Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

905 replies

soapona · 22/07/2019 13:18

I think on these discussion boards and on my Facebook I see women. They don't insist on marriage so they partner remains married to the ex for years and year, they live together and I wonder what will happen should the man die. I also see women with no security living with men with no intentions of marrying and having children. Women moving in with men too soon. In the days gone by women would and could have insisted on commitment. So now the position for women is worse hanging round waiting for a proposal.

I know they don't have to I'm fairly wealthy and a single parent so have choices and always have. I don't have a lot to gain from marriage.

I'm not sure things have got better for women we are expected to do a lot now two incomes are the usual for a mortgage instead of one in the olden days . So it's a given women work, do the most childcare do we honestly think these thing will change when the power imbalance is there from the beginning?

Also the women marrying "beneath themselves", that's not the correct term but a man earning less and not likely to come into a decent inheritance. What is the point in getting married there if you're a women? Perhaps if the woman is wealthy to avoid inheritance tax for her children but other than that I don't know?

So would woman not be happier marrying the same or above and insisting on marriage early on, like it was a given in days gone by?

Surely Women are now in very risky positions due to this living together in a man's property. I see much more domestic abuse these days. I believe the stats are much higher with non married couples. Surely living together unmarried has been caused by equality and feminism and the very people feminists has been trying to help they've hindered.

OP posts:
JurgenKloppsCat · 23/07/2019 22:28

Sakura, if you believe that women are essentially better than men, then you shouldn't have a problem with men who think women are inferior. You might not agree, but you'd be okay with them having that opinion, would you?

Loads of them do have that opinion. This opinion of theirs has been enshrined into law, world over, into religion, into medicine, into "science" albeit bad science. What's your point?

My point is that they are idiots. Dickheads. Fools. Stupid. Dumb. It is reductive, dangerous and foolhardy to hold an opinion that applies in a blanket fashion to 50 per cent of the human race. Would you agree?

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 23/07/2019 22:19

certainly sense that women who just take time out and 'have' children may be viewed differently from those who aspire to be housewife/homemaker from the get go

I think your sense is off

No one who asks what you do cares if you wanted to be a sahm from a child, whether you intend going back in a few years or indeed ever

The judgement is made when the words stay at home mum come out of your mouth.

Not that they ever came out of my mouth

soapona · 23/07/2019 22:16

@MaryLennoxsScowl

the pill was designed to free women from the burden of having a baby every year until they variously died in childbirth, gained so many children they couldn’t support them, or the

Someone posted a bit back Hugh Hefner helped fund the pill. Your line is the line told. The truth is i consider this one of the worse thing to happen to women. It encouraged sexual liberation and pressure on women to start having the non committed types of relationships which has benefitted men more.

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 23/07/2019 22:13

Could you give us a concrete example of how biology affects how live as women? And an example of femaleness?

I can try, but I feel like I might be misunderstanding your question.

Being female is about being a member of the sex class which produces ova rather than sperm, and all the things that come out of that for humans. So, having a womb, menstruation, carrying a baby, breastfeeding, all the female secondary sexual characteristics, all the effects of them (can't run as fast.) There are also likely some behaviour ones. Social roles which of course depend a lot on when and where you live, women are going to have a different role living in the artic 1000 years ago than the UK in 2019 because of the dictates of female biology in those environments.
Those are the kinds of things that make us female persons rather than male persons, although all of them don't typically affect each woman.

LordRudolphVII · 23/07/2019 22:13

I think many people, male and female, feminist and not, look down on SAHMs.

I agree and am not one of those people.

I wonder if it's less the actual role and more the aspiration to fulfil it that people look down on (not that that's much less judgemental).

Could it be because some people think that having children is not an aspiration which requires much qualification to achieve (even if it requires a lot of capability to do it well)? I certainly sense that women who just take time out and 'have' children may be viewed differently from those who aspire to be housewife/homemaker from the get go.

Goosefoot · 23/07/2019 22:06

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read on Mumsnet. And the most myopic.

Which part. It's true that the women going into the workforce in the 60s and 70s wan't mostly about hardship.

I'd have said a lot was about dissatisfaction with being homemakers, but not feeling as valued as men was also a factor in that dissatisfaction. And some did also want to abolish gender stereotypes, wasn't that what a lot of second wave feminism was about?

Myriade · 23/07/2019 22:04

@goosefoot
Could you give us a concrete example of how biology affects how live as women? And an example of femaleness?

LordRudolphVII · 23/07/2019 22:03

I'm not sure monetary hardship was necessarily the driving factor behind women's desire to enter the workforce so much as the desire to prove that women are just as capable as men (which they are) and the goal of abolishing gender stereotypes

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read on Mumsnet. And the most myopic.

So, it's not partly about proving that women can also be capable CEOs, leaders, etc?

Goosefoot · 23/07/2019 22:01

For me biology goes as far as making babies and that's a very small proportion of the time overall we spend as a woman in our lifetime. The rest of the time, the time spent rasing children, cooking, cleaning should imo be shared with the other parent. Because it's about PARENTING our chlidren, not MOTHERING them iywim.
On the other side, I would be very worried about reducing women to their biology beause, well thats exactely what patriarchy has done to be able to put women into a nice little box, the one that looks after babies. The one that says that, beause of biology, women cant be at the head of compaies, cant do x and y.

Well, women aren't just women, they are also people. So there are all kinds of things that are true about you or me or anyone else that are more about us being persons than women or men particularly. But when we are taking about ourselves as women, we are talking about or biological role, or things related to that in some way.

But it's also not a part of ourselves that we should need to suppress in order to be respected or be considered to have equal dignity as persons. If you say that to live in a society with equal dignity I will be obliged to suppress my particular femaleness that is not a pro-woman sentiment.

Or maybe a less direct way of saying the same thing: I think that often women today think so much in terms of the late 20th century and its technological abilities that we don't put enough weight on the extent to which biology, including our sex, determines how we live. I think it's important when we talk about what we are as women and men to take a broader perspective, because what we see at this moment in time is a very narrow slice.
For example, consider what it meant to be a women in 1300. Women were not less worthy of dignity and respect. But contraception and abortion were both pretty minimal affairs, ineffective or dangerous. Options were really motherhood, or celibacy, not because someone was oppressing women - it makes no sense to talk about nature as being oppressive, any more than you would talk about gravity as oppressive. So what would a just society look like for women in that situation? Would feminism in the year 1300 have been impossible?

I think when we talk about needing to remove or suppress healthy biological capacities in order to be free, we are really talking about transhumanism, artificial wombs and sticking brains in starships - not feminism.

MaryLennoxsScowl · 23/07/2019 21:56

the pill was designed to free women from the burden of having a baby every year until they variously died in childbirth, gained so many children they couldn’t support them, or they suffered crippling birth injuries. Or were seriously lucky and survived all the possible hazards. It gave women agency over their birth control rather than having to rely on a man to use a condom. The sexual freedom was a side-effect and one that was viewed with such horror by the establishment that birth control was only available to married or engaged women. Even in the 60s women still had to pretend to be married to get it.

MaryLennoxsScowl · 23/07/2019 21:50

I'm not sure monetary hardship was necessarily the driving factor behind women's desire to enter the workforce so much as the desire to prove that women are just as capable as men (which they are) and the goal of abolishing gender stereotypes

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read on Mumsnet. And the most myopic.

IABUQueen · 23/07/2019 21:44

I do think I’m communities where feminism hasn’t prevailed, motherhood is valued more. SAHM parenting is encouraged and respected for its compromises. Strangely.

So there seems to be an influence of feminism on ppls perception of what’s a “llberatee” woman

JessicaWakefieldSV · 23/07/2019 21:41

We like to think we live in a society that values children and childhood, the safety and well-being of children, as one of our top priorities. If that were true, we would value those that care for, guide & nurture them. We don’t.

Goosefoot · 23/07/2019 21:41

I agree with a lot of what you say Goosefoot BUT isn't the entirety of human history about doing exactly this. If we were reduced to simple biology we wouldn't be the species we are today. First we develop tools, then complex languages etc etc. Our brains are the most significant thing and there are no pink and blue brains. We need to value children and child raising, it should be at the very centre of society and we should never accept that it's a low status role. On the other hand it should not be the sum total of a woman's identity. It's organising all society around children and the community that matters.

I don't think this necessarily follows, because I'm not saying that we need technology to be fully human and have a good and just society. I think can still be fully human while using tools. If I build a block and tackle to lift something heavy, I'm not becoming less human. But I don't need to have a block and tackle to be fully human, to have an intrinsic dignity. A society doesn't need that technology to live as a good human society either.

There may be some technologies that do in some way make us less human, some people would say that body modifications that destroy healthy body function are like that for example, and some people would put contraception into that category, but that isn't what I am getting at.

I'm saying that there is something amiss if we say that in order to make women free, or to fulfil their real nature as women, they have to be able to modify their bodiy and it's particularly female functions through technology. having a female sexed body with all of its functions is what makes us women. So what are we saying if we make that statement that to have real dignity we have to be able to suppress those very functions?

I don't think that's feminism, or if it is I don't want any part of it. I also find the idea that if a society doesn't have those technological capacities, we might as well give up on women's dignity and equality, disturbing.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 23/07/2019 21:37

Exactly jessica

JessicaWakefieldSV · 23/07/2019 21:36

How so? And also, I do think many women (feminists especially) are responsible for looking down on SAHMs

Not especially feminists. Just everyone. As a SAHM myself. It’s the overriding view across society. It is not valued as a legitimate and worthy role to raise children- that’s why child carers, nanny’s etc don’t get paid well too.

IABUQueen · 23/07/2019 21:36

I think there is a lot of work to be done to have feminism be inclusive of all women... and respect all choices... and not pigeonhole women in a victim hood narrative when they didn’t ask for it.. and not paint liberation using one brush...

There is work to be done to diversity feminism so it values women of all kinds and choices.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 23/07/2019 21:30

I think many people, male and female, feminist and not, look down on SAHM

Myriade · 23/07/2019 21:25

@sakura184 but maybe some women just do NOT want to be with their babies 24/7?
Maybe they want something else in their life than he relentless task of looking after a small human being.

Myriade · 23/07/2019 21:24

Personally, I see work as a necessary burden rather than a privilege.

Is it? for many pople, and especially men, their work is their identity. Remiove work and you destroy who they are (see one of the first question on meeting someone is 'so what do you do?').

For me work is one part of who I am. I am a mother, I am a (chronically ill) woman, I am . And I would be very grumpy if someone was taking that away from me tbh. But more importantly, it has been my window where I was able to be me, only me in the middle of being a mother (overwhelming) or a wife (suffocating) or a chronically ill person.

sakura184 · 23/07/2019 21:19

How so? And also, I do think many women (feminists especially) are responsible for looking down on SAHMs. I could definitely find you an article or two within minutes.

Erm I've been a SAHM and I'm arguing for women to be with their babies.

Myriade · 23/07/2019 21:17

How so? And also, I do think many women (feminists especially) are responsible for looking down on SAHMs.

Fully agree with that and its all over MN too.

Myriade · 23/07/2019 21:16

It's a fundamental mistake to think you can liberate people from their biology, that they need to be liberated from their biology

@Goosefoot, I actually dont get that. Could you explain a bit more about that?
For me biology goes as far as making babies and that's a very small proportion of the time overall we spend as a woman in our lifetime. The rest of the time, the time spent rasing children, cooking, cleaning should imo be shared with the other parent. Because it's about PARENTING our chlidren, not MOTHERING them iywim.
On the other side, I would be very worried about reducing women to their biology beause, well thats exactely what patriarchy has done to be able to put women into a nice little box, the one that looks after babies. The one that says that, beause of biology, women cant be at the head of compaies, cant do x and y.

IABUQueen · 23/07/2019 21:09

How so? And also, I do think many women (feminists especially) are responsible for looking down on SAHMs.

I totally agree

LordRudolphVII · 23/07/2019 21:01

If we are to value children and child raising then we need to tackle views like the below. These are just two random articles I found within 60 seconds on Google and there are likely many more.

I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry

by Amy Glass

thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/

Being a mum is not hard. Stop pretending it is.

by Shauna Anderson

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mamamia.com.au/being-a-mum-is-not-hard/amp/

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread