I'm giving up.

[GarlicShake]

This is more of a despairing rant than an invitation to reply. Sorry! I feel like I've nowhere else to put it.

I am 61 years old. I'm facing ageism & ableism as well as sexism. I have a corner to fight.

I went on strike for maternity rights, for equal pay, even for the factory to have a women's toilet. I forged a career in a world that was predominantly male, argued for my pay rises and trained younger people up to be non-sexist. I've been blamed and misconstrued, beaten up, raped, and carefully answered the gamut of sexist assumptions. I battled for my pension rights and I threatened the bank with legal action when they refused to take my salary into account on my first mortgage. I am still fighting.

But I just can't hack fighting for younger women any more. They're throwing away all that we, and the two generations before and the one after mine, won for them. I can't even tell whether they don't give a shit or they think all their rights are safe so they needn't bother.

I'm not going to argue the transgender thing any more. I'll stick to supporting the handful of FB friends who get it, but I'm not arguing in my own voice from now. I'm giving up on explaining why "Ms" matters - it's been around for 50 years, for crying out loud! People can figure out why the Nordic model's a better idea for themselves - or, most likely, not. Women can congratulate themselves on being financially dependent on husbands, and figure that out for themselves too.

And I think this country's going to vote itself out of Europe. That'll wake a few people up in short order, I fear, but I shall be needed to stick up for older & disabled people like me as our rights will get shredded. I am tired.

I am very tired and disappointed. Thank you for all the brilliant discussions, MN feminists! Good luck.

As I said upthread- many mens jobs, especially those in traditional sectors like manual labour, haven't really progressed. DH would like work family friendly hours, so we can both have equal roles in and out of the home. But his job doesn't allow it, so it falls to me, in a less male working environment which is more open to such things.

Then he needs to fight for it - Men can fight for these things too, just as women fought to be let into the men's world of work, men can fight to be let out of it! His job could allow it if it wanted, if there was a will - but most men I talk to (including DP) actually relish being out of the house at work (as do I) and don't want to be at home with the kids. That's not my problem (well, DP is) as a feminist, that's their problem, but we get to bear the brunt of the fallout.

Dh tried to be RP for his children from his first marriage, but the mother is the default. Unless she's unfit or relinquishes care, a man will always be NRP in a split.

No. Status Quo is the default. If the woman was at home looking after the kids, the woman stays looking after the kids. If your DP had gone part time and looked after the kids 50%, he'd have been able to have the kids 50%. If he'd been the one to give up his job and stay at home full time, then he would have been the RP.

Spinning that as the woman's fault/a judicial system policy, when actually it's that the man hasn't taken full responsibility for his own children before now is so common.

"The world of work is most definitely set up to suit people with no family responsibilities"

This is a very serious issue and obviously affects women more and, dare I say it, children.

I have lived in Mexico nearly all my adult life. There used to be a lot more equality for professional women here than in the Uk. But I went away for ten years and when I returned I found that women in companies had mostly been reduced to working as secretaries, as only secretaries were allowed to work 9-5, everyone else has to work until 8 pm.

In fact, I don't believe what I said is even true - I actually believe that they start from 50/50 residency these days, and you away from there.

Woman as default is absolutely not the case (or not because she's a woman, it's because she's always been primary carer)

*In fact, I don't believe what I said is even true - I actually believe that they start from 50/50 residency these days, and you away from there.

Woman as default is absolutely not the case (or not because she's a woman, it's because she's always been primary carer)*

They do start at 50/50, but with only one house, it's often not possible unless the money is there for two appropriate properties.

With both parents working full time, there was no primary carer. Dh was told by his solicitor than in such cases the decision always went with the mother. He was told by the court that as a man he was expected to be able to start again financially. A woman is seen as having less earning potential due to having kids.

The Courts start with no presumption as to which sex of parent is to get residence. It'd always determined by whats best for the child. In my experience, its generally the father that leaves the home. Its generally better for the child to stay in the home they've known, live in the same neighbourhood, same friends, same school - so its generally the woman that gets residence.

DP and I both work full time.

There's a primary carer, and it's me (and this is very common - in the majority of relationships I am privy to any information about)

I'm the one who knows where they have to be when, who goes to sportsdays, who takes the time out if kids sick, who's freelancing so I can be at home for 5pm every day. If I didn't make him, DP would not do the bedtime routine (and I still remind him what time to do it). I keep an eye on their toenails, the state of their clothes, which toys are their favourites.

So I would likely get residency, and I should have residency, because DP could do any of the above things and chooses not to.

Perhaps that's not the case with your DP, but I feel that he would be the exception then.

I should have read my post back Cote, much shame!! Seems to have gotten to you that, but cant be helped. I'm at work and flipping hell if this isn't time consuming??? Yes at work, at a job that used to be 100% male dominated. And I'm still here!!! (Snuck in while the "Patriarchy" were having a snooze).. Hear that? I'M STILL HERE YOU BASTARDS!!! Shakes fist at patriarchy!

Just going back to no fault divorce. This generally disadvantages women. Backlash by Susan Faludi is good on this. In fact it's excellent on many of the topics discussed on this thread, probably because backlash is what we are talking about. Women make in roads and then men reassert themselves.

There seems to be an assumption that so many women reject feminism. But I think there is plenty of evidence that feminism is going through an upsurge at the moment. There are young feminist organisations, social media has a wealth of feminist discussion and argument (not always a bad thing). To paraphrase another wonderful FWR regular "their feminism may not be my feminism" but starting to recognise structural inequality can only be a good thing.

"But if it doesn't reform it will continue to spiral towards irrelevancy and that saddens me."

So how do you think feminism should reform?

Apologies, ignore my comment about no fault divorce. That's not what Faludi concluded at all! It is better for women that fault based divorce but divorce generally works out economically worse for women than men regardless. A number of factors contribute to this including child support payments (or more importantly lack of) from ex partners.

I appreciate you asking and its nice to get a polite response/question. I think feminism has to appeal to its hard-line, radical wing, and its more conservative, moderate one. So it needs to be inclusive of both these POV's in its emphasis and goals. Also it needs to be concerned with the problems all people face across the races, social classes and the genders. As I said earlier, the radical and the moderate pov's need to be given equal voice and appreciation. Its my view that it isn't.. I'm not blaming the 'hard liners' here, if anything I blame my fellow moderate, conservative feminists, for not speaking up more. But I think that's the nature of mild-mannered moderates, they dont really like confrontation, argument and subjecting themselves to insults and rude comments. For proof see the responses muskateer got earlier for making what I felt was a perfectly reasonable point. That being a women who chooses to embody the 'stereotype' by being a SAHM should be afforded the same appreciation and respect as those that defy it. We were told to clear off and find another thread. I was called a Troll, a female impersonator, etc etc. Whilst this didn't bother me , muskateer felt compelled to come back and apologise to the very same bullies who said this to her and she hasn't (on this thread) been seen since. Maybe she's just too busy I dunno!

Feminism it seems to me has to operate in a way that includes everyone or its doomed to end up being nothing but a talking shop for a few eccentrics. I think that young women especially, need to reclaim it from the far more radical, grievance-led voices that seem to dominate it, and bring about some balance.

So feminism is unpopular? Blame the media cos they're all men anyway, (mainstream and social), blame complacency among your fellow woman, who isn't as well read a we are. Blame "The Patriarchy. Oh and you're a Troll for mentioning it. You see most women look at this and turn away with a shudder because they just dont identify with it..

The interests of women need to combine with men's rights IMO, to create a movement that seeks to make everyone, women and men, equal,. A movement that shuns conspiracy theories and rejects this divisive notion that we' are more oppressed than you. 'Egalitarian' or 'humanist' I dont know what it should be called. But I think when that happens, it will have a real enemy to fight. It's going to be difficult to have a movement that represents all of us and I dont know how it'll be done.

"The interests of women need to combine with men's rights"

Interesting. Whst are men's rights?

Incidentally, I think you have misinterpreted the comments on SAHMs- but I wasn't involved in that bit of the discussion, so I'll leave clarification to those who were.

"The interests of women need to combine with men's rights"

How about we say men's responsibilities, rather than rights?

Also it needs to be concerned with the problems all people face across the races, social classes and the genders

This brings me to those Cancer Research bastards, ignoring Heart disease.. how dare they.

I agree that feminism needs to address problems across races and classes, but not for all people and not for all genders (whatever that means these days) - Feminism is womens rights and liberation - it's for human females - women and girls, and we don't need to centre anyone else (they would benefit tangentially, but they are not the point of feminism)

SAHM is tricky - yes it should be afforded the same respect, but when that theory collides with the real world, women who become SAHMs are putting themselves at great risk by depending on a partner.

Personally I felt it was too much of a risk, and outside of the actual baby bit I've always been working or freelancing, so that should the worst happen, I'll still be able to support myself and my kids.

I think we've shown quite categorically, that feminism is far from unpopular right now, so the rest of your muddled post is probably also shite.

Just a note on 50/50 residency - this is increasingly being seen as detrimental for the children (there was a huge study in the news recently). There is evidence to suggest that children do far better if they have a single main home. I think the study concluded that 70/30 or 80/20 would be optimal for the child as retaining a close relationship with the NRP is also very beneficial. (I will include a bias alert - my sister and I had about 80/20 and it worked really well for us.)

It isn't at all surprising that most mothers end up as RP as it is usually women doing the majority of childcare so the status quo argument means mothers get residency. It might be what the women want in the case of divorce, but that doesn't mean men are being discriminated against. The argument is simple - if you want to be sure of residency in the case of divorce, then you need to do more than half of the childcare and parenting.

If you're a moderate, conservative feminist, Olivia, can you please tell me who are your moderate feminist role models?

I've always thought that, if only it were financially possible, the best thing would ever for the children to have a house and for the parents to live in it for half the week each. 50:50 parenting but 100% residency.

That being a women who chooses to embody the 'stereotype' by being a SAHM should be afforded the same appreciation and respect as those that defy it.

I've become more feminist since becoming a mother and a SAHM. I don't feel disrespected by other feminists. It's mostly only other women who will appreciate the sacrifices involved, and mostly only feminists who understand the inner conflict it can produce.

Damn, I should have saved that study. I'll try to find it, though I can't remember where I read it. There's so few that compare outcomes for children within different residency arrangements, other than consistently showing that a good relationship with the parents is best.

This has some interesting things to say about outcomes for children, though it isn't specifically looking at what the optimal time patterns are:
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Would%20legislation%20for%20shared%20parenting%20time%20help%20children)OXLAP%20FPB%207.pdf

I agree that in a perfect world having a true home with each parent is absolutely ideal bertrand, but IMO (though I'm trying to find the research to back it up) it isn't really practical to have two homes and expect a person (adult or child) to cope as well as they do with one 'main' home.