Why shouldn't women LTB?

[SunshineSuperNova]

This thread is prompted by two recent threads about the Relationship section.

It seems to me that 'society' is threatened by the thought that a woman might, of her own volition, up and leave a bad relationship. In my case, it was suggested I LTB because my DH is an alcoholic. Perfectly reasonable: but other commenters suggested I was 'selfish' and 'not taking my vows seriously' and that I should support him because he has a disease.

It seems that the 'grand narrative' is that the woman should stay with her man no matter how shitty the relationship. And this is reinforced by, for example, mainstream films. Second marriages are alway shown as flimsy, throwaway and meaningless, and the ex-wife pines after the husband she cruelly threw away. Two recent-ish offenders are 'Liar, Liar' and 'Die Hard'.

What do you think? Why is the default advice for women to stay and hold everything together, no matter how crap her man is treating her?

[scallopsrgreat]

Yes I see what you are saying Sal and I am really not advocating selfish behaviour by either sex. But as it stands women are routinely encouraged to remain and work at unhappy relationships in a way that men aren't. There are more barriers and consequences for women on leaving a relationship, especially if that involves leaving their children than for men. It isn't an equal footing. I also think that what is considered selfish behaviour in women and men differs.

In the main I don't think it is women that have a problem thinking about the consequences for their children should they split up.

[peggyundercrackers]

scallops can you show me where men are not encouraged to stay in relationships in the same way woman are? surely whatever is levelled at one can be levelled at the other? and likewise whatever is said about men can be said about woman? after all we are all human beings with the same behavioural traits - some behaviours are more extreme in some people than others but they exist in everyone.

I struggle fully with why people come onto the internet and ask for advice from people they don't know about a situation these strangers don't know - and then act on it. the internet is not RL - its all make believe. The same people keep cropping up with the same advice and are always the ones who are cynical about relationships and men and always say there needs to be more to whatever the situation is, they never accept it is like the OP says it is - they know better. I think there are lots of trolls on MN and lots of hypocrites and im sure they don't act in RL as they do on here. If they do their view of RL is extremely complicated and I would expect them to be dysfunctional as a person. It is easy on the internet to say I would do this or that but the reality is you don't know what you would do when faced with the same situation in RL - you no doubt would like to think that's how you would behave but that's what would happen in your utopian world, unfortunately people don't live like that.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

The source of the unhappiness is not always the relationship. And it's fair to say that any negative aspect of life impacts on family life. Sometimes the source is unprocessed grief, problems at work or with extended family, debt or that vague sense of dissatisfaction writ large. By dealing with these things a person and their family can be happier or happy again.

For a some people, exploring and working through the problems can make them happier and the relationship stronger.

For others, not so much..

[GoshAnneGorilla]

I just wanted to query the point that non-monogamous/nontraditional relationships may be a solution to the problems women face.

IMHO, it's not the structure of the relationship, it's the people in it, no relationship model is abuse proof.

Also, women are socialised strongly to be undemanding and to not express their needs and wants, so often ending up in relationships where the man's needs are seen as the only ones which count. I can't see non-monogamous relationships altering this.

However, I totally agree with relationships not being seen as the be all and end all of life.

[kickassangel]

Thinking about this more, many of the things that I cited as reasons why people stay, would actually cease to be the major hurdles that they are if it was anticipated that relationships would come and go.

If society saw it as the default setting to be single, then a lot of the problems would be that it is harder to become joined together than it is to separate.

E.g. My parents wouldn't be always and forever ashamed and embarrassed by me if I was divorced, and treat me either as a charity case to be pitied or a a naughty school child who forgot their homework. Telling them I was getting a divorce would not be such an issue.

Finances would be kept separate, no joint accounts, but laws (enforced) that meant that becoming a parent, even the result of a ons, meant that the child was financially supported. Then separating out finances and agreeing child support would be simpler.

Housing would be the tricky one, as it doesn't make much sense for a couple who want to live together to be separate, but the situation ATM of keeping children in the family home where possible with their main carer would probably continue.

I do think that the parent who becomes the NRP should be financially liable to provide support, and that should be swiftly and effectively put into place. There are too many examples of men (predominantly) not paying enough to give a decent standard of living for their children. By not enforcing child support, it is a way of punishing the parent who takes care of the kids. Unless they earn enough for at least 2 support workers such as nannies and housekeeper, they will have to sacrifice their career, so they do need to be supported.

[Hellokitten]

I just left my marriage, it looks like for no reason to many people, but it was emotionally abusive and I was unhappy. I owe it to my children to be happy so I can be a good mother. As a cou

[Hellokitten]

As a couple we were crappy parents and crappy role models. My kids were learning that men treat women like shit and that's ok. And it's not ok at all.
Honestly, leaving is the best feminist lesson I can teach my kids.

[SolidGoldBrass]

Throughout the whole history of human culture and society, marriage and family structure have been set up for the benefit of men. It's always been a way of securing the domestic service and breeding capacity of women for men. This is why it has traditionally been made as difficult as possible for a woman to survive (economically or socially) without a male owner. Up until pretty recently, women were not allowed access to money, and if they were not clearly marked and guarded as the property of a man, any man who felt like it could acquire them (usually by raping them). In some parts of the world this is still the case.

The reason for all the propaganda to the effect that women want and need 'love' from a man is so that women will continue to want to service men domestically, emotionally, socially, sexually and have and raise men's children. This is why some men hate feminism so much - feminism encourages women to reject the role of men's servants/breeding animals. Misogynist men think that this will be the end of society and Must Be Stopped. Of course the solution to a lot of 'broken marriages' is not to keep making it impossible for women to walk away - it's for men to treat women like human beings. Men need to do their share of the domestic work and consider that their female partners' wishes, needs and feelings are just as important as their own.

[BelaLugosisShed]

"I've seen many a thread on here urging the op to ltb for the most minor issue"

I've never seen anyone advised to LTB for a minor issue

You see women on the relationships board every single day trying to find reasons not to LTB, even in the most extremely abusive situations - unfortunately they tend to take notice of the worst advice ( by creeps such as Cronullansw ) and are offended and defensive to all the sane advice from the very many women who have lived through similar.

[kickassangel]

The default 'setting' is that adults should want to be in a long term relationship. This serves many purposes for society.

If all adults lived as individuals, aside from the issues of space/money etc, the biggest problem would be that each adult would be seen as an individual with equal rights. It is way easier to think of someone who is a sahp as somehow 'lesser' than an adult who works outside the home.

If we all lived as independent adults, we would be visibly seen to be as equals more easily.

[SirChenjin]

That's far too simplistic. You would still have those who stay at home with carer's responsibilities being thought of (by some people) as 'lesser', those who are out of work for whatever reason as 'lesser' and those WOH would still find themselves in jobs or careers which are seen as 'lesser'. I don't buy into that, but I understand some do.

[kickassangel]

yes, it's simplistic, but we do as a society subscribe to the notion of the sahp being the 'lesser' half of a partnership.

Think about phrases as 'her indoors', 'the little woman', and how govt census sheets asked for the main wage earner to be the 'head of the household' wtf - why does a household need a head?

We definitely value work outside the home more (although consider the importance of being an insurance clerk v raising a child), and it is easier to sideline the person at home if they are seen as playing second fiddle to a 'real' person. It certainly wouldn't solve all the problems, but it is much harder to argue that a sah care giver is somehow the 'second' adult, and reliant upon the 'head of the household' if they are actually the only adult, and therefore the 'head' in a household.

[arsenaltilidie]

SGB a disagree, marriage was for the benefit of women.
Marriage meant a man should provide for his wife whilst she raised his children instead of having a child and leaving her to it.
Hence most marriage laws meant a wife was provided for in the event of a divorce.

This is why it has traditionally been made as difficult as possible for a woman to survive
It was/is difficult for women to raise a child and work at the same time. Most jobs probably required to be away from home for a considerable amount of time, so it meant it was easier for one partner to work and the other to raise children. That probably worked for a lot of people and they were happy with it.
I cant remember what study, but even today most women would prefer to be a stay at home wife.

all the propaganda to the effect that women want and need 'love' from a man
No propaganda, everyone needs to feel loved one way or the other.

The issues is women should stop tolerating shite from men and the men will change.
This should start at young age when girls start dating.

[scallopsrgreat]

No the issue is that men should be taught not to behave that way. This should start from a young age when boys start dating, through parents, school, role models, media etc. Not by the girls they may well be abusing. That is victim-blaming

Marriage was set up as a means for men to have access to women's bodies. It is not a coincidence that it was only 1990 when it became illegal for men to rape women within marriage. Mind you it does provide women who are primary carers of children more financial security.

GoshAnnGorilla: "I just wanted to query the point that non-monogamous/nontraditional relationships may be a solution to the problems women face." My thoughts on this would be more an emphasis on singledom and platonic relationships with other women (although I did mention non-monogamy). I agree with the structure of relationships as they stand now though so certainly get your point.

"scallops can you show me where men are not encouraged to stay in relationships in the same way woman are? surely whatever is levelled at one can be levelled at the other? and likewise whatever is said about men can be said about woman? after all we are all human beings with the same behavioural traits - some behaviours are more extreme in some people than others but they exist in everyone."

Not sure where to begin with this. This is the feminist section and feminism does class analysis. Men as a group do exhibit different behavioural traits to women as a group. For example many more men are violent than women. This does not mean that some women aren't violent and that some men aren't. Society does teach men and women different values. Women are taught that their value is in their looks. Men are taught that what they do and say is important. Violence is tolerated much more in men than women (boys will be boys etc). This has a knock on effect to behaviour. With regards to relationships you only have to look as far as Hollywood and the messages given out there in romances and comedies and action films etc etc. Women are in so many of those films only in relation to men. Women changing their name on marriage - again their status becomes more in relation to the man they are with. If you want to take it further lets look at child brides in India, dowries, women being considered on the shelf in their 20s until relatively recently (and in some countries still are), FGM etc etc etc. Not to mention the stigma in some cultures and countries directed at women when divorced. I remember myths being peddled in the 80's when women were allowed much more freedom to divorce their husbands, as to how hard it was for a divorced woman to find a man. Lets look at the government and marriage tax allowance, taking away child benefit mainly from women based on their husbands income. All these things are insidious and work at keeping women in relationships.

[slug]

Wow arsenltiltide, there's a lot of assumptions in that last post.

Care to provide evidence for any of them?

[SinisterSal]

Thanks scallops for getting where I was coming form last night, I wasn't being very clear. Basically what I want is for men to be held to the same high standards women are, rather than a race to the bottom, behaviour wise.

Kickassangel, your point is interesting, society would look different if single people were the norm, and relationships something you actively considered and chose, not an expectation.

Aresenal. That's a very ...idiosynchratic ...interpretation.

[FloraFox]

slug don't encourage the evo-psych-babbler.

[kickassangel]

I think that's what the op was driving at. Why do we have this expectation that relationships should last unless we are truly unhappy? LTB is a last resort. If it were more acceptable to be single, and less financially precarious, particularly for care givers, then people would stay if they were happy, rather than only leaving if they were unhappy.

[GoshAnneGorilla]

I think it's not just about societal pressures around staying, but entering relationships. Lots of women see red flags from the start of relationships, but the "anything's better then being single" mentality, means they often ignore those gut feelings.

Also, I was horrified on the other thread just how many women said that family and friends had encouraged them to stay in abusive relationships.

[SolidGoldBrass]

Aresenaltildie: it wouldn't be at all difficult for women to raise children alone if there was either state-funded childcare or an acceptance of children in the workplace. Which there used to be in pre-industrial cultures (which did, of course, have their own problems) - if Mummy was a baker, the children were in the bakery, carrying the bread about; if the parents were tailors, the kids were sweeping up and passing the needles. It's only after the industrial revolution that the whole business of 'employment' and the 'breadwinner with a WIFE at home' became such a big deal.

[kickassangel]

Yes to people expecting a relationship to go somewhere and not just be for fun. I think there is huge pressure to find a partner rather than just have a not too serious relationship.

[CailinDana]

It's worth remembering too though that while societal pressure does definitely exist, people do have a genuine desire to be in a close, loving relationship. That desire makes people vulnerable to manipulation. Add in a bit of societal brainwashing and pressure and it's not really hard to see how people get trapped.
What definitely needs to be thrown out is the idea that once you have children with a man you're entirely stuck. Yes, you're linked to him but you are in no way obligated to carry on a relationship eith him if you don't want to.

[CailinDana]

True kim, except from my friends' experiences it seems plenty of men have no trouble walking away both from the relationship and the children.

[arsenaltilidie]

SGB Pre industrial revolution men worked outside and women worked inside.
However way you look it at, its better to raise children supported by a partner than to raise them on your own.
Hence marriage was for the benefit of women, to stop men from simply walking away from their responsibilities.

Scallops: I do not mean abused women at all, I mean young girls who tolerate shit behaviour (not abuse) from other young boys.
Feminism didnt rise from 'teaching men to respect women' but rose from women demanding respect.
Its all nice to say "teach young boys to treat women with respect and you will get women respect back" but its actually not true.
Young men can get away with treating women like shit, hence young women should be taught not to tolerate it all.