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

Two years cohabiting is long enough to decide if you're committed or not. If it's not you're not committed!

Can I ask what is the purpose of these relationships? It's sound more like a glorified lodger, you're bidding your time. Fair enough if both agree you can sign to waive your rights to marriage like security after two years.

That's a really bizarre and assumptive take. My DH and I lived together for six years before marriage. He wanted to get married and I didn't - not because of him or us but because I was not interested in the institution of marriage (had zero to do with how I felt about him). Once I started to soften about the commitment of marriage we were both still very young and had a lot of growing to do. We (collectively) wanted to ensure that we would grow together as we matured. We are both the products of parents who got married before 21 then had children by 22ish and subsequently got divorced because they didn't get to know who they were as individuals or as couples prior to conceiving. Getting married before mid-20s is a terrible idea IMO, having children before mid-20s is a terrible idea IMO.

Get to know yourself, let your partner get to know themselves, get to know yourselves as a couple and what you can achieve together prior to considering marriage. 2 years is not enough time to really know someone especially when their brain isn't fully developed i.e. for women before the age of approximately 22/23 and men approximately age 24/25. I mean even once your brain is fully developed you don't fully know who you are and anyone that says they do has an immature and uneducated perspective on how we change, mature, and develop as humans.

First wave and second wave feminism have done me so many favors - my foremothers paved the way for me to have a career and see myself as an individual even within the patriarchy. My mother taught me that I didn't need a man or woman or any partner whatsoever to be a successful balanced and happy adult. I went at relationships with that perspective and to this day I am financially independent and don't need DH for anything... He is here because I want him here but I don't need anything from him. I enjoy his company and my life is enriched by his presence - he is very happy to support me and all of my professional as well as personal endeavors and I his.

He and I are a team that was built on a solid foundation by first giving ourselves time to develop into adults and consider who we wanted to be versus who we were and how we were going to get there. No one was biding their time or taking advantage - we were learning and growing and refused to repeat the mistakes of our parents.

I prefer women’s rights advocate.

@Valanice1989 I don’t think they would do a blood test. They would do a sperm test, found it no good for fertility and would suggest IVF.
Just like they do when couples don’t have sex often enough and there is no explanation for the infertility.

The issue of course is that the onus is on the woman.. she is the one who takes hormones regardless.
On the other side, men don’t like to be told they are infertile so that would be big déterrant.

Although as someone who is not a feminist (because I think it is perfectly possible to care about things which affect women and women's role in society without adopting that label) I'm mildly amused, watching on the sidelines, the arguments about who is a feminist and who isn't.

I don't think everyone does accept what Dworkin says, she's always been a very polarising figure, including among feminists. She's also done a lot to convince other women that feminism has nothing to say to them

She certainly has for me. I find her pretty much unreadable and impossible to relate to. I think her own life got far too much in the way of what she says being relevant to anyone else.

There have been other posters on here like Sakura and she's not the only poster who writes things which make my eyes roll , but Sakura does it more frequently than most.

I've said on other threads that with posters like Sakura around anyone wanting to rubbish the concept of women's rights gets a helping hand.

I think it's really disgusting to have more of a problem with a woman calling out men, and to try and shut her up with name calling, than you have with men themselves.

Again, making your own conclusions and assumptions.

You’re being held to account for some gross generalisations, misrepresentation of feminist work and of women themselves. You’re not ‘calling men out’, as you say. You’re doing much much more than that. As for your claim that women here have more of an issue with women calling out men than men, that assumption and generalisation is false. I have an issue with certain things regardless of who says or does them. You don’t get a free pass as a woman or as someone claiming to be a feminist.

You are making false equivalencies here.

Yes indeed.

Whats living with a man then?

Having children and staying at home to look after them and then going back to work part time while your partner ‘supports’ you

So marriage without the bit of paper

One assumes its the same...as its actually the same

My partner and I cohabit in my property. I bought it before I met him. I think it as our home, but in reality should things go wrong it's in my name and I shall be staying here. In our situation it's him who is unprotected.

Well I think it is true that marriage is prostitution, I think it's just a different, more respectable, route for a woman selling her sexuality. I think she has less freedom than the prostitute but is arguably safer. However DV stats suggest that she is disappointed that men don't follow through on the deal she strikes with them, that they will protect her from male violence

Although it's true I know some feminists blame wives, I'm not one of them

People are not concerned about being blamed, they don't think what you are saying is true.

It's a fairly gross misrepresentation about human relationships. As if someone said mothers only have and take care of children in order to exploit them.

sakura

You are making false equivalencies here.

It's perfectly possible and logical, and even good, to be critical of untruths and slanders about anyone, whatever their sex. The fact that men do X is not an excuse for claiming they do y, nor does it mean we have to accept false or illogical explanations for x.

What does her being married have to do with anything? I've been married.

Nobody is blaming prostitutes or wives for doing the things they do. That would be womanhating no?

That's true, @EndofDays. The doctor wouldn't need to tell her why the sperm wasn't viable.

@Goosefoot, you're right that the opposite scenario probably does come up occasionally.

I do stand by my own thoughts and words, completely.

I think it's really disgusting to have more of a problem with a woman calling out men, and to try and shut her up with name calling, than you have with men themselves.

And to suggest that the calling out is hating, but the acts of femicide themselves aren't womanhating?

Or that manhating online is equivalent to what men do to women ?

Or that the femicide is an equivalent to manhating?

Also, Dworkin didn't invent the "marriage is prostitution" theory. She was her one of many feminists who agreed with it

I don't think everyone does accept what Dworkin says, she's always been a very polarising figure, including among feminists. She's also done a lot to convince other women that feminism has nothing to say to them.

She’s also been massively misrepresented and misunderstood- like the lie that she said heterosexual sex is always rape, she did not say that.

I wonder if her marriage to her gay friend at the end was prostitution? Dworkin had a lot of good stuff to say, but was far from perfect.

Also, quoting Dworkin’s work isn’t the issue people have with our new poster, Sakura. Some really disgusting crazy things were said over the last few days that weren’t about Dworkin or her thoughts. Stand by your own words, don’t deflect to her as some kind of shield.

sakura

People don't call you a manhater because you agree with Dworkin, particularly. Though lots of people think she had such terrible experiences with men she was unable to really relate to them as people.

They say it because of the kinds of things you consistently say about men, or because of untrue statements you make in order to justify those statements. I'm not saying you are telling lies, but that you've been inclined to believe false things because they seemed to support your difficulties with men.

It comes across really strongly in many different discussions.

I didn’t do any of those things Sakura.

If you disagree that marriage is prostitution, that's fine, you don't need to declare that the woman saying it "can't be a feminist" .

And then turn around and say oh but Dworkin is ok

Well that good cos I haven’t done that

But you are lumping us all together and accusing all of us of doing it

Or at least how that comes across

Anyhoo...im gonna sit in the sun for a bit so not ignoring anyone

Endofthedays

there's a discussion to be had whether marriage is prostitution, maybe. I liked Goosefoot's post below.
But You don't need to tell me I can't be a feminist, must be thick, a troll etc etc and then act like you know what Dworkin is all about. It's kind of a mind fuck.

It’s maybe already come up in cases where the husband was infertile and didn’t want the wife to know?

We also have a good understanding now that coercive control in marriages sometimes leads to men prostituting their wives or partners, so saying marriage itself is prostitution is conflating two different issues.

Endofthedays

How can I have a respectful discussion with people who call me names like manhater and misandrist (and the rest of it) . Why should the respect go one way?

If you disagree that marriage is prostitution, that's fine, you don't need to declare that the woman saying it "can't be a feminist" .

And then turn around and say oh but Dworkin is ok

I am very surprised that the people calling me a manhater think Dworkin is ok, that's all.