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.

I've got a feeling the study was in Australia if it's the one I'm thinking of Jessica (if that's any help. I could be completely wrong and no help at all ).

I don't know if this man was abusive Buffy but you see it all over the relationships board, abusive men wanting 50/50 so they don't have to pay. Usually they fail to understand what that means and when they realise they back down. Or they farm out care to other women in their family. Because they don't actually want to care for their children. They just want control .

sunshowercap

They've been sold a pig in a poke - neoliberal identity politics.

You absolute star!

It wasn't until I read your sentence above that all of the suspicions in my head about the redefining of gender and identity over the last ten years suddenly cleared.

This is what we are facing: the constant redefinition of identities used as a political tool to both confuse society, neutralise complaint, and advance a neo-liberal political and economic agenda.

I used to wonder why no-one from the radical traditions was pointing out that a lot of the redefining and classification of "identities" was actually coming from the establishment or state structures themselves.

I also used to wonder why very few females over the last few years seemingly noticed that "feminist meaning" was being produced, almost uncontested, by elite voices Sheryl Sandberg, for example in a manner that pushed the line that the problem was not structural, but, instead, the fault of women themselves for their inability to perform in a manner that was pushed as an "ungendered business culture", as though the inherent structures and cultures of "modern business" were not built upon centuries of patriarchy and patriarchial performance.

I am in my 40s now, and was a fairly stark feminist in my twenties, influenced heavily by the feminism of the 1970s. But at some point during the noughties, I began to notice that campus "feminism" was becoming obsessed with minutiae, with young women asking things like "can you wear lipstick and be a feminist?"

This campus "feminism" then developed a total obsession with "equalities", which is, I believe, how we have got to the point where the Green Party Women has self-designated itself as "non-men".

And campus feminism is important to watch as it feeds heavily into mainstream feminism because it tends to mould the minds and perceptions of the next generation of politically-active women.

Part of me suspects campus feminism developed its social justice/equalities line because it really didn't know where else to go. And it was also very convenient for young feminists to adopt this line because the aims of social justice and the pursuit of "equalities" tends to require legislation to enact, and legislation requires the state -- so instead of young feminists challenging the state's hold over social and cultural meaning , this line actually reinforced the state's authority and power in these areas.

But this is the problem with campus feminism: it is formulated in a climate where women are young, tend to be rather privileged at that time and place, and, now more than ever, are largely inexperienced in how the world really works.

I now work in HE, and the difference between young feminists and myself is astonishing. Young campus feminists appear to see feminism's goal as being the achievement of equalities, whereas I see feminism as a route to liberation from social, cultural and political constraints placed upon biological females.

And here, in a nutshell, is the faultline between old-school feminists and fourth-wavers who support the new politics of gender.

At some point these young women are going to realise that feminism was never about equalities per se, but about something far more radical, fundamental, and revolutionary: freedom. The tragedy is that, by that point, they will have become invisible middle-aged women that no-one listens to.

I quite liked this Guardian article on the subject:

"The problem with this approach is that it leads to a great big pile of nothing. The suggestion that women should unthinkingly celebrate one another purely out of sisterly feeling is about as patronising as the idea that women shouldn’t trouble their brains with opinions. ... So maybe the easiest way to deal with the kinds of arguments raised by choice feminism is to end with this simple truth: while the ability to choose is feminist, that doesn’t mean the choice itself is."

I had that blinding flash about neo-liberal identity politics quite recently, too, Werks! It's something I'd been seeing, but not noticing, for a long time. "Identity" is and always has been a tool of the ruling (patriarchal) classes. Urgh: how to tackle that one, when your audience values their own "identities" above all?

On a more personally relevant note, I've been listening to the stories of 1950s-born women who've been stitched up by the pensions change. They're heartbreaking. And I'm seeing this a lot:

"Ministers have taken out their Misogyny on US....which breaks my heart because I've stood up for men for AGES now, against the Radical Feminists who put men down ALL the time....and now, I'm caught in the outpouring of HATRED against Feminism......"You wanted equality, so you can have it, with BELLS on!""

lizziecornish.over-blog.com/2016/04/the-heartbreak-of-a-pensionless-pensioner.html

She still doesn't get it, does she? She thought that standing up for men would make her a Patriarchy Pal and the system would be nice & fair to her. Now she's been smashed in the face with systemic disrespect for women. And she chooses to see it as a punishment for feminism.
Sigh.

It boggles my mind that women should think they should stand up for men in general...

(Trying to think back to my naive days to see if I've ever thought that ... )

On the topic of children and divorces, I think I haven't mentioned it yet in this thread but ... women and men are not the same, and to pretend that they are is to discriminate against women.

Biology means that a divorced man can easily have another two children with his new spouse. A woman cannot.

Is it really fair if a woman who is a good parent gets to have a family with children only half the time, but her ex-husband gets to have his patchwork family with new children there all the time, and older children there half the time? (And more likely than not, all childcare done by the new wife ...)

Of course, there are women who are unfit parents, and in those cases, the children's needs have to come first.

But to deny that women invest much, much more, biologically, in children than men do, is to discriminate against women. (And that's even without taking into account that many fathers do much less than 50% of childcare once the baby is born)

I see this as part of the pattern of the whole trans nonsense. Invisibling female biology, and than claiming that that's "equality".

Reminds me of that quote about poor people and rich people being likewise not allowed to beg and sleep under bridges. Treating different people the same is everything BUT fair.

Goodness Vestal.. I hadn't really thought about that. I don't know what I think about it either - something screams that it's the children that are the most important, but you're right, there's also something screaming that I grew them in my own body and that should count for something.

From the court's point of view, 'fairness' doesn't come into the equation.

Invisibling female biology, and than claiming that that's "equality".

Yes, this. It's also critical to the inequality of equal opportunities. They aren't equal until the whole of daily life (offices, schools, everything) is restructured to take account of the facts that [a] everyone has a home life; [b] only half the species can produce young, and [c] pregnancy & birth are valuable activities.

Pregnancy & birth can also take a massive physical toll, during the process and often for life. If we want humans to have children, we should also be taking account of it. In order for that to happen, we need values to shift enough so that 'life', including family, is afforded as much worth as commercial activity.

A lot of this feeds into an argument for a proper universal basic income. But it's complex, and I don't think too many young people can see the full picture ... yet.

I struggle with the whole biology argument because it seems to put women back in their place, in the home, raising children.

Why should I be expected to sacrifice a career if I choose not to, because of biology. It feeds into the inequality in the workplace- I'm female, so why should I be promoted/given equal pay because my biology means I'll have children and be more invested than a male would.

I also wonder if women are rejecting feminism because in cases of divorce, they are better off with a man working full time and contributing more CM. We see on here when exes want to go part time or change career, it's seen as practically child neglect, at best not providing for a child.

Green Party!

Way to go ! You have successfully alienated most of your female voters and I would imagine also lots of future females voters. (sorry, non male voters)

Women should make a stand.

I predict that a lot of forms in the future will contain tick boxes such as

Men
Non Men
Other.

If there is no tick box titled Women, then we should make a point of drawing lines through all the options and physically adding/writing underneath

Woman (plus a tick)

They can try to tell us what to do, but that doesn't mean we have to listen.

Micah, that's why I believe the whole attitude has to shift. Our value system still works according to the rules set by Victorian patriarchs - who relied on other people to run their lives and have their children.

It's as if only women are interested with having children!

interested in!!

Why should I be expected to sacrifice a career if I choose not to, because of biology. It feeds into the inequality in the workplace- I'm female, so why should I be promoted/given equal pay because my biology means I'll have children and be more invested than a male would.

Huh?

Women are the ones who give birth regardless of what people say.

If you want children with a man, you will have to give birth to them, because men can't do it. And this sacrifice of your health should be acknowledged by society, shouldn't it?

I don't say a woman should have to be the primary carer for her children after divorce - just that it is her choice.

It does not logically follow from the fact that you can give birth that you should do so. There is therefore no need to deny that fact.

Sweeping biology under the carpet will not make employers forget that you can get pregnant, believe me. The only ones who are deceived by the transideology are women.
Maybe you believe that, just because you are re-classified as non-man, that you are not discriminated against on the grounds of your sex - but you still are. The only difference is that you can't do anything against it, as employers can claim that they will happily hire non-men ... and just hire a transwoman, who conveniently cannot get pregnant. Which they know.

It's as if only women are interested in having children!

In fact, men are much more keen on having children according to recent research. Obviously, they do not have to think about how it might affect their careers, or their bodies, or endanger their lives ...

That's exactly why I am of the opinion that if a woman sacrificed her health and her career for children, then she should get to keep them. If she wants to, obviously. If she'd rather have her ex-husband take over the remaining years of childcare, that's okay, too.

But the fact that men have a right to babies to whom they only contributed sperm, is a huge injustice. There's enough mothers who want to get the hell away from the useless idiot with whom they had unprotected sex, but cannot because this useless idiot is a "father" in the eyes of society.

It's not much better then the days when children were considered the father's property.

"From the court's point of view, 'fairness' doesn't come into the equation." Of course courts aren't interested in fairness. They are designed by and for men. Fairness to women doesn't come in to it. That's why until relatively recently men got to decide who their children lived with or could rape their wives (In fact tbh men are still doing both those - they just dress it up in other language).

One of the reasons I lean to the more radical side of feminism is that we are expected to work within structures that are inherently set up for men. The court process is adversarial, yet women are taught to be conciliatory from an early age. It is always going to be difficult for women.

One of the reasons I lean to the more radical side of feminism is that we are expected to work within structures that are inherently set up for men.

Indeed.
I understand why many women lean more towards the liberal side - working within existing structures seems so much easier at first glance.

It's just that while you can easily work inside the structures, achieving change is a very different thing.

I really like werks post from upthread. I'm chewing on it for a while, but it's set me off thinking in some new directions - thanks!

A child has a right to a relationship to both parents, and have better life outcomes if that's what they get.

They've been sold a pig in a poke - neoliberal identity politics.

Yes!

The radical feminists always knew that legislation (equal pay act, getting the vote, making rape in marriage a crime, lesbian marriage), was only the start of the process. The liberal feminists seemed to think it was the end (you've got equal rights under the law now so what's the problem? O, it must be me!). So the only logical extension of that position was looking for more and other 'minorities' to legislate for. Hence the whole trans shebang.

But even more than that and the jenduh nonsense, what really grates is the ageism -- the idea that anyone over 30/40/50 (delete where appropriate) knows nothing, is useless and old-fashioned and out of touch and on the wrong side of history, not worth listening to, old, ugly, forgotten and forgettable. The worship of the young and the new, the novel and the latest fad.

Just read the blog on the woman who didn't get her pension at 60 and don't quite see the feminist point here. Is there any valid reason why women would have to retire earlier than men? Otherwise the blog is a very sad story reflection on the benefits system and how it affects everyone.