I'm giving up.

Maddy, and nor should it.

Women's unpaid work is what makes this and every other country function. What you are doing is vital. That it isn't recognised as such by the powers that be is definitely a feminist thing.

Vestal, I don't think that's a reasonable assessment. I'm happy to pay for education, health, welfare. I only get 25% off council tax though there's only one person using facilities in my household.

People choose to have children. Some of the cost has to come from the parents, isn't that fair? If you think parents shouldn't foot any of the childcare bill, Isn't what I save the state enough to get me out of subsidising completely free child care?

historical inaccuracies with it

should read "historical inaccuracies within it"

Sorry.

i am also opressed into a patriarchal model of womanhood... my child is disabled, there was NEVER any question of DH staying at home to look after him.. its my job.. he wouldn't even know where to start.

Its all very well saying Feminism allowed me to make that choice.. but what choice was there? How many people will willingly care for the complex needs of an autistic child?

The fact that caring for disabled children being a female role has forced my hand in this (not unwillingly i should add, he's my child) doesn't prevent me from using my stance as a Feminist to still fight for my rights, or from teaching both my children that dad working and me being at home doesn't devalue my place, or that my DD can always make her own choices without her sex being an obstacle, or that women have the right not to be treated at less than men.

Women's studies?

So American then?

Interesting paragraph though. I'm not sure where to start with the historical inaccuracies with it, but interesting nonetheless.

Feminists over at a certain forum who have taken womens studies.

"You argued that historically women were not chattel? On what basis?"

They argued women were "kept down" as chattel due to historical misogyny.
I pointed out that:
These were eras of high infant mortality (driving the need to protect the limiting factor in population size (eggs/women), no socialism (almost no support for single mothers) , low wages all around, low technology therefore prioritization of male driven manual labour, opportunities for women of higher class to receive education (even in medieval times) and almost no opportunities for men of lower classes to receive education. I found evidence that single women could own businesses, and of course the fact that there have been historical queens, very popular ones in fact (Elizabeth I for example) in cultures feminist history deems overtly patriarchal. I argue that for the vast majority of the population, men and women of equal class lead relatively similar lives. Women and men of the lower class = field and farm work with women keeping home and men doing somewhat more manual labour and the obligation going to war. (It is an obligation, not a privilege to get yourself killed on a battlefield). Of the higher classes, women enjoyed the finer things of life, optional education, and were highly taken care of. I argue that lines of oppression were historically about class, not misogyny.

But they disagreed very strongly. They were like NO NO, WOMEN were chattel, because of SEXISM and MISOGYNY. Then they called me a troll and banned me for even arguing otherwise. Feminism is seen by many as having trouble with disagreement with it's core principles. You can even see that at universities no platforming even celebrated feminists like Germaine Greer

There have been two documented instances of matriarchy historically in major civillizations. The Babylonians, and the Late Roman Empire, (and technically the western world is turning that corner). Both of which fell, because the reason why matriarchy hasn't worked so far, is that men tend to "check out" of responsibility when society declares they aren't necessary and prioritizes female interests. Women on the other hand, being fully independent, under a matriarchy, de-prioritize marriage and family. (in fact lots of feminists argue such things are tools of patriarchy) We're beginning to see that now in fact. A matriarchy that can solve the problem of the marriage decline and loss of family units would be a powerful civillization, but as none as of yet have, it becomes vulnerable to being invaded by an aggressive patriarchy. (as what happened to the Babylonians and Romans).

Things like..reality... tend to be missing from utoptian feminist discussions of matriarchy.

Which issues do men have that are not caused by living in a state of patriarchy?

Mainly the issue of not being privileged enough.

Men who say they are not feminists but for "equality" often mean that they want to eradicate everything that was established to protect women from male violence and oppression. "Equality" to them means to enjoy all the advantages of patriarchy, but no negative side-effects at all.

They don't want a ship's captain to say "Women and children first", because they want to trample down people who are smaller and weaker than they, and get to the lifeboats first.

They complain about International Women's Day because it is one day in the year that isn't all about men.

They complain about women-only spaces because they feel that the whole world should be a male space.

They complain that sometimes, women don't trust men, because rape culture shouldn't even mildly inconvenience men.

In short, they believe that everyone should be equal, but men should be more equal.

Good for you Ovaries. I was careful though to say NAWALT. I should explain perhaps. To me 40 or 50s is a young woman . It's all relative…...

Sorry, but it grates more than a little bit to see a rant about young women in feminism.

I know many women in their 40s and 50s who refuse the term "feminist", who call other women "feminazis" and so on, who claim that we have all the rights we need (or worse, claim we should return to "the good old days when men were men").

Equally I know many young radfems (and I consider myself one of them, if 21 is still young these days) fighting tirelessly to reclaim the name of feminism, to wear it as a badge of honour and to fight the issues we're facing right now - the rape culture on university campuses; uniform codes in schools being used to punish girls and excuse male teachers and students who can't go an hour without finding a pubescent girl sexually scintillating; the still-prevalent expectation that we'll get married and stay at home to raise the children while our husband works - in addition to the idea that there's anything wrong with choosing to be a stay at home parent.

We're fighting. And it doesn't matter if you "can't hack fighting for young women anymore", because we're going to keep on fighting. Just because a number of young women these days don't embrace feminism, it doesn't mean they don't deserve to have their rights defended.

lorelei .the world Aunt describes, so child centred and school centred, puts me off

Well, it's only a thought experiment of a society skewed the other way as opposed to patriarchy. Although since becoming a mother, I have really been given a first-hand view of how life becomes dominated by kids so maybe that's why it came off the top of my head :)

I'm bloody opressed by men (generic), in that society has pretty much forced me into a traditional female role wrt childcare.

I have degrees, am educated, and should have a value in the workplace. Having had children, one or both parents needed to reduce working hours to fit around school. Dh, in the male environs of the building trade, can't, it just isn't done in his field. It's either full time or nothing. So it falls to me, in academia where things are more progressive flexible, to reduce hours.

So i take on the bulk of the childcare, housework etc, with my job now seen as "oh that's nice, some adult time", and dh as the big strong man working hard to provide.

I don't think it's justified to not contribute towards early years childcare and education more generally even if you do intend to live entirely independently as a hermit attached to some kind of religious order.

I don't intend to go out in a boat. I accept that we still all have to pay for the upkeep of lighthouses.

Annoyingkid, I know that many people are more comfortable identifying as egalitarian than feminist, but I do feel the reasons behind that are somewhat misguided.

Which issues do men have that are not caused by living in a state of patriarchy?

I believe in flexible working for many reasons but free childcare just means the childfree are subsidising it.'

But people who have children are the reason why you will be cared for in your old age?
Even if you save money instead of getting insurance, you will still need young people you can pay to do the hard work for you.
(Unless you plan to commit suicide on the day you can't work full-time anymore, in which case you are totally justified not to want to pay for childcare with your taxes. But that's not a very common approach.)

/ offtopic

"I've read that bit a few times, and I can't make head or tail of it. Are you saying that women raise children to perpetuate the patriarchy? And thus women make it? So it can't be sexist? (I'm reaching here). Because you're not wrong, exactly with the first part of that, but you're not right either, and the second part is just plain wrong."

According to feminist theory, women raise children to perpetuate the patriarchy because of internalized misogyny.

We're debating if it's easy to oppress women, not if it's still sexist if women perpetuate it.

BuffyReasonableFeminist said:
"Annoyingkid your posts are somewhat inconsistent. You think patriarchy is how things naturally shake down. But also that women aren't oppressed by men?"

I said "according to womens studies", not according to me. I in fact argued against the idea that women were historically chattel, only to be vociferously argued against by feminists who insisted that it WAS SO.

As for women not being oppressed by men, I never said that and it speaks to a misunderstanding on your part on why women aren't identifying as feminist.

These women are identifying as egalitarian, because they don't believe women of the west are oppressed to the point of requiring a movement specifically for womens interests that says mens issues are solved by more and more focus on womens issues.

Nah, just had an incident in school today when I should have stood up to the deputy head and didn't. Not your fault at all!

Though I would like to point out that schools are part of the problem though. Sexism isn't challenged in the same way racism is, there's the ongoing 'boys will be boys' attitude, disproportionate numbers of men in senior roles, and such a nervousness about mentioning sex to teenagers that we are failing miserably to teach properly about consent. Because "it could be seen as encouraging teenagers to have sex". That particular quote got a literal eye-roll from me (hence not standing up to deputy head - still need her backing on my consent teaching plan).

So I suspect many young people leave school not really even recognising that sexism exists. And many young women (like me) get their real sex ed from peers, so don't have a good idea about their own sexual rights.

Oh slug sorry I do mean #everydaysexism

Sorry, this is why I feel I have to know loads of stuff in order to have an opinion....eek, sorry....