I actually believe that they start from 50/50 residency these days, and you away from there.

Woman as default is absolutely not the case (or not because she's a woman, it's because she's always been primary carer)

"The world of work is most definitely set up to suit people with no family responsibilities"

This is a very serious issue and obviously affects women more and, dare I say it, children.

I have lived in Mexico nearly all my adult life. There used to be a lot more equality for professional women here than in the Uk. But I went away for ten years and when I returned I found that women in companies had mostly been reduced to working as secretaries, as only secretaries were allowed to work 9-5, everyone else has to work until 8 pm.

As I said upthread- many mens jobs, especially those in traditional sectors like manual labour, haven't really progressed. DH would like work family friendly hours, so we can both have equal roles in and out of the home. But his job doesn't allow it, so it falls to me, in a less male working environment which is more open to such things.

Then he needs to fight for it - Men can fight for these things too, just as women fought to be let into the men's world of work, men can fight to be let out of it! His job could allow it if it wanted, if there was a will - but most men I talk to (including DP) actually relish being out of the house at work (as do I) and don't want to be at home with the kids. That's not my problem (well, DP is) as a feminist, that's their problem, but we get to bear the brunt of the fallout.

Dh tried to be RP for his children from his first marriage, but the mother is the default. Unless she's unfit or relinquishes care, a man will always be NRP in a split.

No. Status Quo is the default. If the woman was at home looking after the kids, the woman stays looking after the kids. If your DP had gone part time and looked after the kids 50%, he'd have been able to have the kids 50%. If he'd been the one to give up his job and stay at home full time, then he would have been the RP.

Spinning that as the woman's fault/a judicial system policy, when actually it's that the man hasn't taken full responsibility for his own children before now is so common.

Maybe roll on universal basic income, then people are free to put as much or as little effort into careers as they wish. It also changes the landscape couples make around childcare.

In reality, for a lot of women, this means they get to hold down careers, while also being expected to look after home and children.

But it is a choice now. While before, women had hardly any choice but to prostitute themselves for a living (remember that marital rape was legal), you can choose to be a single woman. Living in her own space instead of helping her sister-in-law look after the nieces and nephews.

You can also choose to be a stay at home mom, if you so desire. You will then be almost in the exact same positions as our ancestors were, but you can do it. So I don't get why young women blame feminism.

Also, isn't the family unfriendliness of traditional male job sectors exactly a reason why we need feminism?

Let's not kid ourselves, most men don't want an equal right to stay at home and earn less money. If they wanted, they'd have fought for it. But they are pretty comfy with their housewives who also bring home money. Not all of them, but, apparently, most.
Women are not the only adults capable of looking at the situation and making decisions to change it - or not to change it. Men could do that, too.

This is not about men's equality, this is about forcing employers to treat female and male employees the same, and also about forcing employers in traditional male fields to not discriminate against women (which is what they do by keeping their family unfriendly work hours.)

If some men benefit because they actually want to share childcare, then that's nice, but that's not actually the point. I don't care if every single man in traditionally male-dominated jobs hates the fact that his female colleagues can work shorter hours without being totally screwed over. Or if he hates that he has to go home so early because everyone does. It is still something worth fighting for.

I was one of those young people (when I was young!) who were fortunate enough to have benefited from the fight of the older generation, so much so that I never even have to think about it!

But as you get older and, dare I say, wiser, you realise that the fight is not over.

And it's thanks to OP and all the wise posters on these boards that I have more understanding of the challenges faced by women (even by those who don't think they need feminism - patriarchy don't give a shit about that!)

And especially to OP.

Do you think part of the reason for the current disinterest in feminism is that while women roles have changed, mens haven't?

So look at what feminism gets young people. The right to be educated, have choices, be treated as equals. All good.

In reality, for a lot of women, this means they get to hold down careers, while also being expected to look after home and children.

As I said upthread- many mens jobs, especially those in traditional sectors like manual labour, haven't really progressed. DH would like work family friendly hours, so we can both have equal roles in and out of the home. But his job doesn't allow it, so it falls to me, in a less male working environment which is more open to such things.

Dh tried to be RP for his children from his first marriage, but the mother is the default. Unless she's unfit or relinquishes care, a man will always be NRP in a split.

So perhaps feminism needs to look at mens equality in traditionally female roles, in addition to fighting for women's rights for equality in male roles.

Which makes another point wrt to the young women of today. Many relationships break down, and mothers keep responsibility of the children. If the sexes were truly equal, and as many men kept responsibility as women, or we had true 50/50, there's probably many women don't want that. So perhaps they're going back to the idea of mens/womens roles being different as equality would mean fewer women getting sole or main responsibility for children..

Delurking to say that I agree that need for feminism becomes more obvious as you get older.

When I had my child, I came under pressure to return early from maternity leave at the 6 month mark. In the end I came back at 8 months as I was breastfeeding and couldn't come in earlier because it would have been difficult. I was then made to feel awkward for asking for part time hours and now that my daughter is older, I'm under pressure to go back to full time hours. The world of work is most definitely set up to suit people with no family responsibilities. I'm very close to handing in my notice and becoming self-employed even though that has financial implications. My husband is trying to be an equal partner in it all but is also under pressure to work long hours.

I'm very aware of how much better many of my opportunities were compared to my mum and grandmothers and I'm hugely grateful to earlier feminists.

I would assume ageism is one of the reasons why young women don't learn from earlier feminists.
Many young women want to distance themselves from older women, and only interact with their peer group.

I loved visiting my grandma and playing card games with her old friends, and I also read Germaine Greer as teenager. I didn't really manage to socialize with kids my own age.
This may not be a coincidence.

I've always been the sort of person who prefers to learn from other people's mistakes. It's a very rare way of thinking - most people seem to want to make their own mistakes.

A wise old tutor of mine (I had wonderful academic mothers!) said to us one in a lecture that "You only have the rights you can fight for" - the corollary seems to be that we have to keep fighting for them.

Unfortunately the situation of women in society has improved and then deteriorated again over history, or at least over the twentieth century.

I did some historical research into Irish women leaders in the 20th century and in 1916, for example, the Declaration of Independence treated men and women equally. Then when the vote came, the Irish elected the first woman member of parliament and then, shortly afterwards, a female Minister of Labour. However the 1935 Irish Constitution radically discriminated against women and by the 1950s, (the lowest point) women were being referred to as airheads in the media.

Unfortunately many people were taken in with the advances made since the 60s and thought they were set in stone. So it has been easy to denigrade feminism, while enjoying its achievements. However none of its achievements will be here to stay if we take our eyes off the ball.

On the point of the OP - I think that part of the problem is that women in particular are subject to a dreadful amount of ageism in a way that men aren't. Women with vast amounts of knowledge and experience are silenced so that younger generations have to learn everything for themselves and we get the situation described above where women reach their 30s and 40s and only then realise that feminism is important.

It cuts feminism off at the knees and I think we need to challenge the implicit ageism that does this which is difficult in a society that glorifies youth, particularly in women. One way to start would be to build networks that have a variety of ages and lifestyles so people don't just see the world through one lens but of course the main thing is to fight against the belief that women lose their value as they age. And, of course, for all the wonderful women on these boards to keep speaking up and refuse to go away which isn't always easy.