Feminism sold a lie - Women, today, are worse off than ever

[ConservativeC2]

Listening to the women I work with, it's been interesting to hear their views about feminism and they are not happy. We are all millennial age so not too young, not too old and I keep hearing that it's the millennial generation of women that have absolutely lost out the most.

I think feminism initially promoted some idea of independence, equality and choice. Phrases like 'men hold all the money and power' at the time were very emotive whilst not entirely true. The correct statement then (and still now) is some men hold all the money and power. Most men back in the 50s-70s worked very long hours and spent pretty much all their money on their family. It was hard for everyone, but I think women were more empowered then than now.

In contrast to today, most of the women my age have to work. Whilst feminism promotes choice, most of them do not actually have a choice today. Most men today do not earn enough to run a household which means most women have to work. The worst part is they still do a larger share of the domestic work and childcare. So I think women now have it worse than ever - it's not just me, my female colleagues feel the same way. They've come to point in life where they want to start a family but they know they will have to come back to work.

Now it's all to do with feminism. There are other factors which has driven up the cost of living (inflation, property prices, profit extraction from multinational corporates etc).

In many ways, yes, as Dirk Gently says, everything is connected, but only to a degree.

Wanting equal rights and autonomy and legal protections for women against abuse, plus the opportunity for meaningful employment outside of the home, and I mean meaningful in affording a woman the ability to live independently and not be shut out of careers because "ladybrain" will of course have impacted society as a whole, but not because of addressing the fundamental issues that subjugated women in the first place.

It's because capitalism demands exploitation of every situation, regardless of consequence, and that maximum profiteering is held above everything else. Women in the workplace opened up a whole new income stream across the board, but that's not women's fault, it's the knock on effects of having conveniences and shiny trinkets and lifestyles pressure to keep up with "society". It's all extremely complicated at big picture level with pros and cons on each side that still need addressing.

Ultimately feminism evolved to grant women the right to be treated as humans, which has mostly been the default for men since whenever we climbed out of the primordial soup and constructed social groups. (Caveat - I am speaking broadly and know that not all cultures / societies etc, and that men can be dehumanised too, though not usually on the basis ,of reproduction).

These days the economy, the market, whatever you call it is simply an exploitation system, taking from both sexes at the bottom and giving to both sexes at the top via various legally endorsed methods to redistribute wealth. Feminism is just another opportunity for marketing.

@JHound "Were they doing all those things on one regular working class income in the past though? I don’t believe they were."

Well, yes and no is the answer. It's almost impossible to compare. An average working class couple could very easily get a mortgage and buy a house in the 1970's. A milkman, postman, someone who worked in a factory or a truck driver for example. There was a plethora of new housing estates being built in the 70's and they were almost exclusively bought by young working class couples. Most of the houses were 3 bed with decent gardens and driveways. The days of "rabbit hutch" housing hadn't yet arrived. A good percentage of those couples would have a holiday abroad because package holidays were incredibly cheap. Once kids came along holidays might defer to a caravan by the seaside. Nobody had 2 cars (some people still didn't have 1 car) and of course mobile phones, games consoles and satellite TV didn't exist. Kids hobbies and clubs were minimal and generally confined to Brownies or Scouts and possibly Sunday School or maybe a youth football team. Only the comfortably off took their kids to sports clubs, dance classes, horseriding or violin lessons! Children were not taken on "paid for" days out either. That was a very, very rare treat and there were fewer options anyway. If parents decided to have a day out it would usually be on a Sunday for a drive somewhere interesting (and free) and almost always involve a picnic. There was considerably less discontent, competition or expectation amongst kids back then. And men didn't sit on their arses watching porn or doom scrolling on their phones. For a start it didn't exist and secondly there was always plenty of work inside and outside of the home to do. People didn't pay for DIY and cars were generally old and needed working on.

Yes, I agree with this. I think the real culprit is capitalism. Some have been referring to the stage we are in as late stage capitalism - not sure what it really is or what it means for us, but keen to read up on it.

The antivax comparison is very apt. It's depressing that the consequence of solving a serious existential problem has later generations convinced that there never was a problem purely because its solution means they've never directly experienced it.

100% with you @ConservativeC2

Someone said on a similar thread the other week, 'women aren't having it all, they're DOING it all.' (Sorry if this has been said on here, haven't read all 500+ replies.)

'Women have soooo many choices and a much better life than women had some 2-3 generations ago,' some say. Is that true? In many ways no. The women in my family several generations ago, never had their own money, and yes they were kind of trapped, (once they had children.) Then again, they never had to worry about having to pay rent, mortgage, or bills, and they never had to stress about work/a job, and all the demanding bosses and employers expecting you to meet all the targets and goals they set you, (and put up with cunty work colleagues,) whilst also trying to run a home, look after children, AND do most of the domestic chores and wifework.

Women 'back in the day' had more help from family too, and communities were much stronger and tighter. Now, most women have to go out to work, and nursery fees are eye-wateringly high. As are house prices, and the cost of living. Also, many people live miles away from family now, and hands-on help is not available very much.

I know women often come onto these threads and go on about their amazing DH who 'does more than them,' and does all the cooking, and looks after the children more than SHE does, but in reality, most women will be doing it all.

Little wonder then, that many young women are now making the choice to not have children. The young women I know (milennials) who have no children seem much happier, more content, and have much more surplus income and freedom than those who have children.

Basically, being a mother is no picnic these days. So many hurdles and challenges. And EXPENSE! You never have any surplus income when you've got children. Even if you work!!!

Feminism was about giving women choices. It (to a large extent) helped give women the CHANCE to work if they wanted to.

Neo-liberal capitalism, designed to enrich the rich at the expense of the many, is what has lead to a situation where two incomes are needed to run a household, therefore neo-liberalism has FORCED women into the workplace. Nothing to do with feminism.

Was feminism "asking for it" when it demanded women's rights? Was it inevitable that feminism had to be for the benefit of men as well as women? Is it therefore the case that women trying to get rights would inevitably lead to men demanding those rights, leaving women worse off than they were before? If so should we blame feminists feminism for that or men?

Did feminists really tell women that they could have it all? Or was that privileged rich celebrity women who were lying for status (and maybe claiming to be feminists at the same time)?

I think we needed to be realistic. 'Society' is highly unlikely to ever value caring for your own home and raising any children you choose to have in the same way as a paid role that has a wider impact outside of your own comfort and that of your family.
Some feminists tried to attach a value to it, framing it as work women should be paid for, but it never really took off.
So instead the approach was to work on getting women access to the roles that are valued. The ones that have influence, where their voices are heard and they contribute to important decisions. The ones that pay them so their livelihood and quality of life doesn't depend on the whims of a man and how generous he decides to be.
If you feel this wasn't right and the work should have gone into persuading society a SAH women is a positive thing to be valued and encouraged, then the floor is yours. Start a campaign, as women before you have done for the things they thought would better women's lives.

And isn’t it amazing that they have that choice ? Which wouldn’t have been the case in the years gone by.

There is nothing amazing about a man who picks up his equal share of the domestic load. It should be the bare minimum.

Is it really true that most women will be doing it all? This doesn't really apply to many of the relationships that I'm familiar with. I accept that "doing it all" is the reality for some women, but I really think we need to challenge the assumption that this is just the norm. It isn't, and it doesn't have to be.

If you're in a relationship with someone who doesn't pull their weight, then why not do something about it?

Let’s not lump millennial women here. I definitely don’t see this in my circles.

Most of us grew up with working parents, and it definitely was a time where feminism was discussed, Me-Too movement, rape culture, etc. Heck, most of those I know have children in secondary school and a handful that do have babies and small children, it’s not their first or they waited until their 30s to have children and the rest didn’t want children at all. Definitely remember being warned before I had children that childcare cost were going to be expensive. It was no secret to most of us especially with the tv shows and movies showing how hard and difficult it was being a mother especially a single mother.

It’s only the last few years where I’ve seen what OP is describing due to the ‘trad wife’ trend , and it has been with Gen Z. Saying that, I notice that some cannot differentiate between Millennials and Gen Z.

The youngest millennials are 29.

I'd agree many things are still so crap for women and in some aspects I believe women were sold a lie but the problem is capitalism not feminists.

As someone pointed out to me once on Mumsnet, it is really ignorant to not appreciate how much better women have it in the UK than they did in the past. Let's face it, in the 1950s you could be raped by your husband and it was legal, you wouldn't be able to obtain a safe abortion if you needed to, if you were an unmarried mother you could be sent to a mother and baby home and have your child taken away from you, if you were beaten by your husband there was almost no protection, many career options were pretty much taken off the table for you and if you did make a major career breakthrough (particularly in a STEM field) a man would take all the credit. Oh, and the unhappy housewives of the 1950s were just given shit loads of valium to stop their unhappiness inconveniencing anyone else.

Fair enough. I wasn't actually suggesting that millennial women are all unaware of what feminism has done for us, I was merely making the point that millennial women weren't the first generation to juggle motherhood with their careers.

I actually have no idea which generation is buying into the whole tradwife thing - my dd is Gen Z and finds it depressing -but it was the OP who initially referred to millennials, so people will inevitably respond to that.

I personally don’t think it’s helpful or progressive to keep comparing to the past though. Just because we have it better in some ways than the past, doesn’t mean we can’t still continue to work on improving it!

Of course! But that's kind of the whole point that the feminists on the thread have been making. Nobody is saying that we've cracked it yet. We're merely saying that the solution to the problems faced by women now is not to go back to an imaginary era when things were supposedly easier, because the reality is that things were a whole lot harder.

By all means, keep on pushing to improve it, and I'll be right behind you.

Yes, I agree. I would like to continue to see improvements for all women! I follow the charity Pregnant Then Screwed. Fantastic example of a modern feminist charity that has fought for more rights for working mothers etc

It's not superiority. A good part of it is luck - even if you think you're choosimg wisely, some men definitely manage to act like good ones until having children. But I was just saying not all men are lazy arses who don't share the load. And yes, being employable and earning your own money is important!

It's a Marxist concept many scholars disagree with, I think it was coined by Ernest Mandel but I haven't read him. I mostly read Habermas, he's been writing on the current crisis for decades, The Decline of the Welfare State, The Divided West, The Crisis of the European Union etc. He's a respected academic scholar.
Wallerstein also wrote on this.

Thank you @Ubertomusic

I went back to work when DD was 6 weeks old, because in the 90s -

”Women were legally entitled to 14 weeks of maternity leave, and only some qualified for Statutory Maternity Pay (around six weeks at 90 % of earnings, then 12 weeks at a flat rate that was barely £50 a week). Many employers offered nothing extra, so plenty of mothers went back within three to four months, sometimes sooner”.

I looked at my DD as she napped. I was skint and I called work and said can I come back?

That would be considered cruel by mums now days, but DD is well adjusted and we have a brilliant relationship.

My millennial niece said to me the other day “I
am happy to pay my taxes for new mums stay at home with their babies for a year”.

My reply “I’m not!”

Yes add to this being beaten by your husband
No-one batted an eyelid
It was,always the woman's fault.
No thanks

It’s difficult tho. I prioritised my career so that I could have independence and security (also if my DH were to be ill/disabled/die) sorry to be morbid.. but I now face fertility issues. I think it is difficult for women to select a partner within such a small window, and yes, a lot of it is down to luck. Hopefully I’ll be able to have children, but at least I have my degrees and my career. Very difficult to have it all. Definitely think there are many lucky ones out there…

Why wouldn’t you be happy to do that, just because you weren’t able to?

Absolutely, there is an element of luck. As with most things in life. Feminism was never going to be able to eradicate that, but it has at least given women options.

Quite. I’ll agree on that. I think we must be realistic.

I agree. I am more than happy to contribute tax so that women can have decent paid maternity leave.