I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

I remember having a look at the thread for International Women's Day, a big event, so thought it would be interesting to look at views on the global situation for women. It was very parochial even on an international day and despite a plethora of commentary in the mainstream news and elsewhere about important big issues, like how women bear the brunt of famine, disease and war.

I haven't hidden it though, and occasionally look at threads which appear in active convos.

Yes, one example is that courts automatically give greater access and residency rights to mothers of children, in divorce situations, even where the man may have done nothing wrong to break up the marriage and is not a threat to his children's safety.

chibi what on earth has my supposed 'fabulous' wealth or class got to do with this? Are you saying that only women on low incomes get raped?

Feminism has not won the war! Until every woman (or man) is seen as an individual in their own right and not a possession of somebody else, it has not won.
The government wants us all to be paired up so that our 'partners' can support us. It is oh so very, very clever as to how it does this: a lot of their schemes are carried out under the banner of 'fairness and equality' which appear on the surface as being just. A classic example being cohabiting rights. Oh and if you disagree with these rights, you must be a Daily Mail reader, right?
What would these rights really mean if they came about? They would mean that 'ownership' of a woman would be now extended to another group of men.
Any abused woman would now be told 'ah your partner should be responsible for you' (partner is meant as partner to indicate non-married status).
And yet we pay tax as individuals!! I go to work and I pay tax as a person in my own right; if I am ever unfortunate enough to need financial support as a result of a job loss, what will I be told if in a relationship? 'You're married/in a relationship. Your partner can support you'. Yes, yes, I know it applies to men, too.

As long as we class people as 'belonging' to somebody else, feminism has not won.

Fellatio I am really confused by your POV, perhaps I've got the wrong person!!

Fellatio Or would it really be about resident vs non-resident parents? Seeing as you say the courts accord these rights 'automatically' would you say the courts are following the law (if so please point me in the direction of which law) so I can read up on this?

No i wasn't saying anything about you, how could I

But a white british woman (thus risk of fgm/forced marriage/honour killing v low)

Who moves in circles with people like herself

Who is not personally experiencing dv, who has had a successful career/has enough money to stay at home as she wishes

...could easily think, well that's my reality, ergo that is what it is like for women in the uk, and that we have equality and that we feminists are quibbling over trivialities

Almost all of Sunshine's points can be simply addressed by saying 'women like to have children.' (so do men, obviously!)

Many women lack any desire to put a career before children. If women want to be MPs and company directors they can. Nothing stops them, except them. Those who want that can achieve that. If they take on a job that requires 100% commitment with no room for flexibility to bring up a family then they must accept that is the price you pay for doing well in that job, just as a man would. Or they get the father to do the childcare, in which case he earns less and progresses slower, or they pay for decent wrap-around childcare and both have the career they want.

I fail to see why we should move the goalposts for women to take account of children. Surely all feminists would agree that children have two parents, and the responsibilities/impact should and could be equally spread if the parents want it that way. The parents are capable of deciding between them how having children should affect either of their careers. If the woman finds herself single again and resents any hiatus in her career, she is always welcome to give residency over to their father. Oh, but hang on....she doesn't want to. She wants it all. She wants the benefits of motherhood but not the downsides.

I'm really not sure how you can address the pay gap until you achieve a situation where the majority of women no longer want to have children, or have them but elect not to be the primary carer.

Fellatio, there is the small issue of maternity pay: only women get it. I am the higher earner in a 'career' position and my partner would most likely be the one to stay at home. My salary is not enough to support both of us. We would see a total loss of the second income if my partner stayed at home.

I disagree that the government wants us to be paired up so our partners can support us. What they want is that we should be paired up to mutually support our own children, unless we are damned sure we can support them (financially and otherwise) entirely alone. I see nothing wrong at all in having that as an ideal on which to base a society.

However Wamster I don't disagree with much of the rest of that post.

Interesting article about the pay gap

BBQ no you are right, I was being lazy using the word 'automatically' but there tends to be an assumption that the child is best off with the mother unless the father can prove otherwise. And those assumptions are often based on the mother's supposed ability to care for and bond emotionally with the child better than the father, continuity of care, etc, etc, even if she works full time, so again, if this is the assumption, we have to assume she is prepared to sacrifice an element of focus on her career in order to be better at caring than the father. So how can she then complain if she earns less and progresses more slowly?

I realise this is a simplistic hypothetical example, but it highlights why demanding an end to the gender pay gap is unrealistic.

Victor I agree that perhaps maternity pay could be transferrable for situations like yours.

"I fail to see why we should move the goalposts for women to take account of children."

Really? You fail to see why the world should be organised so that men, women and families can function as families, parents and workers all at the same time? So you are in favour of work and family life always being in conflict and very hard to balance? Why? Are you Blackadder's aunt or something, why would anyone want to organise society so that it is as difficult for the majority of people to function as possible?

I suggest you read the Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard if you think we have equality.

There is still a pay gap. Women still do work at a lesser rate than men.

Men still have more leisure time than women. Women still do most of the housework and childcare even where they do the same amount of paid work as the men they live with.

Men don't get raped or sexually assaulted at the rate of 1 in 4. Women do.

Men don't get repeatedly assaulted by their partners at the rate of 1 in 4. Women do.

Men don't get killed at the rate of 2 a week by their partners or ex partners. Women do.

When men are raped, they are not automatically assumed to be lying. Women are. They aren't asked what they were wearing. Women are. They aren't asked if they led the man on, gave him consent signals in the run up to the rape. Women are.

When men are single parents, they are admired and lauded as hardworking heroes. Women aren't.

If more men want care and control of their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, there is a really easy way of getting it - do more of the childcare. Courts award care and control on the basis of who has done the childcare and who has spent more time with the children and attended to their day to day needs. If men did more of that, they'd start getting more care and control of their children. And their relationships would be less likely to break down in the first place anyway, I'd suggest.

excellent post HerBex

Violence against women is nothing to do with the pay gap. Whilst uncomfortable I see where FN is coming from.

Women/Men in the same job shouldn't get paid differently, women shouldn't get over looked when promotion comes along, but they do because it is assumed, mostly rightly, hat they will have time off for children. Perhaps the answer is 18 months paternity leave split between couples. Maybe men will take the knock then because their parenting years are far wider than women's!!

Small companies should be exempt from maternity pay, unless government subsidised. No point giving rights to women that fuck up 10 people's jobs by screwing small business.

And FN is right, I don't want to work or shove my dcs in a nursery.....I don't want DH to do it either.

It's not all about money, though, yes it is absolutely right that women can be financially independent of men, absolutely right, however, I used to think that this would solve everything. I'm sad to say that it does not; a close friend of mine was being hit by her husband. She asked her mum (mum being a financially independent woman. Not relying on a man for money at all) for help. Her mum's response: 'Oh well perhaps he was stressed or something. Try to ignore it' (!)'

Money is only part of it, I'm sad to say. It is attitudes that need to change as well- women as well as men's. In fact, I find the mother's response more repulsive because she is financially independent; if she were living in fear of an abusive man herself, I would have had more sympathy for her response.

I've noticed this in the older generation ( say 60-80 years) range of women: they may be earning (have earned) as much as the men in their lives, but their attitudes remain are quite misogynist towards other women.

And how one sets up her home, with a lazy uninvolved father/husband/partner is a private matter, if you don't like it sort it out. My DH works full time and still does more than his fair share......can't really see how else to tackle this, protest in people's homes? Media can add weight I suppose and toys, stories etc. But what really matters is how you actually do it.

I recently read something by Bidisha and she said, I think, that the sad truth is both men and women hate women. I think she's right.

FN makes some very intersting points. I get very frustrated that I'm at home with the DC because childcare is so expensive/I have no well paid career to go back to. But at the same time I don't want to leave the DC in childcare anyway. I want my cake and I want to eat it. No one puts that pressure on me but, well, me.

Wamster, so true. My grandmother was a ward sister, worked full time and had 3 DC's. She still did all the housework. My grandfather was a truck driver. She would actually prevent him from lifting a finger, claiming it as 'women's work'. She is still horrified that my DH irons his own shirts