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

And made no reply to the rampantunpunished abuseof women bymen.

I did. I said it wasn't rampant and gave statistics.

How many women can men murder every week before it becomes unacceptable? Asking for a friend.

I'm interested to hear your view first. I'll bet it's actually similar to mine. My point is pretty much the same as Goosefoot's - words have meaning and something is not 'rampant' if it isn't...well...rampant.

In a business partnership, is one person selling something to another? Clearly not, even if they are in partnership because they have complimentary skills.

I suppose you might call that a transaction but it isn't selling something.

In some ways marriage is like a business partnership, so you might say it is a transaction. I would call it an economic arrangement. But usually marriage laws and customs go well beyond that and make it a matter of family.

So it's more like a relationship to your child or brother, in the sense that the ties are far more organic and the consequences for dissolving them are far more serious, in many cases even if there is the possibility of divorce you are still tied through children and the financial and emotional results may last a lifetime.
It's also the case that while in marriages that fail one person may well be more disadvantaged than the other, in other ways the material equality is (or has been, depending on when or where you look) a lot more radical than that in a business partnership, etc.

In the end, marriage isn't mainly a transaction, its a relationship.

I often wonder whether followers of extreme ideologies would've arrived at that viewpoint themselves had they not been exposed to the views of those which they revere. I'm sceptical that they would tbh.

I also just want to mention Dworkins total genius in light of the surrogacy issues that are going on now. She says that RWW know that if they don't hang onto the happy housewife private sphere that at some point women will become even more expendable than they already are. She was totally right, we are seeing it now with rich single men and rich gay men simply buying babies

Imnobody4

The vows arent mutual in the sense that they are equal, like say two lesbians marrying.

Women have a womb. RWW know this and they know this is what men need, because they don't have one themselves.

Women have a vagina and this is what punters want, although they may not need this in the same way that men need children, preferably sons.

That's why RWW protect the private sphere

But what's the difference between a transaction in marriage and a transaction in prostitution?

Men hold all the economic power, that's why it makes sense to marry one if you want children so your children can tap into that

You are just on a wind up now- aren't you?

lord
"keeping perspective is important"

As I have already asked FFS - why are you here?

You do not need to get along with any women to start a movement/action to help women.

With purpose I bolded the word unpunished in my comment about the rampant abuse and killing of women by men and yet you choose to reply with the number of men killing themselves.

Who shall we punish for this?

And made no reply to the rampant unpunished abuse of women by men.

I hope we do not get some number, of men abusing themselves or other men.

I appreciate it's a delicate thing for a bloke to comment on, but I do think keeping perspective is important.

What are you doing to help bring down the number of men killing themselves?

It would be outing to say and let's be honest you would have no proof anyway of the truthfulness. But I have been involved previously on schemes for disadvanged teens as is a immediate member of my family (senior administrative role in a fairly large London based charity).

Sakura184
I think when you marry you sell your fidelity and sexual monogamy. It's not expected for women to be virgins anymore, but sexual monogamy still applies.
That's it - your killer argument. You dont 'sell' anything and the vows are mutual. This is the 21st century ffs. And for the record there's a pretty high number of men bringing up children that aren't genetically theirs.

How many women can men murder every week before it becomes unacceptable? Asking for a friend.

But what's the difference between a transaction in marriage and a transaction in prostitution?

Men hold all the economic power, that's why it makes sense to marry one if you want children so your children can tap into that.

Pointing out that something is actually rare is not saying it is ok. That is a really unfortunate rhetorical device.

You should not say something is common if it is not common. Words have meaning. Murder, though horrible, is actually not that common.

Women also, generally speaking, expect sexual fidelity of men. In many cases it's part of a promise both people make to the other, in fact it was even in many periods when people expected men would stray, monogamy was still the ideal.

Making a promise to another person is not selling something.

What are you doing to help bring down the number of men killing themselves?

Oh fuck me well that's ok then.

Why would you think it's ok? I certainly don't think it is as I stated above.

I'm just pointing out that it's actually pretty rare. At risk of you accusing me of being an MRA (typical no-platforming technique) I'd say that 84 men comitting suicide a week is rampant (biggest cause of death of men under 50 and much more common than choking on your food). 👍

Two women murdered a week is 0.000325% annually

Oh fuck me well that's ok then.

I thought we should be getting worried about 2 women murdered a week or something . Always nice to be corrected LordRudolphVII

I don't see this selling of yourself to one man as any different from selling yourself to lots of men.

I think it's a lot safer to opt for the one-man route, well supposed to be, but incidents of wife murder suggests that protection from male violence is a lie sold to women upon marriage.
A good reason to marry: Marriage makes you respectable, another part of the deal you strike.

Rampant killing of women?

Last data I saw estimated that there were 32m women in the UK (probably more now). Two women murdered a week is 0.000325% annually.

It was pointed out recently that this was less people than did from choking on their food.

I do think it's terrible when it happens but it's not rampant killing like we saw of Jews in the holocaust.

Okay let's see...

I think when you marry you sell your fidelity and sexual monogamy. It's not expected for women to be virgins anymore, but sexual monogamy still applies. Men insist on this because it's very difficult for them to ensure paternity. Or should I say, men need to be absolutely certain children belong to them, and in general it's difficult to do this without certain social constructs.

Why would women do this? Well there has to be something in it for them, and that's where marriage becomes transactional.
A child with a known father wasn't a bastard and that made for a better outcome for its prospects. I'm glad the stigma of a child outside marriage no longer really applies, but still there are other benefits to women of marriage. Some social and maybe legal protections, as part of the deal. Also, men promise to be faithful in return. This seems to part of the deal women strike. Whether men stick to this deal is not the point. This is what women expect going in. They also expect some measures of economic protection, in general, although it's true women do marry down.

So I think the OP is right in thinking that the sort of feminist idea that marriage is patriarchal and therefore we should reject it, has inadvertently negatively affected women. Because all that's happened is, they're not getting the legal protection of marriage but they're still doing the wifework.

That's why Dworkin wrote RWW- to understand why women still defend marriage and to scrutinize their reasoning.

Goose

My point was that women "setting the agenda" is the absence of "Patriarchy".

You can not blame women for supporting Patriarchy if that is the path of least resistance.

As there is rampant unpunished abuse and killing of women in 2019 still, I would claim this is evidence that women are being controlled for the benefit of men.

Let there be no unpunished abuse of women and then let us see, how much women support the current (Patriarchal) system.

Hey Sakura, I've been here a couple of years now and I can't sincerely say you are the first character that's made me wish a block function existed. Your marriage comment is offensive. Seriously mate.

Bring back Golfing Stepho, all is forgiven.

Imno

Is this 1950s?

After much trial and error the AAA policy was that the abuser has to admit the problem first.

Men will not admit their problem, are you saying women should not demand that men recognise their problem.

AAA was helping the abuser, so are women for the first part.

Men can not demand that women provide the solution for their problem.

To my mind this is case of "path of least resistance". Women have supported and helped run the world with very great effect - Thatcher. However, the stage is the Patriarchal Society. In all countries, the women have not been the ones "setting the agenda". Please give any real examples, if you do not agree.

Being the PM is not the only way to participate in "ruling the world". And what does that mean, anyway?

Women participate in life, they talk to each other and to me, they raise girls and boys, they do half the work, they write, they teach, the sit in governments and run communities, and a thousand other ways.

Human societies are varied over time and sex roles vary considerable in a way most people now don't really appreciate, the imagine some increasing progress over time. But all of these things have had women doing them, not only today but in the past.
History, the "agenda" isn't set by a few individuals, its a collaborative enterprise.