I'm not convinced that feminism has helped the women it should have?

[soapona]

I think on these discussion boards and on my Facebook I see women. They don't insist on marriage so they partner remains married to the ex for years and year, they live together and I wonder what will happen should the man die. I also see women with no security living with men with no intentions of marrying and having children. Women moving in with men too soon. In the days gone by women would and could have insisted on commitment. So now the position for women is worse hanging round waiting for a proposal.

I know they don't have to I'm fairly wealthy and a single parent so have choices and always have. I don't have a lot to gain from marriage.

I'm not sure things have got better for women we are expected to do a lot now two incomes are the usual for a mortgage instead of one in the olden days . So it's a given women work, do the most childcare do we honestly think these thing will change when the power imbalance is there from the beginning?

Also the women marrying "beneath themselves", that's not the correct term but a man earning less and not likely to come into a decent inheritance. What is the point in getting married there if you're a women? Perhaps if the woman is wealthy to avoid inheritance tax for her children but other than that I don't know?

So would woman not be happier marrying the same or above and insisting on marriage early on, like it was a given in days gone by?

Surely Women are now in very risky positions due to this living together in a man's property. I see much more domestic abuse these days. I believe the stats are much higher with non married couples. Surely living together unmarried has been caused by equality and feminism and the very people feminists has been trying to help they've hindered.

Because men use the existence of hormones to portray us, we should deny their role in our lives? That doesn't make any sense.

Resist men, not reality.

I am always uncomfortable on those threads when so many women basically blame women for ending up in relationship when the men is a wanker.
Those who want kids, families, who develop bonds of human affection, should get over it.
Of course they don't. They should however exercise a spot of autonomy and independent thinking when choosing who to settle down with and have children with.
Above is one example of those comments.

I think one MAJOR issue is that women have gained in indépendance a lot which is great. They can vote, work, have sex with whoever they want, lead totally independent life etc... Basically taking on what was men freedom but also RESPONSABILITIES.
What SHOULD have happened is that men should have taken on some of the women’s responsibilities in return. But they haven’t and we are still fighting for them to actually step up to the mark. And tbh even the men who are so great and have taken SOME responsibilities still do not take on the full load they should actually take.

So women are now seen as totally independent entities which they wanted to be as it ace them the same level of freedom (and responsibilities) than men but men..... still mean to be looked after and bask in the comfort of being looked after without having changed their way that much,

This is in part because women are still conditioned/educated to look after people, including grown up men. But it’s also because women do not want to give up what they see as a ‘woman thing’ such as children.
Eg: if yu be,Ive that men and women are equal and are as able to look after children (which is a prerequisite to men actually stepping up and being asked to PARENT their children in the same way than a woman does), then you also need to accept that those men should get 50/50 role and care of the children when said parents get divorced. You can’t also expect women to then be still seen as the primary career and be the RP. And you also can’t then also expect the father to act as a full time parent and share all the responsibilities when they actually see their children 1 day a week (Or EOW).
Or if you accept that marriage gives you some protection as a woman whilst ‘you bring the children up/support your husband career’ etc.. because all assets will splits 50/50 if you are getting divorced, then you should also accept that this 50/50 is fair when women are the high earner. Instead what you have is those women saying that they shouldn’t split assets like this because ‘they’ have earned it. Basically using men’s argument....

No of course we shouldn’t deny hormones. But we should never say “Women are like this because of their hormones”
We may feel the pull of our hormones but choose to resist them. It is entirely up to the individual.

This is where liberal feminism falls down, because it can only see as far as "equality" with men for women.

Freedom for women, and a world set up which centers our needs and those of our children is a much better aim.

Trying to somehow make women fit into a male designed and led system is always going to cause great problems for women.

What if we didn't mention hormones and just said babies need their mothers and mothers need to be with their babies? In a civilised world that wouldn't be seen as contentious. In a male world it means either women have to ignore those needs (why would they do that?) or they get economically punished by men for being full-time mothers.

Women are more likely to want to give up work and stay at home with our kids.

I disagree with that. For me, that sort of statement is a left over of the patriarcal society that sees women as THE person who enjoys children and childcare etc...
First, I dint think that women staying at home until their dcs are all grown up has ever been the reality in the past. Women are portrayed like this but in reality, they were back working in the fields, running the house (aka doing the washing, cooking etc... that required a lot of time and effort then etc...). And you should add to that the fact children were often working by the time they were 7~10yo.

I do think that there is a period when women would really prefer to stay with their baby. Mine was about 4 months. Some women might be more like 6 months or a year. But after that, you don’t have a baby that is totally dependant in you. You have a child that can left with others. And ‘hormones’ have settled down (and as a woman you have had time to recover from the physical side of pregnancy and childbirth).

The idea that women are more confortable as a SAHM is a men’s pressure on women to keep them in their place. Have a good reason as to why women should be paid less or not given the top jobs etc...
It’s no wonder when you see books such as the ones from S Bilddupph who go on about how awful it is to leave your children in a nursery etc... are men too....
And the idea that women do not want to go back to work, implying that they can’t possibly derive as much fulfilment of not more from work than from being a mother is also n idea driven by men imo.

What if we didn't mention hormones and just said babies need their mothers and mothers need to be with their babies? In a civilised world that wouldn't be seen as contentious.

I dint agree. Past a certain age (and it’s not 2 or 3yo) what children need is SOMEONE, male or female, that will act as their primary career some of the time.
Once you start seeing women as THE people who should always be with their ‘babies’, then you set the scene for a wold where men have no role in child rearing and it’s all women responsibility.

And what I be,Ive is that men are just as capable as women to be caring and loving and to tend to the needs of children (rather than seeing them as a chore to be get out off - see the fact so many men just cut the ties with tier own children after a divorce)

I agree that we should have a society where it’s possible for a woman to take care of her baby. What we don’t want is s society where it is the expectation tgat she will.

I said earlier about things that with hindsight I think we 70s feminists should have thought about more.Motherhood and child rearing is certainly one of them.

No of course we shouldn’t deny hormones. But we should never say “Women are like this because of their hormones”

That’s good I didn’t actually say that then isn’t it? It would be so great to have a conversation that doesn’t ignore biology and reality, that doesn’t see those who raise those valid points as reducing it to only that- sounds familiar huh?

What I said was, to a certain extent. As someone with a fucked endocrine system I know more than I want to about hormones. You can’t deny we are designed to be connected to infants for a certain period of time, for their benefit. That’s why it’s more likely, not always the case, not the only way to do things, not essential, just massively influenced by our unique endocrine system and quite common. I shouldn’t need to fully explain something like this. The issue is, society doesn’t value the role. If it did, this entire conversation would look very different and saying we are somewhat designed as primary caregivers initially wouldn’t be seen as an insult.

Trying to somehow make women fit into a male designed and led system is always going to cause great problems for women.

^^

Courtesy of The Bewildeness

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.

5th rule of misogyny: WATM! Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

6th rule of misogyny: Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breast feeding babies deserve punishment.

7th rule of misogyny: Women should always be grateful to men for everything.

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it males men look bad.

11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.

12th rule of misogyny: whatever women suffer from, men suffer from more.

13th rule of misogyny: Women are not oppressed! Rape and catcalling and objectification are all compliments, not oppression.

14th rule of misogyny: Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

Jessica I think actually that this HAS TO be explained.
In part because we actually know very little about the link between hormones and a baby and the way this affects the mother AND the father. I think there is plenty more research to do on that subject.

But also because females hormones have been blamed for so many of women’s weaknesses (see being hysteric, she is on period again or what I have been told when I got pregnant by my boss ‘ah you're pregnant. That explains it!’ Talking about something he didn’t like but would have accepted from a man...

I also think that women also use that word as a way to explain the fact they wanted to be at home it’s their child, as an excuse in effect (rather than an explanation) forgetting that it then means ALL women are supposed to feel like this even the ones who don’t. Which then means piled up the guilt at the door of those women.

I agree, Miryade.

Jessica- I apologise if what I said irritated you.

I think that what is important for babies and small children, in an ideal world, is to be looked after by someone who loves them and who will place their well-being above all other things. That can be the father as much as the mother. My own dad did 50% of my childcare and I am just as close to him as to my mum. But in all honesty I think more women than men want to sah when the DC are little - I felt my baby's absence when I returned to work in a way that my DH did not. That doesn't mean other women are wrong if they feel differently. My only interest in the choices women make to sah or not, is that women are financially disadvantaged for making a choice to sah (if the relationship ends), when this choice has been of benefit to the father as much as the mother and was a joint decision. I think there needs to be something in place to give women 50% of the money and men 50% of the responsibility for their children post divorce.

I agree Myraide. The total hypocrisy seen on here by some women advising high-earning women not to marry, but low earning women to marry and demand full access to men’s money is staggering. But it’s only one piece of the puzzle - society still doesn’t promote parenting as an equal job between mother and father, and until it does, the notion of the homemaker and the provider won’t go away. Men absolutely do need to truly step up and take on 50% of the load but I’m not sure how we get there. Policies? Education? The sticking point is that it shouldn’t be 100% down to women to make that happen, but it will be. Men aren’t pushing for true equality in anywhere near high enough numbers. Hence my personal advocacy for an individualist approach where women look after themselves first and foremost. But I also believe that some women are actually misogynist themselves and quite happy with the current set up.

@dodgeballchamp No this is different I have seen posts. Man earns less say glorified hobby (self employed) at home. He looks after kids, woman works. Then in divorce, he gets his share of equality of the house and capital assets leading to the family home being sold. Then spousal maintenance. Meanwhile children stay with the mother has to downsize and receive little or no child maintenance in return.

If anything I think women years ago had more sense marry above or the same. Don't co-habit, take up with separated men (they're legally married still) or the anything goes and don't ask a man questions which seems to be how some woman live now. The more feminism has come along the less accountability men have for sex and relationships.

I also think that women also use that word as a way to explain the fact they wanted to be at home it’s their child, as an excuse in effect (rather than an explanation) forgetting that it then means ALL women are supposed to feel like this even the ones who don’t. Which then means piled up the guilt at the door of those women.

This reads like you’re blaming women who acknowledge hormonal realities of being female, for women who work feeling bad about it. That’s bullshit. The same claims are made when anyone acknowledges breastfeeding is in general, overall, better for infants- certainly it’s designed for them. These are biological realities. They shouldn’t be used by anyone to force women to stay at home, or to feel bad for not doing so. But to blame anyone who raises these legitimate points, for the crap piled on working mothers, is more of ‘its women’s fault’. For anyone going through or been through menopause, you’ll surely know the difference between having lots of, oxytocin for example, and then not- that’s where all the anger and resentment comes from!
Really the issue is we haven’t got a society that values the unique role of being a mother and that’s most obvious to me in employment- anyone who has taken extended time off for the early years knows how it affects your career and value in society. These are our issues. Not denying hormonal realities or having a go at each other for the choices we do make, in a system that punishes us and judges us either way.

PS men can’t take 50%, they don’t get pregnant, give birth or breastfeed.

*Erythronium
*
What if we didn't mention hormones and just said babies need their mothers and mothers need to be with their babies? In a civilised world that wouldn't be seen as contentious.

Totally.
It's almost starting to look like equality rhetoric is a men's rights thing. Men's right to access the babies.

No, they don't have that right. They can help out if help is required and needed. As long as it's not what my friend calls "half helping", where it takes more effort to let them or get them to help than it does to just do things yourself

Like I say, I'm a mother's rights activist: if there can be father's rights activists then there can be mothers rights activists. That's what I am.

Thanks for sharing The Bewilderness's rules of misogyny. How apt

First, I dint think that women staying at home until their dcs are all grown up has ever been the reality in the past.

I think we have to acknowledge the baseline, that going out to work itself is a very very recent concept. In terms of evolution, the industrial revolution was not very long ago. Before then all work was based around the home, whether farming or crafting. We are still in the process of squaring that huge change with sociological mechanisms. As the economy restricts it is automatic that the fudges become an issue again.

Or are you saying they should all just wank into jars and women pick the sperm as and when they want to birth children?

Well I haven't thought through the specifics.

If you want to be a mother but don't want a man you just need to go out for a walk at night in my area, you'll be guaranteed to get raped. I don't recommend that as a strategy obv

Ideally a loving relationship with a man would be the best way to bring a child into the world, as long as he doesn't step on mothers rights

DarkAtEndOfTunnel

Very good point about the industrial revolution. Or as feminists like to call it, the industrial genocide.

I watched this documentary once about coffee pickers in South America. The mothers pick coffee beans while their kids mess about, running around the trees.

The white male documentary interviewer did a lot of hand wringing and shaming that the kids weren't in school.
Oh just fuck off I thought. The kids look happy, their mums are working, and the mums and kids get to be together.

I have a masters degree and I'm doing the most rubbishy minimum wage job that I could've done without a jot of education. So for me school was a complete waste of time. Although I'm glad I can read. But you don't need endless years of schooling just to be able to read.

Working class women have always worked outside the home. Only rich women have the “luxury” of staying home.

That’s weird. My Māori grandmother and mother, both working class although we don’t have that term, and they stayed at home with large families. They didn’t have anyone to look after their children and in those days, nobody would employ them. Heck, even my younger sister couldn’t get a job in farming- in the 90’s, because she was female.
It is totally false to say only rich women stay at home.

Apologies. I assumed we were talking about the U.K. . It is the only country I feel remotely qualified to talk about.