feel like I’m turning into an anti-marriage feminist

It's so interesting that the group that came up with the concept of marriage, what it meant for the man/woman, what it still means all over the world. The group that built the structure of societies, gave themselves all the power. The group that passed girls/women from one owner to another.

The group that in USA uses marriage in some areas to avoid being charged for rape of girls. And all over the world female children are married to when too young.

The group that made the laws, controls the majority of wealth across the world.

The group that developed norms for paid work in a way that suits them. That has for centuries? More? Categorised certain essential work as a privilege, and a natural need for another group. So obviously it is easy, fulfilling, devoid of real value.

...

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@SawdustandHay but the issue is that marriage is still such a significant way for women in all walks of life from all backgrounds to achieve status and economic security. That’s not the case for men.

Women shouldn’t need to get married in order to have economic security for themselves or their children. A decent system to ensure both parents contribute adequately to the costs of their children would help the latter.[/quote]
That’s really not what the original post is about. The OP entirely dismisses economic arguments, and really any argument that marriage might be in a woman’s rational self-interest. She views it purely as aggressive self-aggrandisement.

I’ve also never heard of a woman giving “financial protection” as the reason for wanting to get married (apart from the women here on mumsnet). It’s all about showing off to others that you’ve been picked by a man and that a man finds you more desirable (sexually attractive) than other women that drives most of the marital desire.

That's quite strong!

Is there an age limit on that? Maybe an age of parent/ child where children generally stop being a burden and as the years pass, very often become a support?

Some very depressing ideas/ experiences on here. About friends, family etc.

I look around and I don't see that at all. It's not usual to have friends of your own sex who are all essentially insecure, nasty, shallow arseholes who enjoy being nasty to their friends.

It's really not common for mums and dads to feel children are a burden FULL STOP!

I think of my children, OH, our respective parents, siblings.

The way the grandparents, including my parents who were v distant when I was at home, love the grandchildren, love seeing them being with them.
The way in OH family with host of siblings, who all have kids 0-10. They all are close. Helping their dad who lives alone, making sure he has everything he needs and sees them all etc.
The happiness of the whole lot esp grandpa when with grandchildren, esp whole lot together 7 children!

Children are a burden?

That's just, sorry. I'm sorry you feel that's, you said it like it's a fact.

I really feel for some posters on this thread tbh.

Just catching up.

Interested to see that op had a research paper to hand about women/ girls being bullies / horrible/ whatever.

Well yes of course they can. Obviously.

What's interesting is OP reading s post and thinking oh yes! No one has asked for evidence or anything or even started getting into that much. Certainly not enough to start anyone googling. Luckily it's something I know about well enough to have a link handy!

Is this an area you are interested in OP? Women/ girls being awful.

How long have you been interested in Feminism? You say it's a relatively new thing for you.

I think this is quite an odd thread, but your post is proof that there are positives in everything.

@SawdustandHay but the issue is that marriage is still such a significant way for women in all walks of life from all backgrounds to achieve status and economic security. That’s not the case for men.

Women shouldn’t need to get married in order to have economic security for themselves or their children. A decent system to ensure both parents contribute adequately to the costs of their children would help the latter.

One problem with your analysis, OP is the assumption that women shouldn’t want status. Marriage may be one way of obtaining status. There are others. Status is important. A feminist analysis would acknowledge that.

When I began to centre women, I swear to God I felt my world shift on its axis & things became clear (dramatic I know). So many people still just cannot cannot visualise a world which doesn't revolve around males, with consideration for women's biological demands & family centred working lives.

I tried to explain this to DH once and he shrugged it off saying 'well that wouldn't work would it? Nobody would make any money' which shows exactly the kids of thinking were all battling against & why sadly feminism has to work so hard for the tiny gains.

Honestly, I agree with OP.
I for one am glad that someone said it.

MN feminist boards are little strange often, women are always victims and the only problematic people are males.

Reported

OK, that's your choice but why?

You post does come across as disliking women and wedding days.

I have plenty of females friends and have never felt in competition for 'a man' in mu life. If I have to compete with someone for a man, why would I want him?

"Competition for men is what’s behind most female to female bullying"

Ha ha ha.

Grow up op come join us in the real world. Why do you hate women so much?
Leave us alone, we've got enough problems without you trying to stir some imaginary pot

This not a country where child bearing and rearing is supported in the way that it is, say in Scandanavia. Agree with this Basically you can’t in a capitalist society. Feminism has to have elements of socialism to truly allow women to be independent while also being mothers. Free childcare and/or a universal basic income (even if means-tested) would be a great place to start. I’ve often thought that instead of child benefit until the kid is 18, would it be more effective to have larger monthly payments for the first, say, 4 years of a child’s life, therefore giving the parent more flexibility as they have more money to live off without having to work full time?

Marriage itself gives certain legal benefits but have to say I did it very late in my relationship and mainly for tax reasons. Apparently you cant give permission for life saving surgery unless you are married though - is this true?

And weddings just seem a good way of throwing a few thousand pounds into a large hole in the ground. But maybe I`m just a cynic.

@TedMullins
I’ve often thought that instead of child benefit until the kid is 18, would it be more effective to have larger monthly payments for the first, say, 4 years of a child’s life, therefore giving the parent more flexibility as they have more money to live off without having to work full time?

I have though similar, only more that it should not end at 18 but continue for as long as they are in FT education (university) and be higher for the university years due to fact most cannot live at home and go to uni.

Single women face prejudice from society and that prejudice mainly comes from other women, married women in particular.

OP, I am absolutely baffled by this. Thank god you have never experienced sexual assault or harassment by a stranger or a date, as women on their own so often do (though women with partners are more at risk of domestic violence). I’m presuming you’ve never encountered it, because you simply couldn’t think we suffer more from other women if you had.

A wedding is one day in a person’s life, and I don’t begrudge anyone wanting to celebrate. The bridesmaid thing sounds very teenaged. I was single throughout my 20s and 30s, but never felt met prejudice for being single. Certainly plenty of prejudice against women!

Sexism harms married women as well as singles. Perhaps you have never seen inefficient men promoted over far more competent women, or earned less than a male colleague because there’s always a way of tweaking job descriptions. Etc.

OP, it sounds as if you’re complaining about women themselves, not about marriage.

The problem is that society does not accommodate for child bearing. It shouldn’t be the case that women have to make sacrifices once they become mothers but until society works around this and offers support so this doesn’t happen, women will keep falling into this trap unless they’re independently wealthy or earn enough to easily afford full time childcare.

There’s no rule that states that women have to be the ones that give up their careers to raise children. Fathers can easily do that too.

For a feminist board, there’re some really strange ideas about family life here.

Of course, there's no rule that women have to give up their career, and there are couples who negotiate so that the father takes on more of the childcare, especially if the woman has the higher paying job.

But children don't miraculously appear out of thin air. The latter stages of pregnancy can be difficult so women may have to stop working. It is perfectly reasonable for women to need time to recuperate from childbirth. Looking after a baby is also an intensive role.
The mother-baby bond is pretty strong among mammals and I've come across women who are genuinely surprised at how strong this bond is and how they wanted to be around to look after their baby instead of rushing off back to a stressful and maybe unfulfilling job (not everyone has the luxury of working their dream job).

This means it can easily be two or even three years before a woman gets back to working again, and a lot can happen in that time, such as other colleagues being promoted, not to mention the loss in earnings and pension payments. And if a couple decide to have more than one child, this adds even more years of being out of the job market.

Because women are the sex that actually bears children, and not men, there will always be this disparity on a population level. Some might call this a form of structural sexism or patriarchy or women being disadvantaged etc. I don't view it like that. To me, it's just a reflection of biological reality. Women will always be impacted in certain ways that won't affect men, simply because of our reproductive role. Those women who decide not to have children can escape this, but overall both women and men are deeply motivated to have families - else the human species would have automatically died out long ago!
It doesn't mean as a society we cannot implement policies to mitigate any negative consequences that can arise from this disparity. For example, I think any parent (and in most cases it will be mothers) who takes time off work to look after their young children should get pension contributions from the government to make up for the lack of earnings. They are doing a vital role and shouldn't be missing out on vital financial security in their old age because of it.

Just because some women feel able to get back to work quickly or they are highly skilled, doesn't mean all women who are mothers will feel able to do so. The retail, services, health and social care industries are predominantly staffed by women. Most of the roles in these sectors aren't particularly well paid. There's a separate discussion to be had on these kinds of jobs being better paid, but in the meantime, it means it can affect the employment decisions that couples make about who works and who stays at home.

P.S. not everyone who posts on Mumsnet or even on the Feminist boards is a feminist. It's what makes this site interesting compared to others - lots of different perspectives. It's one of the few places women from all walks of life can gather to talk about issues that concern them.

@Floisme, I agree that it’s a really fundamental question that we haven’t managed to answer effectively. I think it’s too hard. It’s too hard for those of us who have already chosen to confront that and admit that there might have been a better way. For women yet to jump, it’s too hard to admit the likelihood that their partner will turn out to be one of the (vast?) majority who aren’t actually prepared to parent equally. Especially if they’re already in their 30s and they don’t have all the time in the world to start again. And it’s definitely not palatable to me to give any credence to the Kirstie Allsopp view that we should encourage women to have children very young and worry about everything else later.

I mean the aim of feminism should be to show children are not a woman’s burden if she doesn’t want it to be and not a ‘feminine’ thing for men to want to look after their children either.

@Floisme The only way feminism can and does engage with this issue is to normalise that it could be either the mother or the father or both who have this Damascus moment when their child is born and to push for societal acceptance for flexibility at work for anyone who has a child.

I felt much the same way as you Boood .... until I didn't.

When I had a small child it was like a whole new side of me opening up. The desire to be with them was overwhelming and it was nothing to do with romance or being starry eyed - far more elemental than that. Although I never gave up work, I was grateful to have a partner who earned more than me so that I could cut down.

I'm not saying this happens to all mothers but it certainly happened to me and I cannot un-feel that. It is an inconvenient truth, and my biggest disappointment with feminism (and I may be wrong here) is that I have never seen it properly engage with it.

It’s all about showing off to others that you’ve been picked by a man and that a man finds you more desirable (sexually attractive) than other women that drives most of the marital desire.

Have you been watching the Bridget Jones' films recently and taken the 'smug marrieds' thing a bit too much to heart?
Women aspire to marriage because they do not want to be lonely in life any more than men do.
I married my husband because he was my best friend and life partner. It had nothing to do with what other people thought whatsoever. I also think there is an anecdotal correlation between 'the less spent on the wedding, the longer the marriage'.