To be pissed off with 'the man should pay' types?

[wimbmumma]

I just find it so outdated! The only time I've ever let the man pay was, coincidentally, on my first date with my ex husband. Doesn't even cross most of me and my friends' minds that you should split it (if it is a dinner date that is) but A LOT of the schoolmums feel very differently, as they made abundantly clear at a coffee morning... so AIBU to find them a bit annoying and utterly stuck in the 19th century

Jesus some of the dinosaur opinions on this thread. I've raised my daughter to always look after herself and pay her own way.....equally to never let anyone treat her like a servant. Did someone actually say they trade getting a free dinner for ironing his shirts? -shudder-

I constantly say I should be contributing to the finances but he says that's not my job, it's my job to look after the house/family and his job to pay for us. Just how he was raised

And also leaves you in a very vulnerable position should the marriage break down. In fact some men might well take advantage of that fact.

I think you can achieve equality, yet still allow and respect the different biological, emotional and psychological differences that exist between men and women

Can you give an example of how you think equality has been achieved in this way in practice?

I don't dispute biological differences but emotional and psychological differences are borne of years of gender stereotyping in my view. Hence we give the apparent boy the building toys and the apparent girl the doll, so their brains develop differently which defines their life path.

I don't dispute biological differences but emotional and psychological differences are borne of years of gender stereotyping in my view

This is not true, of course. Did you mean to put a 'some' before 'emotional'?

You don't speak for women as a class. You don't know what they want.

No, I don't speak for you. I don't know what you want and I don't care what you want.

What women as a class want equal is ease of opportunity. Opportunity to participate economically and own property, access to education and voting rights, access to competitive sport, the opportunity to live without fear of violence. If this all sounds a bit dramatic to you, it's because you don't see "women", you just see yourself and your lot in life.

Did you mean to put a 'some' before 'emotional'?

No

I disagree that all gendered behaviours are “nurture” rather than “nature.” That again, is too simplistic imo. Even if you you think it’s all behaviours are down to “nurture” and societal expectation from birth - get behind that and think about what generated that “nurture” in the first place. It had to be human “ nature” because there is nothing else. “ Society” didn’t exist before human nature shaped it. It’s not some abstract thing. It’s a manifestation of human nature. If human nature was different, societies across the world would reflect that.

It had to be human “ nature” because there is nothing else.

Not if you subscribe to the social constructionist theory on the origins of patriarchy

Well I do’t know that you’re talking about tbh. Ultimately, does it actually matter? Life isn’t a theory. You only get one chance. You have to be honest about what works best for you and what you want in a partner.

No, I don't speak for you. I don't know what you want and I don't care what you want.

What women as a class want equal is ease of opportunity. Opportunity to participate economically and own property, access to education and voting rights, access to competitive sport, the opportunity to live without fear of violence. If this all sounds a bit dramatic to you, it's because you don't see "women", you just see yourself and your lot in life.

Like I said earlier, the 'progressives' are deeply intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their diktat.

All the things that you say women as a class want (which I don't find 'dramatic', incidentally), reflect the state of modern Britain - apart from the violence, which is straightforwardly a problem of men. I've no doubt you'd find a way to lay that at the feet of women who you don't find up to your exacting standards, but I'm not having it.

Naturally you are wrong to say that the difference between men and women is exclusively a function of nurture. I doubt very much that you've given birth or reared children (I'm guessing you're a first year anthropology student).

I'll refer you back to my original point. Equality means different things to different people and you don't speak for all women.

Ultimately, does it actually matter? Life isn’t a theory. You only get one chance. You have to be honest about what works best for you and what you want in a partner.

It matters to me because I want to use my one chance to improve life for lots of other women. Maybe it doesn't matter to you that perpetuating traditions that are sexist in nature is damaging to other women. Or maybe you can't see the link, but you not seeing that link doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

@EntropyRising I'm a 52 year old mother with a career in professional services.

All the things that you say women as a class want (which I don't find 'dramatic', incidentally), reflect the state of modern Britain

What about the rest of the world? And how did that modern state come about? Gifted by the men?

Use of quote marks again to denote that the word progressive means different things to different people. How can the improvement of life for women be considered anything but progressive?

But Romanov, you can’t presume that what “all women as a class want” is what you think they should want.
For instance, I’m a 45 year-old mum of 4 children. I have been a SAHM to those 4 children for 15 years. No doubt you would see this lifestyle choice as regressive for “women as a class.” You would point to how my choices and financial independence have been limited. I would agree with you to some extent - it’s a valid point. However, an equally valid point would be that the alternatives would not necessarily have been better for me either. If I’d been working, I would have lost the other freedoms I’ve enjoyed for the past fifteen years. The truth is, if I had that time again, I have to tell you I would make the same choices. What I certainly don’t feel is any less “equal” For those choices because I made them with my eyes wide open and in the context of the marriage that I chose. . DH and I have different roles yes, but it’s still a balance. We respect each other the more for it actually because we give each other the opportunity to do what comes more naturally to us.
(No doubt someone will come in now to tell me I’m economically dependent and screwed in the event of divorce, but please don’t because this is not true and if it was I wouldn’t have put myself in this position).
I don’t think my life is that unusual tbh. Yet I’m part of the class of women you claim to speak for. I don’t find your description of “what women want” particularly dramatic either, by the way. I’m mean it might have been dramatic in 1800, but we’re not in 1800. We’re kind of past that now.

But @matcatwomanheresheis, its not about YOU.

Women like EB Harrison opposed women getting the vote on the basis it could disrupt the status quo that she enjoyed and that perhaps women would no longer want to attend the classes she arranged on home-making and other social gathering, the things that she felt were more natural to women, and instead they would want to pursue endeavours in law, politics or the commercial world at large etc.

That one didn't work out for EB individually but it did for women as a class.

YADNBU. I'm embarrassed for anyone who holds those views.

No it’s not about me. Equally, it’s not about you Romanov, and your very fixed dogma about what women should want. If dogmas can’t adapt to new realities, they will alienate the people they claim to be speaking for.

As for other cultures, my DH is Indian / Iranian. He has relatives in arranged marriages where the women are extremely career-focused. In the more “modern” marriages, such as ours, maybe the women might not be working. Life is so nuanced. You can’t make assumptions about equality based if the type of relationships people choose because equality and freedoms consist of so many different factors and people obviously will vary as to their priorities.

we’re not in 1800. We’re kind of past that now

We're not past sexism and inequality, those things are alive and well.

1974 - women were allowed credit cards without their husband co-signing the application form, and it became legal to prescribe the contraceptive pill
1979 - first women's marathon sanctioned by the IAAF
1991 - rape within marriage was recognised
2018 - all military roles now open to women

The list could go on. All of these things changed as a result of the campaigning by feminist groups. You might not need or want to benefit from any of these change, but other women do.

and your very fixed dogma about what women should want

I'm not telling you what you should want, only you can decide that. I'm explaining how what you want contributes to the promotion of sexist attitudes. If in the fight against sexism you are somehow - like EB Harrison - disadvantaged, then that's a small price to pay.

Yes but you could be the first woman to run a marathon, but still prefer a more traditional dating dynamic. This is the whole point. You could go on to be in a more traditional relationship, but still be out there campaigning against rape. What’s stopping you? You could be in the military, but still prefer a man to pay on the first date! This is exactly what I’m talking about. Life isn’t one size fits all. Women (and men) are contradictory, in the main, and you shouldn’t try and put them in a box.

I've never paid for, or split a bill, on a first date.

No man I've ever dated would dare let me pay, especially that they've asked me out in the first place.

I find it bizarre that women like you @wimbmumma get worked up over this stuff to be honest.

I'm afraid you're missing the point of my argument, which is about sexism generally, not about the type of relationships people have. People will always be contradictory and feminists sometimes do unfeminist things but in the fight against sexism, all sexist behaviour and traditions must be called out, not just the ones that disadvantage you personally. I understand given how you've described your domestic set up that your relationship and being a SAHM is central to your existence and you will understandably deflect criticism of it but the fact is no matter how well it works for you and your nuances on an individual level, aspects of it are unhelpful to the fight against sexism at large.

We're not past sexism and inequality, those things are alive and well.

1974 - women were allowed credit cards without their husband co-signing the application form, and it became legal to prescribe the contraceptive pill
1979 - first women's marathon sanctioned by the IAAF
1991 - rape within marriage was recognised
2018 - all military roles now open to women

The list could go on. All of these things changed as a result of the campaigning by feminist groups. You might not need or want to benefit from any of these change, but other women do.

------

This list is convenient in that there's a dubious 2018 entry (yay! we get to go into combat now!) but prior to this, it's 1991. (I often remind my boys of marital rape so that they can understand that sexism has existed in recent history - this was a shocker to them).

1991 is way too late, but I'd say in terms of institutional Western sexism, we're nearly done (there will be exceptions).

The rest is squarely down to how women want to organise their home lives - if they want equality in the workplace, they'll have to demand partners who are willing to carry their weight at home.

Mind you, there are quite a lot of women who are still happy to sit the workplace out (see above).

People disagree with me but my personal experience is that men who don't insist on paying at least to start with turn out to be selfish and much less attentive later on in the relationship in other ways.

And when I say we’re not in 1800 any more, I mean to say that the way we can think about feminist choices now will obviously be different. At one point, it was all about the right to work or the right to vote. But maybe now, as society has evolved to the point where working is the norm for women, the struggle has shifted to something else - maybe a better work / life balance perhaps being the new goal In a society that now often forces mums to work whether they like it or not, with high childcare fees, just to pay the mortgage. Feminism. Is not static, in other words, nor should it be.

Feminism. Is not static, in other words, nor should it be.

Agreed. Perhaps increased and more accessible childcare provision allowing women to enjoy and develop a career alongside having a child is the new goal.

Back in the 1800's, no one would have criticised a women for allowing a man to pay for her because society put her in that position. Once society evolved to a point where women could become financially independent, that criticism became valid.