Has anyone else noticed that Mumsnet seems to be becoming more regressive on women’s rights?

[CurlewKate]

There are a lot of threads, on big issues and small, that seem to indicate a drift in that direction. Women shouldn’t be police officers. Marriage is wonderful. Changing your name on marriage is a good idea… And, most significantly, many conversational, this happened to me type pro life threads. Do we need to be even more vigilant, in the face of America’s lurch to the Right and the rise of Reform in this country?

Not really up to me, I’m too old. But any of those things can and no doubt will go too far as the pendulum swings. I suppose I could be worried about any of them going too far. I wouldn’t necessarily want homosexuality outlawed again for example. But as I say, it won’t be up to me – it’ll be up to your generation and the ones after you to create a new settlement.

Obviously it’s going to be difficult for me to imagine the ways in which that’ll happen though because I’m trapped by having grown up and lived when I did. A good example of this btw is the well-meaning parliamentary debates when the divorce laws were liberalised. Not one of the participants could remotely imagine that they were unleashing a tidal wave.

I don’t have my dad’s name. I have the name that I have had since birth and which all my achievements and non achievements are checked against. And if it really doesn’t matter whose name we have, why are men so reluctant to take their wife’s name on marriage?

No. You stated Farage would restrict abortion to the point of making it impossible for a late term termination in a medical emergency. That is false. Why can't you own up to it?

'None of the examples you give suggests that there are DEI hires in the UK'
That isn't true either is it. You have been provided with evidence that the NHS has diversity quotas. You have been provided with evidence that the RAF were actively discriminating against white men, meaning for a period of time before that become public knowledge, BAME people were being prioritised. That is the definition of DEI hires. I also included websites that provide jobs for ethnic minorities only.

It takes a big person to admit when they have got something wrong.

Fascinating...you wouldn't 'necessarily' want homosexuality outlawed...we must grateful for small mercies, I suppose 🤣

would you want marriage, civil partnerships, adoption for gay couples to be gone?

I didn’t say it would make it impossible. I said it would make it more difficult. Which it would. The RAF scheme was shown to be unlawful and discontinued. There are circumstances where it is entirely appropriate for the employees to broadly match the area they come from, so if there are 2 EQUALLY QUALIFIED people, the one belonging to the under represented minority should be considered for the post. Did you read the article about the tiny numbers of diversity officers that actually exist in the country?

Exactly. The point is it's the woman who is expected to change, or even if not, normally the kids get the dad's name. It's annoying that nanes were passed down patriarchally before, but we can't change that. We can change the future!

I do agree that divorce is v bad. We need to find a middle ground where people do their best to keep loving & working w their partner on the relayionship. But otoh imo ofc people being abused or w no chance of salvaging should be able to divorce..

Why is two people who are unhappy together getting divorced very bad?

I think it's v disingenuous to say Le Pen, Meloni, etc are not right wing in some ways. Socially they are conservative, that's what people probs mean. Economics is important too, &yes they are less so on that.

Marriages can through rough patches, and then be salvaged. Same w any close relationship, they need work & determination. But I said clearly in that post that some are unsalvageable, and obvs if there is abuse, that's another reason divorce is best.

Divorce has a v bad effect on kids often, but if the parents cannot get on or obvs of there is abuse, it's the better option.

This is the whole point, isn't it? If you're in a world where women are having back alley coathanger abortions and being dragged back home to physically violent abusive husbands - of course you dream of a better world with access to abortion, divorce etc. The median person you're imagining is someone trapped in an awful situation.

The median person Gen Z/younger millennials are imagining is someone who holds a divorce party to celebrate "finding themselves" while their 5yo kid asks tearfully why they aren't seeing daddy on Christmas day ("it's alright, nice new Uncle Tommy will be here")

I must say, I think a lot of posters here are exaggerating Gen Z's conservatism. A lot of Gen Z women are still on the Pill, the TikTok fuss about it, while I partly agree, is somewhat manufactured by Thiel & his minions, I believe.

Plus lots of Gen Z agree w feminism & gay rights, as well as other causes. The problem is we're too extreme. Tradwives & manosphere types on the right, unnuanced views on climate, Palestine & BLM on the left. Not to mention trans...

I was actually thinking of the terrible behaviour of my close friend's father, who seems to have married her mother for her money, as she found out too late. The divorce has stretched out over 2 years, w millions of pounds racked up & horrible behaviour to her & her mother. I firmly believe this is what caused her to get ROGD, having been v feminine before.

This case they were clearly best rid of him. If only he could have concealed his true nature for a few more years tho ...the effect mid-adolrsence was terrible. I know several other people w divorced parents & in all cases it seems to have been bad, sometimes due to abusive fathers ..but also sometimes due to parents who could perhaps have worked through their issues if they'd been a bit more patient.

Obvs non-abusive parents divorcing will not be as bad, bit it's still v disturbing for children.

“Nigel Farage has no intentions of preventing late term abortions in the case of a medical emergency?“
@GreenGully - seriously? You do not understand that a woman may not want the law to define what in their opinion and the opinion of 2 doctors constitutes a “medical emergency”?

And it should definitely not be an “emergency” in any event. Having a disabled child in this society is a massive commitment and not everyone feels they can provide adequately for it (and it seems to me that Reform are the least likely of political parties to support those with disabled children, in any event - so it becomes about control of women’s bodies and trapping women). The issue here clearly is the slippery slope concept. You do realise there was already a court case trying to outlaw termination for Down syndrome beyond 24 weeks? And just on that we have a much loved member of our wider family with Down syndrome who we all love dearly. However, I fully understand that for some people the uncertainty and financial implications of having a child with Down’s may be too much and I respect their choice. And so should you.

It is the same concept with the anti immigration talk that has been started by Farage and Reform. Real people from the EU who had lived here for years felt deeply uncomfortable due to Brexit and now it is happening to others all due to Reform. If someone has come here legally, been invited by the system, and lived here for many years in good faith, they and their family, regardless of skin colour, ethnic background, religion, values deserve as much respect as anyone else born here. Born here being white etc does not make you more special than anyone else. That is a fundamental part of our society. That we are welcoming and inclusive. That if you follow the law you have the same rights as others. It is called the rule of law and it is fundamental.

Tbh I find MN considerably less gender-conforming than people I see in real life, but yes, social media definitely plays its part.

On the whole "marriage is wonderful" thing... the problem is that many women are aping marriage without the security. It would be different if they were choosing to remain single altogether, but many of them aren't.

Many millennial/upper Gen X women were told that marriage was patriarchal, outdated, just a piece of paper. But when it came down to it, women of those generations still wanted to settle down and have children. Many most women in my social circle were surprised that, after years of cohabiting, their partners didn't seem interested in marriage or children. These women had "contraception failures" around about the time their friends started getting married, and then seemed shocked that their partners didn't get down on one knee.

They didn't seem to grasp that now that it's socially acceptable for couples to live together and have children before marriage, marriage has become much less attractive to men. They thought the men they had sex with after a few dates would suddenly resort to 1950s courtship standards when they snapped their fingers.

Nowadays, cohabiting couples still follow the patriarchal traditions of marriage - children are almost always given their father's surname, the woman does most of the housework, the woman takes a dent in her career for childcare. They're just doing it without the protection of a contract. Paradoxically, these "anti-patriarchal" couples have kept the parts of marriage that benefit men and dropped the ones that benefit women.

I can't blame Gen Z for thinking, "You know what, maybe marriage isn't such a bad idea after all..."

Why is marriage by definition patriarchal? Marriage, whether between a man and a woman, 2 women, or 2 men, is as equal as you decide to make it. There's nothing inherently patriarchal about being united for life, hopefully. It's like saying, ' Monarchy was about dominating the subjects. Our monarch is a figurehead now, but we should oppose it bc of how it started ' for the record, I'm a monarchist but I believe it needs a serious overhaul esp w money & secrecy of papers etc

Many women are now waiting until their mid-thirties - or even forties - to even start trying to conceive. They're genuinely shocked when their doctors tell them they've left it too late. The investigations, IVF, and treatment of disabilities caused by late motherhood are costing the NHS a fortune. Gen Z would be sensible to avoid this trap.

It's terrible....another is that motherhood before 30 does lessen risk of breast & ovarian cancer.

Being a woman in thus world...someone's always trying to screw your physical health over in some way..Flogging the Pill, NFP, tradwifery, girl boss. Best to be moderate & follow your own counsel imo

And I quote: 'Making it difficult/impossible for a woman to access an abortion to save her life, or to save her from continuing carrying a dying baby is pretty controversial, surely?'
I repeat, Farage talking about a potential reduction to 22 weeks has nothing to do with late term abortions in the case on a medical emergency or foetal anomaly. He has said nothing on the topic that would suggest changing the law from what it already is in relation to this. So it neither makes it more difficult or impossible as you have suggested. This is basic stuff.

Yes the RAF scheme was shown to be unlawful once it was exposed. That doesn't change the fact that BAME people were being prioritised up until that point. You have ignored the other evidence I have provided that shows DEI hiring does take place.

The number of diversity officers is irrelevant. There would be none at all if we truly operated on a merit based system as there would be no need for such nonsense.

I can’t say I’ve noticed this in particular but there are a huge number of goady and/or ridiculous posts which I assume are AI written.

In response to your first two paragraphs I think I need to point out the current law as you seem unaware of this.

'Abortions can legally be carried out within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. While medical abortions can only be conducted up to 10 weeks into pregnancy, surgical abortions can be performed up to 23 weeks and six days into a pregnancy.
Terminations can only be performed after the 24-week-cut off point in a highly limited number of contexts – such as when the mother’s life is at risk or the child will have a severe disability.'

So you are arguing a non point there.

In relation to your last paragraph... What has that got to do with the price of fish. Who has said anything about legal immigrants not being welcome?

Its a bit of a leap to say all these things are necessarily regressive. People posting about their positive experience of marriage are often just counteracting the very negative experiences of marriage and relationships you can read on here and online in general.

Changing your name on marriage is a personal choice most women still do this but many do not or they hyphenate.

Views on abortion are increasingly nuanced I find due to pushes to either increase or restrict access to abortion. So people are more likely to be conditional in their support because being pro-choice can mean more than one thing now. Some women are in support of very late term abortion for any reason and see that as the only way to be pro-choice other women prefer it to be restricted.

I would be wary of assuming it is a drift to the right or conspiratorial.

That would be a great compromise, I think. I’ve got a feeling some countries may already do this or use both father’s and mother’s surname and it would mean both names are seen as important. Although, could get complicated with the ‘I identify as…’ folk, but potentially more progressive than the current tradition.