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.

ANd the choice open to men is: Behave like a reasonable human being and build a co-operative partnership with a woman (whether that involves romantic couplehood or not), or use coercion, deceit or whatever social structures are in place to ensure a woman's co-operation.

Or spend the rest of your life pissing and moaning in the pub with the other losers about how all women are cunts and it's all feminism's fault that you're childless and alone.

Thanks for my first out-loud laugh today, sgb! Your 'losers in the pub' paragraph

I think women definately struggle to turn off the love button.

You read some horrendous behaviour from husbands on here and someone will post "what would you do" quite often 80% of replies will say well for that I would leave him.....37 pages later and the decision is made to stay because "I love him" I find that odd sometimes and whilst some men will become better husbands etc, some will just think "got away with that one" and just carry on as they were.

It is ok to break up yet the need to keep the family together often comes before a woman's personal needs.

Garlic, if you mentioned previous bad relationships, I didn't see it before replying. I was looking at this page (3) mainly, and the OP's initial dilemma at the top. It doesn't 'bother' me because I don't know you. The first post I saw was 'Mistake #1'. I did say it was 'pretty assumptive of me, given that I don't know you'.

I have a more general question though. When people on here refer to men structuring society to control pregnancy, are they referring to many years ago (historical societies dominated by aristocracy and the church) - or do you still believe that this control is still exercised by men all around us today? If so, who? Me, your fathers, your colleagues at work, the government, the church? Are we all complicit in this? Consciously or unconsciously? In all countries or just a few? I want to get my head round this and I am struggling.

'Or spend the rest of your life pissing and moaning in the pub with the other losers about how all women are cunts and it's all feminism's fault that you're childless and alone.'

I think the OP is saying that those men pissing and moaning are in fact the guys she (and others in here) keep hooking up with, so by default they are neither childless nor alone.

"I think that children need a strong male figure in their life, otherwise how do they know what acceptable male behaviour is?"

Surely it's exactly the same as acceptable female behaviour? I guess there are thorny issues for both genders which might be more difficult to deal with. But generally it seems a bit odd that a particular behaviour might be good from a man and bad from a woman, or vice versa.

inabeautifulplace - I was thinking more about the absence of any presence. If dad has impregnated mum and then disappeared, is that acceptable? If he has no input into the child's life, is that a good idea? I wouldn't want my kids acting like that.

I may be a bit old-fashioned, I suppose, but I hope my daughter and son see how I treat their mum/my wife, and how we conduct ourselves, as correct. Here are a couple of bits of research on positive male role models;

fcs.tamu.edu/families/parenting/fathering/fathering_pdf/active_fathers.pdf

zprada.hubpages.com/hub/Feminism-Do-we-really-need-a-man-at-all

It seems there are some differences between male and female interaction with children, and that experiencing both is best.

i role model decent human behaviour for my son, that should stand him in good stead. we all need to follow the same laws. the law, morality/ethics, good manners, respect and kindness are not gendered.

how should a man behave? like a decent human being. perhaps with less role modeling of common male behaviour the world would be a better place.

intrigued by how a thread started by a woman about women's experiences with rubbish relationships becomes a playground for a man who enjoys debating and wants to turn it into a thread about what he wants to talk about instead which funnily enough is the importance of men. entitlement role modeled beautifully.

Wrt to your question about societal structures and control of women's fertility, Rick, other feminists can answer it better but I'd like to give you a bit of something to chew over.

When the question of the gender pay gap arises, or boardroom inequality,, it's often pointed out that women take career breaks to have children and have more time off for family matters. It's perfectly possible to structure a business so that mat/pat leave is accommodated and staff of both genders deal with childcare hiccups, school events and so on. But patriarchy is so ingrained that most people assume it is not possible: the ability to have babies is seen as a natural career limiter.

Anti-abortion protest groups are predominantly male-led.

Social expectations are still all about women as mothers. Compare the number of lovely dad-with-baby pictures you see on an ordinary day and the number of mum-with-baby ones.

Women are sexually objectified everywhere you look, far far more than men. A woman could be forgiven for assuming she is worth what her body's worth, and men for assuming the same about her.

Cultural expectations, as Gin says in her OP, charge women with the burden of getting and keeping a male partner. This expectation is so strong that too many women put up with bad partners - and society urges them to carry on putting up with it 'for the children'. So getting his woman pregnant is a good way for a bad man to keep her down.

Lol, SAF, I sat on my hands to avoid pointing that out! A bit too much conditioning at work over here, perhaps

Yes, well.....I started to think I was getting too involved in this. I have outstayed my welcome. Time to shut up and bow out.

I think you should have a look at those links rick. The second one actually states that you don't need a father!

the second one conflates what, 'a lack of positive male role models' does with the lack of a father. when the community you're looking at is of men who are predominantly role modelling anti social and negative behaviour and attitudes conflating these things is mighty disingenious.

Rick: If a man who has contributed his genes to the creation of a child is not a shitbag he stands a reasonable chance of being involved in the child's life (outside of previously negotiated sperm donor agreements/random conception via causal sex). I also think it's important for children to be exposed to and aware of nice, loving, trustworthy individuals of any gender. The son of a single mother, for instance, does need to encounter and be aware of nice, decent, lovable males. But that doesn't have to involve or include his bio-father if his bio-father is an arsehole. But there are lots of ways to raise happy, healthy children other than forcing women into heteromonogamy.

The bottom line is, until people accept that 'supporting families' should be more about 'men doing their share of the work' rather than 'how to make women submit to male ownership' the heteromonogamy model is not going to work very well.

hear, hear.

all this whining and whinging that women having more freedom has destroyed the family - what a pile of tosh. men not stepping up to the plate has destroyed it. times have moved on, a man can't rely on a woman's desperation for economic survival and social sanction to get and keep a mate anymore instead he needs to evolve and be the kind of partner that is a happy addition to a woman's life and that of her children.

the emphasis always is on how to make women trapped more, how to discourage women from being single mums etc when it should be on how can men catch up with social change and step up to be a part of adult, equal, positive relations with women. if a woman seems lost in a draught in terms of such men then she can raise her children without one. population would have grown to a halt long, long ago if it had relied upon every woman finding a thoroughly decent man who would work in equal partnership with her before having a child.