If we (women) were firmer...

[ButWhyIsTheGinGone]

and immediately ejected inferior specimens of men from our lives, men would be forced to up their game. I don't know how I feel about that statement, but it's just striking me more and more when I read this board. I'm talking the liars, the emotional abusers, the physical abusers, the financial abusers, the neglectful, the adulterers, the ones who expect to have a family but continue the young single life, the general no-hopers...etc.

I have been cheated on in every relationship I've ever been in, and I've also demeaned myself by begging a cheat to stay...so I'm certainly not going to start pointing fingers at people who find it hard to end relationships. But how's it got to the point where women live lives of utter misery and pain? How come even the most undesirable losers of men (see above characteristics) can get lovely partners and treat them like crap? Funny how the world works sometimes.

Sorry - just musing really. Any thoughts welcome.

. Perhaps I should have said that the preventing of women's access to contraception is predominantly done by men. Like the hierarchy of the catholic church, and all those righwing US nuts - the ones in power cutting off funding for women's healthcare as an antiabortion measure, and the ones without power firebombing women's health clinics.

sonicrainboom you aren't saying anything I disagree with. you just appear not to be talking about the same thing as me, that's all, and at times not understanding what i mean.

yes, obviously the balance of power is unequal. that's because men can kill women quite easily, so they win in the end, no matter what. And yes obviously physical violence against women is epidemic. that's all totally obvious to anyone who has ever picked up a newspaper.

All i'm saying is that in order to actually really address the problem, for once and for all, both men AND women need to work TOGETHER to dismantle those awful power dynamics. Men are not going to cede or curb physical power en masse, of their own accord -- why would they, when they can't see the benefit for themselves, and when many many women appear totally happy with the status quo, and will even defend it passionately?

So the answer is dialogue and education on both sides. That's all i'm saying. If men suddenly stopped physically hurting women tomorrow, there would still be cultural fallout that needed addressing, and without addressing that stuff, abusive power dynamics would not be removed. They would just change expression but still be there, eating away at all of us.

'What men fear is the way in which women can create life in their bodies and men cannot ie a man can only get children with the co-operation of a woman.'

Apart from solidgoldbrass, does anybody else on here believe that quote?

I should perhaps have said that men envy this and fear that women will choose for themselves, without male control, when and whether to breed.

But what's not to believe about the fact that a man cannot have children without a woman's co-operation?

Absolutely agree.

Decide what is acceptable / unacceptable behaviour, draw up your boundaries ad don't let anyone cross them.

SGB, Actually, I posted on a different thread a couple of days ago that women were far more choosy about choosing a mate, about when, where and how often to have sex, due to the implications for them long-term. I got shot down for it, so it's a little confusing for me to know when this argument is correct and when it isn't!

I think you know that men and women need each other's co-operation to have a baby. There is no fear involved. I am struggling with this idea.

I was at the birth of both my kids and believe me, I am not envious!

I'd still like to know who these 'men' are that you are referring to, because I have just asked 5 guys here at work, and not one of them is up for 9 months pregnancy. You wouldn't be generalising about the entire male sex would you?

Rick, it seems that it would take all day to educate you in the basics. Go and find yourself a Feminism 101 site and look it up for yourself.

SGB, I had a quick look. From one blog, 'A feminist is, and always has been, anyone who favors political, economic and social equality for women and men.' I am all signed up to that. As a father of a teen daughter who has the whole world at her feet, how could I not be?

What I would discourage her from is blindly following the tat, pseudo-psychology and conspiracy theories, some of which I have quoted from you. You have back-tracked in your first and second posts (on this page) in response to Sparks1 and myself picking out ridiculous, unsubstantiated quotes. I suspect your extremist views on feminism are not shared by the majority of people on here.

This doesn't mean that I don't want to discuss this stuff with you though. Telling me 'go and look it up yourself', when you have written this stuff yourself, is a bit of a cop-out. Take this basic point - would you agree that to have a baby requires the co-operation of both male and female?

Actually, no. A woman can get donor sperm or even 'steal' sperm (I am talking about what's physically possible, technically a woman could get pregnant by stuffing the contents of a used condom up herself without the man's knowledge) so she can have babies without any kind of relationship with a man, without a man's permission, without providing him with regular sex and domestic service. A woman can have PIV sex with a dozen different men in order to get PG, without informing them of her intention and without ever having any further contact with the men, without knowing or caring which of them provided the effective sperm. Conception takes seconds. A man can't impregnate a woman and insist that she continues the pregnancy without her co-operation and knowledge. This is the main reason why society has been set up the way it is, with the emphasis on women being vulnerable, dependent and 'needing' a male owner, when men need women much more than women need men.

And if you want to engage in feminist discussion, lose the 'I am a Nice Guy therefore feminism isn't necessary' line. It is exactly like telling ethnic minority people that because you and all your friends read the Guardian, racism is over.

And a man can pay for/acquire a surrogate mother, I suppose, so it is possible either way. That is if his sole intention is to have offspring. After the birth, he no longer needs any female input. In all of your cases, the man is providing the sperm willingly.

You want to address equality in society? It's all about money and power, not gender. Women can do what they want, certainly in the UK. Prime Minister, head of state, CEO, rock star, doctor, lawyer, judge, lorry driver, builder, electrician, headmistress. In the case of my daughter, any of those things are possible, if she has the motivation. It is illegal in the UK (presumably a law passed by the male hierarchy!) for her to be banned from attaining any of these positions on account of her gender.

What is in her way are (latterly) higher education fees, and those from richer backgrounds who went to better schools and have better connections. Makes it more difficult, but it isn't insurmountable.

Oh, and on your crusade, can you sort out Katie Price for me? And all the women who write and produce the Sleb-infested media in this country? Because women who attain fame by making their tits bigger and then 'selling the dream' to impressionable young girls are doing more real harm than the male Illuminati you see lurking behind every door. That's Katie Price the female, and her female manager.

the male Illuminati
Lol. I think there is a name for that. "Patriarchy."

Male dominated, sexist culture and individual abusive men are certainly doing more damage to women that individual women influenced by patriarchal ideals.
This topic was started because they are so many hetero relationship in which the man is absuive towards the woman. We can't blame Katie Price for that.

Hey everyone sexism is over.

A man posting on MN says so ergo it must be true.

'A man posting on MN says so ergo it must be true.' Which man said that? Where?? Show me and I will beat his brains in, cos that's what us men do.

One thing is worth saying though. Most relationships are not abusive. Most people are happy in a relationship, or it ends peacefully. On MN, you tend to see only the people with problems, and most of the people on MN tend to be women. It is a skewed view of society as a whole.

I have been on here less than 2 weeks. I have only seen a few guys pop their head above the parapet. Being a man on here does seem to antagonise a few posters if you don't tow the party line, but I enjoy the debate.

Re Katie Price. The lady has made a fortune. Good for her. Now she could use the money to do what she wants. How about start a scholarship for poor girls to attend a decent school or Uni? She has to be self-aware enough to realise that there are other paths in life, right? Or maybe help starving people in Africa? No, I tell you what - how about a reality TV series in which she can 'sell the dream' for another girl to follow in her footsteps, and flash her tits and arse for lots of luvverly money?

Grazia's editor? Jane Bruton. OK's editor? Lisa Byrne. Vogue editor? Anna Wintour. All women in positions of power and influence in the media, who choose to inform their mainly female readership about.......what? Unending shite about Pippa Middleton's arse, Sienna's shoes and Peter's latest squeeze. Anna also seems to think that unending pages of size zero models are ideal viewing for other women. Rebekah Brooks anyone? Presiding over the worst excesses of the British press in living memory. These women become rich, influential, and then do what? The point is, it is money and power that corrupts, not gender. Put a woman in the same position as a man and she acts in exactly the same way.

rick - pick out all the individuals you want.

it's not about individual choices. It's about the context in which those choices are made, the values that society holds which make showing off big breasts more lucrative than being a nurse, say.

you seem to think that successful women should be held to higher standards than equivelent men. that they're not influenced by society's values at all. Almost as though you think women aren't actually part of society at all.

I love this quote from upthread - if you decide to live with a guy, he better be awesome

'you seem to think that successful women should be held to higher standards than equivelent men. '

Not quite what I meant. If you come from a position of weakness - where you have suffered prejudice or persecution - then I would expect that when you get in a position where you can help or influence those coming up behind you, you do NOT forget your roots, and stick your snout in the trough. Instead, those people I mentioned have got to the top and said, 'You know what? Things are what they are. Nowt I can do about it. I wont fight to improve journalistic standards. I will pursue Hugh Grant for banging some hooker. I wont present proper role model in my pages to young girls. I will put up page after page of super skinny, super gaunt bonebags in 3 grand dresses. I am sure that the readership will work out that this isn't what real women should look like for themselves.'

These powerful women are at the heart of our society, not separate. You are giving them a free pass, despite their actions, because they are women. They are in a position to change things in the media, which is incredibly powerful. They choose not to. I say they are wrong. You say it's not their fault.

"And if you want to engage in feminist discussion"

Just FYI this is in chat.

maybe you meant
And if you want to engage a feminist in a discussion?

Rick - i don't say it's not their fault. I don't give anybody a free pass for being women. But I do say that ANYBODY who makes a choice does it because it benefits them in some way. It's pointless looking at individual's choices, whether glamour model, SAHM or magazine editor and approving those choices or not. The object is to look at WHY they benefit from their choices, what is it and with what that society rewards people for, and whether those choices have wider implications or not.

Which ties into the subject of the thread, which is the pressures on women to maintain a hetero relationship EVEN if it threatens their own happiness.

I see that pressure as coming from inside the person, rather than external. Looking at the OP, I assume that she was free to choose each successive partner. I read somewhere that women are like monkeys - they wont let go of one branch until they have grasped another one (I don't agree with this, just putting it out there).

Are men more comfortable being single? Is it something women are uncomfortable with? If so, is it parental or peer pressure, societal or something else (self esteem)?

Before I met Mistake #1, my plan was to have a child "by myself" - that is, I would choose partners who seemed like a genetic good bet simply in order to get desirably pregnant. I would not require them to be fathers. Admittedly, this was a long time ago but it was noticeable that women, without exception, reckoned my plan was a good one (I had excellent career prospects.) Men, almost without exception, were fiercely angered by my idea to control my own breeding so completely.

That led me to agree men are afraid of women's fertility - if fear isn't the right word, there's something there about a fear of not controlling women's fertility. I have only ever heard men complaining about famous women who've done what I planned (Jodie Foster is the only one I can think of, but know there are others.)

WRT 'bad boys', Rick - it isn't true There are women who choose bad boys due to their own issues, as I did. There are men who think they're nice but are actually creepy. The majority of men & women are sane & normal :)

Interesting stuff, Garlicfrother. It all sounds a bit clinical though. How would you judge a 'good genetic match'? Assuming you don't just mean a charming, witty, erudite and handsome devil like myself, what about the man's personality traits? Is he warm and caring? If so, isn't he going to want a part in the child's life? And what about emotional support for yourself during the difficult times? My wife and I rely on each other all the time with our two.

Maybe the men were angered that you were denying the child a father? Or maybe they were just knobheads. I think that children need a strong male figure in their life, otherwise how do they know what acceptable male behaviour is? If you have a son this way, what does that tell him about a father's role - that it is okay to fill a turkey baster and then disappear? If you have a daughter, how will she see the role of any significant male in her future, other than as a sperm provider?

This isn't me being afraid of your ability to breed. I am not angry. I just think that, unless you have exceptional circumstances in your life, it isn't the best option (pretty assumptive given that I don't know you :) ). Having no partner is better than having a bad one, but having a good one has so many advantages.

Rick, if I might refer back to this part of your post:

"..most of the people on MN tend to be women. It is a skewed view of society as a whole."

Sorry if you feel I'm taking this out of context, but you seem to be implying here that a woman's opinion is somehow less 'valid' .

Is that what you meant to say, or have I misread?

I too think there's a lot to be said for a good relationship to bring children up in. A good loving father, like a good loving mother is a gift for a child.
It's not essential though - plenty of people do without, for whatever reason.

But you can't compare men and women's roles in reproduction. Parenting yes, but that's a different, related issue. Garlic's plan was just a tweaked version of what happens everyday, men getting strangers pregnant and sauntering off on their merry way. It just seems odd when it's the woman actively in control of it.

RE internal pressures - yes I do think the most powerful pressure comes from ourselves. The pressure to conform seems to be innate and very powerful. But what it is we want to conform to is heavily influenced by societal norms.

Sinical: It seems 'odd' because society has predominantly been structured (by men) to prevent it happening, because men a) know it's perfectly possible and b) fear that women will either have children without male input apart from the sperm or will refuse to have children, if they are allowed to choose. So everything is arranged, culturally, socially and historically, to remove the power to choose from women, and place it in the hands of men as much as possible.

Well, Rick, since I said in the same post that I suffered from a tendency to choose bad relationships, it should be obvious that I was unlikely to develop a secure, caring relationship with a man on whom I'd like my child to model their values.

I wouldn't have been choosing single parenthood instead of a lovely, stable family set-up. I was choosing it instead of the cock-up I was likely to make of relationships (and, indeed, did.) So not, imo, clinical but rational :)

See, the though process went: Would I like a child? Yes. Would I like a child in a screwed-up relationship? No. Am I prepared to put the child thing on indefinite hold until I manage to sort out my relationship ishoos? Nope!

Putting the child before the man seems to be what bothers you ...
Shame I didn't stick to Plan A, though, eh.

I want to rephrase this: I was choosing it instead of the cock-up ...

I was choosing it instead of pinning all my hopes on a happy-ever-after marriage. I also felt this was fairer to men than looking for a reliable meal ticket!