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 don't think it's justified to not contribute towards early years childcare and education more generally even if you do intend to live entirely independently as a hermit attached to some kind of religious order.

I don't intend to go out in a boat. I accept that we still all have to pay for the upkeep of lighthouses.

I'm bloody opressed by men (generic), in that society has pretty much forced me into a traditional female role wrt childcare.

I have degrees, am educated, and should have a value in the workplace. Having had children, one or both parents needed to reduce working hours to fit around school. Dh, in the male environs of the building trade, can't, it just isn't done in his field. It's either full time or nothing. So it falls to me, in academia where things are more progressive flexible, to reduce hours.

So i take on the bulk of the childcare, housework etc, with my job now seen as "oh that's nice, some adult time", and dh as the big strong man working hard to provide.

lorelei .the world Aunt describes, so child centred and school centred, puts me off

Well, it's only a thought experiment of a society skewed the other way as opposed to patriarchy. Although since becoming a mother, I have really been given a first-hand view of how life becomes dominated by kids so maybe that's why it came off the top of my head :)

Sorry, but it grates more than a little bit to see a rant about young women in feminism.

I know many women in their 40s and 50s who refuse the term "feminist", who call other women "feminazis" and so on, who claim that we have all the rights we need (or worse, claim we should return to "the good old days when men were men").

Equally I know many young radfems (and I consider myself one of them, if 21 is still young these days) fighting tirelessly to reclaim the name of feminism, to wear it as a badge of honour and to fight the issues we're facing right now - the rape culture on university campuses; uniform codes in schools being used to punish girls and excuse male teachers and students who can't go an hour without finding a pubescent girl sexually scintillating; the still-prevalent expectation that we'll get married and stay at home to raise the children while our husband works - in addition to the idea that there's anything wrong with choosing to be a stay at home parent.

We're fighting. And it doesn't matter if you "can't hack fighting for young women anymore", because we're going to keep on fighting. Just because a number of young women these days don't embrace feminism, it doesn't mean they don't deserve to have their rights defended.

Good for you Ovaries. I was careful though to say NAWALT. I should explain perhaps. To me 40 or 50s is a young woman . It's all relative…...

Which issues do men have that are not caused by living in a state of patriarchy?

Mainly the issue of not being privileged enough.

Men who say they are not feminists but for "equality" often mean that they want to eradicate everything that was established to protect women from male violence and oppression. "Equality" to them means to enjoy all the advantages of patriarchy, but no negative side-effects at all.

They don't want a ship's captain to say "Women and children first", because they want to trample down people who are smaller and weaker than they, and get to the lifeboats first.

They complain about International Women's Day because it is one day in the year that isn't all about men.

They complain about women-only spaces because they feel that the whole world should be a male space.

They complain that sometimes, women don't trust men, because rape culture shouldn't even mildly inconvenience men.

In short, they believe that everyone should be equal, but men should be more equal.

"You argued that historically women were not chattel? On what basis?"

They argued women were "kept down" as chattel due to historical misogyny.
I pointed out that:
These were eras of high infant mortality (driving the need to protect the limiting factor in population size (eggs/women), no socialism (almost no support for single mothers) , low wages all around, low technology therefore prioritization of male driven manual labour, opportunities for women of higher class to receive education (even in medieval times) and almost no opportunities for men of lower classes to receive education. I found evidence that single women could own businesses, and of course the fact that there have been historical queens, very popular ones in fact (Elizabeth I for example) in cultures feminist history deems overtly patriarchal. I argue that for the vast majority of the population, men and women of equal class lead relatively similar lives. Women and men of the lower class = field and farm work with women keeping home and men doing somewhat more manual labour and the obligation going to war. (It is an obligation, not a privilege to get yourself killed on a battlefield). Of the higher classes, women enjoyed the finer things of life, optional education, and were highly taken care of. I argue that lines of oppression were historically about class, not misogyny.

But they disagreed very strongly. They were like NO NO, WOMEN were chattel, because of SEXISM and MISOGYNY. Then they called me a troll and banned me for even arguing otherwise. Feminism is seen by many as having trouble with disagreement with it's core principles. You can even see that at universities no platforming even celebrated feminists like Germaine Greer

There have been two documented instances of matriarchy historically in major civillizations. The Babylonians, and the Late Roman Empire, (and technically the western world is turning that corner). Both of which fell, because the reason why matriarchy hasn't worked so far, is that men tend to "check out" of responsibility when society declares they aren't necessary and prioritizes female interests. Women on the other hand, being fully independent, under a matriarchy, de-prioritize marriage and family. (in fact lots of feminists argue such things are tools of patriarchy) We're beginning to see that now in fact. A matriarchy that can solve the problem of the marriage decline and loss of family units would be a powerful civillization, but as none as of yet have, it becomes vulnerable to being invaded by an aggressive patriarchy. (as what happened to the Babylonians and Romans).

Things like..reality... tend to be missing from utoptian feminist discussions of matriarchy.

Feminists over at a certain forum who have taken womens studies.

Women's studies?

So American then?

Interesting paragraph though. I'm not sure where to start with the historical inaccuracies with it, but interesting nonetheless.

i am also opressed into a patriarchal model of womanhood... my child is disabled, there was NEVER any question of DH staying at home to look after him.. its my job.. he wouldn't even know where to start.

Its all very well saying Feminism allowed me to make that choice.. but what choice was there? How many people will willingly care for the complex needs of an autistic child?

The fact that caring for disabled children being a female role has forced my hand in this (not unwillingly i should add, he's my child) doesn't prevent me from using my stance as a Feminist to still fight for my rights, or from teaching both my children that dad working and me being at home doesn't devalue my place, or that my DD can always make her own choices without her sex being an obstacle, or that women have the right not to be treated at less than men.

historical inaccuracies with it

should read "historical inaccuracies within it"

Sorry.

Vestal, I don't think that's a reasonable assessment. I'm happy to pay for education, health, welfare. I only get 25% off council tax though there's only one person using facilities in my household.

People choose to have children. Some of the cost has to come from the parents, isn't that fair? If you think parents shouldn't foot any of the childcare bill, Isn't what I save the state enough to get me out of subsidising completely free child care?

Maddy, and nor should it.

Women's unpaid work is what makes this and every other country function. What you are doing is vital. That it isn't recognised as such by the powers that be is definitely a feminist thing.

Maddy, I do know a man who is SAH for a child with health problems. The higher earner was the default to work. I feel as if you are saying you were the logical choice being a woman, but why?

When you appear on threads and state that the Late Roman Empire was a Matriarchy, despite this being a ludicrous suggestion in the eyes of almost all historians, I can see why people on some other sites would consider you to be a troll, as you claim. Do you think that might be where you are going wrong on these other sites?

If you believe something about a society that almost nobody else believes, it is massively misleading to refer to it as a 'documented case of' as if there were some kind of broad consensus on the matter.

"Which issues do men have that are not caused by living in a state of patriarchy?"

I could make a list if you want, but i'd rather deal with the underlying problems with that argument. The idea that all that stands between men the solving of all their problems, is the feminization of themselves. That is an anti male position.

The idea that instead of seeing men as they are as worthy of spending resources on to say, combat the 4x higher male suicide rate, we'll just help women in the hope that eventually it'll result in men wanting to feminize, and once they're more feminized, their suicide rate should start falling.

There are some who would deem it magical thinking.

annoyingkid, are you seriously trying to argue that Elizabethan England wasn't patriarchal? Do you actually know very much about Tudor history?

Sorry, 'documented instances of' was your actual wording.

"When you appear on threads and state that the Late Roman Empire was a Matriarchy, despite this being a ludicrous suggestion in the eyes of almost all historians, I can see why people on some other sites would consider you to be a troll, as you claim. Do you think that might be where you are going wrong on these other sites?

If you believe something about a society that almost nobody else believes, it is massively misleading to refer to it as a 'documented case of' as if there were some kind of broad consensus on the matter."

The late Roman Empire was as matriarchal as any society has ever become.

"There have been two documented instances of matriarchy historically in major civillizations. The Babylonians, and the Late Roman Empire"

I specialised in the Later Roman Empire at university but totally missed the bit where it became a matriarchy. Could you fill me in?

I've spent a while reading through this thread I've been thinking about these issues quite a lot recently, particularly the 'trans' issue. I'm sorry to see you leave Garlic

"annoyingkid, are you seriously trying to argue that Elizabethan England wasn't patriarchal? Do you actually know very much about Tudor history?"

I didn't argue that. I said there's no evidence that women were treated worse than men in the name of misogyny.

Patriarchy just means rule of the fathers. All feminists argue that western society today is a patriarchy, and women arent treated as chattel. So the two don't inherently go together as concepts.

lorelei, its all to do with expectation and societal norms, i really wouldn't have thought that would need clarifying on this forum of all places