I'm not convinced that feminism has helped the women it should have?

For some women it's so difficult to divorce and survive financially with kids that divorce might as well still be illegal.
So it's like we fought for the right to divorce ( I think Muslim women still can't? I might be wrong) but if divorcing means prostituting ourselves to get by then might as well just stay with him, till death do us part

it's agreed marriage to a poorer man is a complete waste of time

This doesn't sound like feminism to me. It sounds like the sort of thing entitled instagram "princesses" say.

Why should they compromise their own living standards (and subsequently that of their children when the kids are in their care) to financially support a woman they’re no longer married to?

This is why you'll find it's extraordinarily difficult for women with children to extricate themselves from miserable marriages. Women are still ending up utterly trapped, in 2019. Men have made it this way precisely because they won't pay for children and would happily see the mother of their kids destitute if he no longer has sexual access to her.

Feminists have tried to make some provisions for married women, so that they're not destitute or on the street corner if they want to divorce but it's very hard to get the law to help them, and it's very hard to get men to hand over their cash.

So what women like myself find out too late is that the provisions we thought we were getting upon marriage, disappear when it comes to divorce after all. But going in, I think a lot of women do it under the understanding that ex wives have rights. I was conned. And I think lots of other women are too

it's agreed marriage to a poorer man is a complete waste of time. You could end up having to sell your house to pay them off and your children's standard of living falling, then paying spousal maintainable with them paying a pittance in child support. Don't marry someone poorer than you. Even with feminism it's plain stupid weather it's 1945 or 2019.

What a load of offensive, unbridled twaddle. Nobody, man or woman, should marry because they might do well financially out of it. What you’re describing is what happens to a large proportion of men in divorce, so why on earth should they marry? Why should they compromise their own living standards (and subsequently that of their children when the kids are in their care) to financially support a woman they’re no longer married to? One thing feminism has done right is to promote the idea that women can look after themselves. To ‘marry up’ is basically to volunteer to be owned and kept. Everyone should strive for their own financial independence. I’m not a fan of marriage in general because I don’t think legally tying your own finances to someone else is particularly beneficial for anyone, unless of course you just want to be bankrolled by someone instead of providing for yourself which is not an attitude that should be encouraged or supported

so you are saying feminism is bad for women because many women are no longer marrying a rich man? Just living with him “giving him children for free”. Shouldn’t marriage be a partnership? For richer for poorer?

That's why I mentioned Russia downthread. The Russian women I met when I lived there were proclaimed anti feminists , because as far as they could see there was no point marrying , if you weren't getting anything out of it economically. It was basically "why should we?" And "Why would we?". What are men bringing to the table? , type of attitude, which I found interesting .

It is regarded as pretty feminist to marry for love and not for material security, isn't it. So I think soapona is saying, is marrying for love helping women, or is it in fact fucking them over . Or is refusing to marry on feminist grounds (not wanting to be owned) also not working out well for women because they don't end up with the legal protections that come with the transaction

zsazsajuju

One thing that would advance women is a system of child support that is fit for purpose.

Totally agree: and I think this is something the post war feminists wanted. I think the UK does an okay job in terms of supporting single mothers. It could do better. That would be part of my mother's rights activism, so that marriage isn't necessary to raise children. I am pretty left wing.

@soapona so you are saying feminism is bad for women because many women are no longer marrying a rich man? Just living with him “giving him children for free”. Shouldn’t marriage be a partnership? For richer for poorer?

I personally think you should marry for love, not because you want so, someone else’s stuff. Also that all parents should be forced to support their children (at least financially as I can’t see how forcing other support could work practically) and we should have a much more wide ranging child support system that actually ensures women are not left with all the financial hit from children.

This is one reason why we should not be under estimating mothering and the support and security mothers require.

Thank you soapona. I didn't expect to see any support at all for my opinion. I think a feminist priority is supporting mothers, proper financial and emotional support. The amount of stress we go through at the hands of abusive fathers. Do you know that lots of men confess they are jealous of pregnancy and sometimes don't even want her breastfeeding because they feel it excludes them!

And the idea that it was better when pregnant women were forced to marry a rapist because the rapist was forced to marry the woman is abhorrent.

I said I don't think it's better. I'm pro abortion, anti marriage, anti rape and basically anti men. I was just saying that with marriage came rights but there also came obligations, and that maybe this made men think twice about how important it was to stick their dicks in

And the idea that it was better when pregnant women were forced to marry a rapist because the rapist was forced to marry the woman is abhorrent.

Marriage doesn’t offer “protection” for women. If you are the higher earner or have more assets, it’s quite the opposite. Marrying a rich man might offer some woman financial benefits but surely we are better off making our own choices. I would hate to have to be dependent on a man for my financial security or that of my dds. To be forced to stay in an unhappy relationship or be impoverished. How many women do we see posting on mn who have awful, even abusive relationships but feel they can’t afford to leave. Some people may still have the attitude of marrying well as a goal but I’m so happy that feminism means that is no longer the only ambition women can have. I love being independent and living on my own terms. I don’t care if I might be better off financially marrying a rich man (how many men think like the op - regret not just marrying well?). It’s a success of feminism that many (but unfortunately not all) women have moved away from marrying a provider to marrying a partner.

One thing that would advance women is a system of child support that is fit for purpose. Women should not be left bearing the brunt of the costs (financial and otherwise) of raising children, regardless of whether they are married to the child’s father.

I actually would love much more reserach in the influence of fathers. there isnt a lot around tat bevause, ah yes, the mother-child bons is just the only things exists (nice input from the patriarchal society there)*

Childhood sexual abuse by fathers is quite common and underesearched , if that's the sort of thing you mean? Also domestic violence beginning with the woman's pregnancy , as I've mentioned. Then there's parental alienation syndrome , which seems to me to be a narcissistic projection of what fathers do to mothers, even though it's usually the woman accused of it . Then there's family annihilators (always male) which are scarily common. Very common for the battered wife not to be given custody, and then for the father to go ahead and kill the kids. The news articles on this type of situation are endless

Well I disagree. I woud fight for FATHER's right for the sake of the CHILDREN first.

Women often start to get beaten up by their husbands if they fall pregnant, it's one of the things that starts domestic violence, a woman's pregnancy! Can you imagine fighting to give men like that rights over his baby, and I'm sure some will argue it's better for the baby if a wife beater is in its life: in fact I know some women will argue to the ends of the earth for the domestic abusers right to be in the kids life, for the sake of the child

I much preffer our current arrangement where, at lest, I still have control over my life! (inlculding who im having sex with, if i want an abortion etc...)

No I don't think it's a good thing, sorry if it came across that way. I personally think the abortion model is "better" , I'm just saying that forcing men to marry the women they knocked up was an incentive for them to keep their dicks in their pants

Well I disagree. I woud fight for FATHER's right for the sake of the CHILDREN first.

And because with rights come RESPONSIBILITY.

Rates of domestic violence increase when a woman falls pregnant. So just by being pregnant your chance of getting beaten up by your husband is greater. It really makes me wonder how useful fathers are, to the children and to mothers

As horrible as it was in the past for wormen, if a man knocked a woman up he was usually obliged by his parents and others (the church , maybe) to marry her. It's gross on some levels, in that he might have raped her, but still there was some onus on him to take responsibility

And that was a good thing because? Those women had no choice that marry a man they might not have wanted. To have sex wth them (remember, there was no rape in marriage then) and do as those men said.
And you think that was better??
I much preffer our current arrangement where, at lest, I still have control over my life! (inlculding who im having sex with, if i want an abortion etc...)

Myriade

Yeah I did add after that I think babies belong to themselves, not to mothers . They definitely don't belong to fathers though even though marriage traditionally meant they became the father's property. Like I say I just equate fathers rights activism with men's rights activism, and women support fathers rights activism in the name of feminism because man tears

Its not because the bnd betwen a mother and her child is important than the bond between a father and their child isnt.

they are not mutiually exclusive.

I actually would love much more reserach in the influence of fathers. there isnt a lot around tat bevause, ah yes, the mother-child bons is just the only things exists (nice input from the patriarchal society there)

The state has made it so men have the power without commitment.

Exactly. As horrible as it was in the past for wormen, if a man knocked a woman up he was usually obliged by his parents and others (the church , maybe) to marry her. It's gross on some levels, in that he might have raped her, but still there was some onus on him to take responsibility, I guess, so her child wouldn't be a bastard. Obviously loads of men didn't still, as we know from the Magdalene laundry type situations or the general idea that young single mothers should give up their babies to a "good home".

Anyway I hate the fathers rights topic as I realize virtually the whole word disagrees with me, but essentially I just feel this is another area where feminism as failed women. You actually get women advocating and fighting for fathers rights in the name of feminism: I don't see any difference between fathers rights activism and men's rights activism. To me it's exactly the same thing. I think the whole premise of patriarchy, its whole purpose, is to control women's reproduction. Fathers rights just falls in line with this.

Back to marriage as prostitution, I don't blame women for getting married, I was myself. I certainly felt owned and that it curtailed my freedom and autonomy. It was the hit I took cause I thought it was better to have children in this environment.
Some feminists, however, are more critical than me towards women who do marry.

So for example, Dworkin points out in RWW that some women tacitly understand that a few women will have to be sacrificed so that most women are okay. They think the sacrifice is worth it.
Wives and prostitutes are what men require from women. Whichever path you take I don't judge, and if wives can use their relative material well being to help prostitutes exit then of course that's great. But what I'm confused by is why some wives don't understand they're perpetuating patriarchy simply by being wives. And there will always be plenty more prostitutes. Also, where are prostitutes supposed to go when they exit? What kind of jobs? I know a woman who became a wife after being a prostitute, she was getting old and wanted out. Some punters do "save" prostitutes by marrying them, it's not unheard of.
So I think it's great if wives help prostitutes , who are arguably in a worse situation, but I think it's ridiculous for wives not to understand their own condition as chattel and as being owned:

@sakura184, you re missing the point.
Its not about rights for the father. its about rights for the child. Who on earth says that the MOTHER is always right and will always do right by the child??