to believe that most feminists are in actual fact giving women a bad name?

[Casey76]

I, along with most women I imagine are grateful that women fought to give us a vote.....

However I believe that things have gone to far..I hate women who moan and bitch about how they can't have everything!!!!!!!!

No your damn right you can not have everything ...if you go to work full time when your children are young, YOU WILL MISS OUT!!!!!

Why should women have it all???

I believe that most feminists think that they are more worthy of having everything then men and guess what you are wrong...men dont have it all...most men still work full time and still miss out on their children..

Men used to provide for their families...Men used to have a little pride...I don't think that that those women all those years ago wanted things to go this far...where some women see men as useless and think they can do everthing with out them..including having children...fair enough if you split up and you end up a single mum thats one thing but choosing to have a baby alone is just plain selfish....women should not be allowed to use a sperm doner if they are single..

So you feminists who think you are better then men and that you can have everything..YOU ARE WRONG...I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

Why does every SAHM on these boards think feminists have a personal opinion on how they live their lives? Most feminists couldn't give a flying toss about you.
It is perfectly possible to be a feminist and a SAHM. It's possible to be male and a feminist. All you need to do is believe in equality. Total equality, and- this is the tricky part. Put it into practice.

That means if you and your DH both work, then you enforce equal tidying time, equal childcare, equal time off. You don't bitch and moan about doing it all, because you have taken steps to ensure you aren't doing it all.

As for custody. There is a reason why women are generally the primary carers. And that's because far more men than women walk away from relationships, causing devastation and breakup. Far more men abandon their children. It's long been decided in the interests of the child, that to minimise disruption, care should go mainly to the mother unless there is due cause to reconsider that.

Feminism is one of the best things the 20th century had to offer us. For every single one of you whining about it, think of what life would be like without it. If your husband left you would be penniless, alone, without legal rights. Up until the end of the Victorian age, your children would automatically have been the property of your husband. You wouldn't have been educated, you wouldn't have the pill, the ability to choose when to conceive- or indeed how many children you could have. If you did get work, it would be unskilled, and paid half the wage of a mans.

Every woman whining about how feminists don't like people opening doors for them, or have unshaven armpits, you have bought into a male conception of feminists. Most of them are nothing like them. Sure there are a few, but if I was judging every single SAHM by some of the hysterical idiots on this thread, then I wouldn't reach a very nice conclusion either. Would it be justified? Of course not. So stop judging a whole movement by the few oddballs.

Excellent post Tambern!!!

Tambern using extreme like you do helps no one. (not even you) Lets have debate without the insulting names. After all everyone of us is just expressing an opinion (Not many facts here) I would have thought men treated women so badly in the past, feminists were an inevitability. As sure as day follows night.

well said tambern

scousy pmsl, do you need reading glasses? Have you taken your medication?

Tambern Sun 05-Jun-11 16:03:59

"As for custody. There is a reason why women are generally the primary carers. And that's because far more men than women walk away from relationships, causing devastation and breakup. Far more men abandon their children. It's long been decided in the interests of the child, that to minimise disruption, care should go mainly to the mother unless there is due cause to reconsider that."

This might be partly about social expectations though, mightn't it? In a society where it was taken for granted that both parents are equal, these statistics might be different.

There are plenty of facts ScousyFogarty. My history degree has informed me exactly about the position of women before feminism. Lots of lovely facts about what their lives were like. Facts, beautiful facts about the number who died in their mid thirties worn out after constant childbearing because their husbands had no conception of the idea that a woman's body is her own property. Gorgeous facts about the fate of women cast aside by men, without the protection of the law or financial independence.
Wonderful facts about how in the 13th century women were chased out of the guilds, and not allowed to work and how this state of affairs continued 'til the 20th century. And yet how many of those woman still worked at home, doing jobs within the home, having children and assisting their husband with his work... without getting paid a penny.

Hoorah for feminism! For the right to have a job, to have a baby, and a marriage and not think it is dependent solely upon yourself to juggle all these things and make them work

As a feminist myself I find myself agreeing with the OP. I don't think every person has a right to be a parent and seek a sperm donor knowing that child will have one parent. I also think that she's right about women who want a career, same as men....both miss out on elements of parenting that a SAHP would get, but then that's not a sacrifice for some and for others it's one they're willing to trade for whatever they get from their career. Aligning these viewpoints with 'feminists' is off though, although some feminists are the stereotypical men hating, victims..but then there are arses in every cause/movement.

Cory I absolutely agree. In a society where it was taken for granted that both parents are equal, and where both men and women consistently behave in the same fashion, those statistics are different. Unfortunately such a utopia doesn't exist, so I'm afraid we have to work within the bounds of our current reality, which is that men are much more likely to leave, and in actual fact the majority (not all but the majority) are just less bothered with wanting full custody.

I've clearly missed the point here..... why would we want to be equal with men....I'm not sure that I want to regress!!

If the sperm donor comment is aimed at people like the young woman I read of who misled her then boyfriend into getting her pregnant by lying to him constantly about contraceptive then fucking off when she got pregnant and having no contact with him until the baby was born and she realised it was expensive. Then proceded to chase him for child support for a baby she tricked him into having and got that child support while denying him any contact.

Then yes that statements very correct. Oh and for what its worth I agree with a lot of what you said. I enjoy being a woman and DH enjoys being a man We both know where we stand and to be honest I still rule the house as it was done a lot back then.

I think the OP's problem is that she has fallen into the trap of defining feminism the way that non-feminists define it-'aggressive women trying to compete with men on men's terms in a patricarchal society.' Many feminists I know, including me don't want this at all but we do want to be able to have a meaningful and fulfilling career so we can give something back to the society which paid for our education. We want to respected for what we have to contribute. We also want to be mums and and spend time with our children. This is why we campaign for improved working terms and conditions, e/g more opportunities for PT work (along the Scandinavian model) where we can have both! And, get this OP, we want men to have these rights too! So they can spend time with their kids too! Feminism is about equal access to the same opportunities, regardless of gender, not about women killing themselves to fit into a male oriented society. Not sure if you worked before you had kids, and if you had mat leave, when you had your dcs, but if so, you have feminsists like Barbara Castle (google!) to thank for allowing you this privelge. Please don't fall into the trap of blaming feminists for betraying women!

onion

eloquently put argument!

tambern why are you so angry?

you say you do not give a "flying toss" about SAHMs, so why say to FT workers they should enforce equal tidying times, etc. what is it of your business? When I worked full time I had an arrangement that worked for us perfectly well and it did not include any time of equal split of domestic duties.

regarding childcare. not always as simple as you say. my dh ex walked out on him and their four kids with a bloke she met a few months earlier at their housewarming party. several weeks later she came back to take the kids away from him just after they started to adjust to the new situation. kids were confused and upset. he was devastated. he was still an emotional wreck when i met him a year later. she got the full custody to start with, but we got the kids for friday night-monday morning after two years court battle and tens of thousands of money spent on lawyers. i was crying when his youngest told me she wishes for her birthday "mummy and daddy lived together again" and they did not have to choose, because they were always asked where to go for x-mas and other family holidays. don't tell me it is an equal rights issue for women.

i know the history of my family from the late XIXc. my greatgrandmothers were demanding and getting equal treatment alongside men through displaying skills and bravery and not under the banner of feminism. they did not shout slogans, they studied hard, worked hard, fought in two WW hard and were decorated for their bravery alongside the men. they raised me to be proud of who I am and taught me to take no shit from anyone telling me I am doing thing wrongly, when I know I am right.

tambern as for the guilds, look into XVc Netherlandish guild system. they had plenty of women, including the widow of Jan van Eyck successfully taking over his workshop when he died. it was unusual, but not unique and saying women were chased out across europe is twisting the truth the other way. why do you do that?

i think women rights coincided nicely with the decline of the grip that religion has on our society and scientific progress. someone has to be the first, true, but it was and is an inevitable development of the society

bemybebe, actually the majority of guilds in that period did enforce male-only membership. There were several that allowed partial female participation, but always in the lowest paid sections of the work- for example veil making.

It wasn't unknown for women to take that charge of their husband's workshop, but it is unknown of any case where the woman was not a widow I believe. Also owning a workshop was not the same as being part of a guild. Women were chased out of the guilds, and although they occasionally owned businesses etc it was nearly always only because their husband was dead, and there were journeymen and apprentices to be dealt with.

As for your grandmothers (and your DH) you are working purely from anecdote. There have been so many exceptional women throughout time, who have done exactly that. The question is, should they have to be exceptional to achieve it, or should we have a society where men and women don't have to be exceptional special cases to be treated in the same manner? For every woman like your great-grandmothers, there were those who didn't have the same opportunities. Feminism made the opening of those opportunities possible across a broader scale.

Can I just appologise to goblichild, my first post wassupposedto be tongue in cheek, just my Scottish sarcastic humour coming out.

My real opinion is that I commend all those woman who fought and are fighting for my equality. Through them I have been able to make the choices I have made, to me feminism is about choice and that includes all woman being free to choose without criticism. I do however feel things have gone to far when woman choose to be housewives, or look after their men. To me as long as no one is forcing anyone else then anything goes.

Feminists are out there making sure that your daughters (assuming you have any) are respected as equally competent as their male colleagues, get good maternity rights and are able to return to their careers, if they choose to, after having children, with as little detrimental damage done as possible.

Why do you think feminists want all women to work full time when their children are young? The new longer maternity leave was a victory for feminism, which is at odd with your view.

Why should men not have pride in providing for their families and spending time with their families and doing half of the cooking and cleaning for their families? Why should women not have pride in the same things? If men or women are missing out on time with their children, that's their choice. I work full time and spend plenty of time with my children.

There are some so-called feminists who spout vitriol against men. But their are exception rather than the rule. I am a feminist. I like men very much and love my husband dearly. We are an equal partnership.

In a nutshell - feminists want equality for women. No more, no less. We don't think we're better than men.

As with any group, different feminists have different views on how to achieve this. You can't generalise about feminists as we all have such varied opinions on so many things, except that we deserve to be treated as equal to men.

Where can I get a sperm doner? And can I have it with chilli sauce and onions?

The fact remains - women are less happy than women of 40 years ago, and less happy than today's men.

Personally, I'd have been miserable as hell 40 years ago. I hate being a SAHM.

Are men more or less happy than 40 years ago? Because it's not fair to comment on women's happiness without comparing it to men's. There are any number of reasons why people aren't as happy now - longer commutes, longer working hours, families living far apart, loss of community life, higher expectations for material gain so more stress at work to get the money for these things, employers expecting more from employees to save money on staff...... so many factors which have little to do with 'traditional' gender roles changing.

Many housewives in the 60s, 70s, 80s were high on valium and gin in order to cope with the drudgery of their lives. Happier? I'm not convinced.

Women of the 90's and 2000's are on Prozac.
Nothing's changed - except the name of the anti-depressant.

Which only says that we need to work out why some women were, and remain, unhappy. But I'll bet you anything is has nothing to do with feminism, except perhaps from the view that it's a problem feminism can fix - living as second class citizens.

My stats are from the report 'the paradox of declining female unhappiness' (2009) I really want to know why females, despite all the advances, are still unhappy - I'll conduct my own (unbiased) research one day.

That's not a fact, primalscream, it's your opinion.

My mother has always said she's hugely envious of the opportunities her daughters have had in life. I'm not on Prozac either

It's not my opinion - there's a 36 page report confirming it.

And I'm not on Prozac either.

Would have been useful if you'd referenced that article in your first post. I suspect that it is because women feel they can be equal and yet find it a struggle because we live in a patriarchal society. Raised expectations of equality that are hollow will do that.

I always wonder about the parallel with the race equality movement on these threads. The argument that black people were much happier being slaves because they didn't have the brains or skills to cope in the real world was a pernicious argument against the abolition of slavery. Surely no one would dream of saying that nowadays?