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.

Yes, yes it was slugs. A sizeable chunk of women my age are now losing out because of some shenanigans with the married women's contribution - I never took that option, and haven't looked at it in detail. There's no doubt, however, that over a million women are now living in severe poverty because of the way state pension changes were made.

Atenco - the problem isn't the age equalisation, it's the way it was done. It was already too late for any non-rich women to make reasonable adjustments and we weren't even told about it! I'm among those who, despite having paid all the stamps I was told to (including some catch-up payments) will not be entitled to a full pension at 66 - six years later than I'd expected and had planned for.

My plans went tits-up anyway, due to illness, and because of that I'm on ESA. It's not very comforting to know I'd be even poorer if I weren't disabled. Good jobs for women over 60 aren't exactly plentiful.

As WASPI keep pointing out, as well, a high proportion of women have led physically depleting lives - with birth injuries, house-keeping on top of physical jobs (cleaning, nursing & shopkeeping for examples) and caring for sick parents and/or husbands. They can't get jobs and aren't disabled enough for ESA - which means they're facing 6 years of jumping through the jobseeker hoops, risking sanction, and so on.

The loss in terms of pension 'fund' is massive for each woman: with our government's attitude to public money & services, this is likely to become crucial.

The chart shows the precipitous increase in retirement age for 50s-born women. Bear in mind, too, that the information letters weren't sent out until women were, on average, 58. Two years before they expected to retire.

I'll stop going on about it now Alongside being in the affected group myself, this just strikes me as the epitome of "it's only women" ++ "old women, who cares". It's a massive breach of contract by the government(s).

"No, I don't think feminism needs to look at itself. I think women need to look at patriarchy."

The real issue here is looking at feminism as if it is some political party, that needs to pander to the masses and make itself popular if it is to get (popularity) votes. This is totally the wrong way to look at it, and typical of those trying to derail feminism.

After all, feminism comes from the realisation that women have been systematically oppressed by a male dominated system since forever. Then there is only really one question to answer do you want this to change, or are you happy trying to make the best you can out of how things are at the moment. In effect, are you a feminist of some sort (since there is a lot of room for different opinions on what we should do in order to try and change things), or not? Obviously, it's to the advantage of those who benefit from this situation if more women make the second choice that there isn't a problem with the position of women relative to men. That isn't the fault of arguments within feminism, or different approaches to feminism! So altering those, having a more palatable brand of feminism isn't any good, if what you are actually dealing with a total denial!

It's would be like having various different christian sects, in a meaningless attempt to encourage atheists to believe in god! It ain't gonna work, when they don't believe the basic underlying premise (god exists). Similarly, you just won't convert anyone to feminism, however palatable your approach, if they just don't believe there is a problem with how women are treated in society in the first place, or that even if there is, this is normal and natural and unchangable (the 'gender' style argument in effect!).

So what about children's right not to have contact with abusive parents, Dervel? about this man [[http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/9737350]]? Why does what he want trump his children's wellbeing? Why are the dots refusing to be joined between abuse to partner and abuse to children?

It's that type of case which shows how the courts are stacked up against women and children. After all he bought the woman from CAFCASS lunch so he must be OK Was she Erin Pizzey I wonder

I can't find that article, so I won't use it in my response, dervel, but the Nuffield foundation link I posted upthread clearly found that it is the quality of time spent with parents that matters far above and beyond physical time. I would never in a million years argue that a child shouldn't have a relationship with the father. And I believe the studies that consistently show that shared parenting is good. The problem is that shared parenting is not the same thing as 50/50 residency.

The pension stuff is really interesting. Especially because I never thought a government would act against older people, simply because older people are far more likely to vote. Why was I not at all surprised that it was older women that took the bigger hit?

I should add that I only mean in the case of good fathers. Not abusive ones, obviously.

Sorry just realised my link went wrong: m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/9737350

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.

What exactly do you want from men, in terms of parental responsibility? To work or not to work? To parent, or to fuck off over the horizon? To be at the beck and call of the mother - 'show up when I want then disappear when I have had enough'? I really cannot see your point, unless it is that men are feckless idiots.

grimarse, I personally want men to act properly in the first place. A real father does far more than contribute sperm. As for the 'I contributed half the DNA so I have equal rights to the child' people, I want them to fuck off. I want the whole damn discussion changed from 'I have rights over this child' to 'I am responsible for this child'. Women who have borne the majority of the responsibility for a child, including from before birth, should be recognised.

scallopsrgreat I wholeheartedly agree we should protect children from abusive parents like the father from your link or indeed this mother here: ^www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/mother-stamped-toddler-to-death-after-authorities-failed-to-spot/^

Believe me I am well aware both abhorrent men AND women can and do use their children to lash out at exes and as ever my sympathy lies with the children and innocent parent whichever gender they may be.

JessicasElephant I am both aware and agree with you. The gold standard for children with two homes is to grow up feeling they have access to either parent when they need them. The time is mostly immaterial (although obvs it has to be regular enough to not fade into the background). Saying that quantity and quality are not mutually exclusive one can have longer periods of high quality.

I am also a single father navigating this precise set of circumstances of shared care so perhaps it's a little too close to home for me to comment much more. Although I will say I oppose this popular men's rights push for 50/50. Rather than campaign for a change in law which broadly speaking putting the focus on a child's best interests is right where the focus should be. The campaign should be encouraging cultural shifts of fathers being more involved right from birth.

"The campaign should be encouraging cultural shifts of fathers being more involved right from birth."

What do you mean? If you mean a radical shakeup of working patterns then I agree with you. Otherwise, what's stopping men being more involved?

Just wanted to say that the Huff post linked by Scallops reads as very poorly researched fiction. The writer needs to do find out about family courts and the way they work rather than, seemingly, guessing - the telling signs are in the detail - very little of it rings true and is laughable in its attempt to deceive.

I do understand that men often feel disapproved of when they take up more of the childcare responsiblities.

BUT

How do they think I feel when I'm the only woman at networking events and meetings? How do they think I feel when it's assumed that I must be the one who takes the coats and makes the tea? How do they think I feel when sexist jokes are made at these events?

It is bloody isolating and depressing. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I say grow a pair and get with the program.

slugs - I've heard that too (of course I too am uncomfortable at toddler groups, but I do have a leg up by being female and having a lot of shared experience)

As to being thought a paedophile - that's not helped by so few men doing it - the more men that do, the less unusual it is. Although, where I lived before, and where I live now there are plenty of men at the parks with their kids, taking their kids to school etc. I knew/know all of them for a chat just as much as the mums.

It's entirely in the men's hands there.

And ditto - I can't count the number of times I've been the only woman walking into a room, or in the room.

I've been the only girl on a residential course, the only woman in a training course - I had to take a deep breath and just do it. Otherwise I wouldn't be in the job I'm in.

Men have the brass neck to say that women aren't in IT because they don't want to be, yet when it comes to taking their kid out, apparently the social pressure is too much for them to bear.

"That sort of social "disapproval" (too strong a word but I can't think of the right one) can be a powerful force.
Add to that I've heard many men say they are uncomfortable at toddler groups because mums don't talk to them, or at parks in case people think they are a paedophile. That means a man doing some SAH is more likely to literally stay in the house which is isolating and depressing."

Wow. Just for a moment I almost felt sorry for them. Then I remembered what women have to put up with on a daily basis because of the societal pressures.............

"Believe me I am well aware both abhorrent men AND women can and do use their children to lash out at exes and as ever my sympathy lies with the children and innocent parent whichever gender they may be." And that statement makes it all seem like everything is even in DV/abuse stakes. when it isn't. You know this Dervel, yet you still try and portray it as such. So much for male feminist allies.

And it isn't fiction cadno. But it was predictable you would say that.

"How do they think I feel when I'm the only woman at networking events and meetings?"

Well, they don't, mostly!

Of course, the obvious answer is it is soooo much harder for them when they come up against some sort of prejudice, because unlike us girls, they haven't been used to encountering that, so unlike us, haven't had the chance to develop coping strategies, obviously.................................

"Wow. Just for a moment I almost felt sorry for them. Then I remembered what women have to put up with on a daily basis because of the societal pressures............."

Ah, but what you're missing is it is so much harder for them, because unlike us lucky girls, they haven't been exposed to such prejudice as much, so haven't had the opportunities to develop effective coping strategies. So they feel it so much more than we do.