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.

And of women currently using contraception globally, the pill is used by 8.8%.

And of women currently using contraception globally, the pill is used by 8.8%

Fair dos, but there are lots of different types of contraceptives nowadays.

Goosefoot so people should think about the good of society when deciding who to sleep with and in what context? Nooooo thank you. Serious question though, why would it actually matter if everyone opted for non-committal relationships and stopped having kids? Why is it imperative that humans continue to breed and exist? It isn’t really is it?

Those contraceptive methods include condoms, the rhythm method, withdrawal and sterilisation.

And only two thirds of women in relationships use any form of contraception.

It’s not imperative that humans continue to exist, but people who don’t care if society exists for more than one generation don’t really have anything constructive to say about what we should try to be as a society.

There are loads of 'paternalist' or even 'nudge' laws which are put in place to protect people from their predictably poor decision-making in long term contracting situations. People cannot and will not assess risk correctly. Not just women, all people. Which is why we have laws around consumer financial instruments, laws around insurance contracts, etc.
Which brings me to marriage. Women are - predictably - making poor choices of men. They cannot easily assess the long term costs and consequences of hooking up with a man who won't commit and provide. Or the costs and consequences of a man who commits and provides in the short term but don't in the long term, when children are on the scene. Some women are savvy, and advocate well for themselves. Some women don't read the small print. Some women are not that smart and ignore all the signs of a 'bad contract'. Some women are desperate for anything, so they don't care. The point is, that on the whole, women are making less good decisions for themselves and their children and this has to change.

The legal institution of marriage was a historical policy response to this predictably poor decision-making. It provides a set of low-cost default rules. If those default rules are not favorable, a woman can enter into a bespoke contract, a property relationship agreement. But this alternative is costly. Not just in the sense of the cost of a lawyer, but in the sense of being complex and requiring negotiation over who-owns-what and who-should-own-what when a split occurs.
If a new policy response is needed, what is needed is a middle ground option. Not marriage, which is a fully opt-in model. But a default model, where assets are divided in a fairer way after a period of time in a relationship. Default 'commitment', to nudge people to commit to 'commit' where they should have been committing anyway but couldn't quite manage it because they are, well, human.
New Zealand has this model. After three years in a relationship, you are deemed to be a de facto couple. Any assets that were gained during the relationship are split 50:50.

Well I think nowadays nearly all of them do. But historically speaking, nomadic people generally avoided having large families. So there were methods as I doubt that they were all being sexually abstemious.

In Jared Diamond's book Collapse he describes the New Guinea Highlanders means of population control. Infantacide was common, as was using hot stones and herbs to promote abortions.

In Vanuatu, if a man died in a war or of disease or any means, his wife and all his children were killed and thrown in the grave with him. This is one way they kept the population down.

We could go back to that?

New Zealand model described here: NZ de facto property relationship rules

Women have been marginalised in all sorts of ways because hormones. That’s a really dangerous route to go down.

Funnily enough, the whole WORLD is driven by men's hormones and their need to have sex. Wars, structures, laws: all driven by men's appetite for sex and power.

So why should our hormones be embarrassing? Why shouldn't they be at the fore?

And of women currently using contraception globally, the pill is used by 8.8%

Fair dos, but there are lots of different types of contraceptives nowadays

Including mirena coil and contraceptive implant which would not exist if the pill had not been invented.

Those contraceptive methods include condoms, the rhythm method, withdrawal and sterilisation

Various searches on Google tend to show your statements about declining pill use are not correct.

And only two thirds of women in relationships use any form of contraception

And that, depending where in the world women are, is as likely to be down to an unmet need as a positive decision.

How so? And also, I do think many women (feminists especially) are responsible for looking down on SAHMs
I think lots of feminists look down on loads of things that have traditionally been seen as feminine whether that be pink, being interested in one's appearance, SAHMs... the list is pretty long. My view is that this is a result of us as women struggling to distinguish the traits and roles that we have been socialised to adopt under the influence of the patriarchy and those that we as a biological sex have a genuine propensity towards. It is easier to reject all the traditionally feminine stuff that is genuinely viewed as as inferior than to fight for recognition and value for those things that aren't intrinsically less worthwhile than traditionally male pursuits, traits or occupations.

I guess the real issue is that the patriarchy influences our perspective on the value and worth of things from such a young age and in such an insidious way that it can be really difficult to form our own independent value judgements. For example, we all know money is king in this capitalist world and we are taught from a young age how important it is, but of course the whole structure of how money is created, how we earn and spend money and how we value and reward effort monetarily is a societal construct. A system that's been set up by men where men have a huge advantage because they don't have to shoulder the burden of reproductive biology. When you think about it reproduction and raising our young should be one of the most valuable and important things we as a species from an evolutionary perspective and yet there is little value placed on it because men can't control it. Men have decided and we have believed that it is inferior to their role as hunter, breadwinner, whatever....

Feminism is too often thought of as a way that women can beat men at their own game when it's all a lie. We can't win, they set the rules and the odds are stacked. We need to break the game and change the rules to see real change.

This thread is quite enlightening I have to say, in part because I clearly don't see the world the same way than a ot of people on this thread.

Hormones vary much more in women than they do on men. And yes they are diferent which makes us slower at running (but does that make any difference in our day to day life??) but also less prone to outburts (that men men experience due to testosterone). For me, thos ehormones basically bring different chappenges to men and women and those should be recognised.
And because of their variation on a day to day basis, they also have mor visible impact on women's life (eg PMS).
BUT im sure that no one here would think its ok to say that its 'normal' for men to be more violent and more prone to outbursts etc... because of their testosterone level. We would all say they need to learn to control those impulses. So Im not sure why women shouldnt be doing the same and learn to deal with the variations in progesterone...

I fully disagree with @Goosefoot about the idea that social roles for women depends (mainly?) on our biology. Maybe it was in a hunter gatherer society but there arent many left! Nowdays, our role in society is mainly guided by social construct, ones that is guided by patriarchy and the wish to protect some privileges from one group vs the other (same with racism btw or in some ways the class system in the UK too). There is a good reason why societies in developping countries change and progress quicker when WOMEN are educated. Its because it changes the social constructs and the power balance despite no change in the way of living (aka our biology didnt have that much impact after all...)

This blod came to my inbox yesterday [https://heatherplett.com/2019/07/power-saws-wild-women/]]

This encapsulates much better my experience of being a woman rather than being 'denied' my femaleness.

Link again heatherplett.com/2019/07/power-saws-wild-women/

@Bumpitybumper, genuine propensity is the right word.
Propensity does imply that some women will not feel all those traits. and imo implying that there is something wrong with women who do not feel those traist is just as bad as forcig them to act as of they dindt feel them.
Eg its ok for a woman not to feel like having children or to not awfully miss her dcs when she is away from them.

I think its also essential to separate roles and traits. A trait is something that comes easily to you but that you can nurture and develop and decide to ignore. It can be also be nurtured and develop in people who might not have that 'propensity'. For me, this means that men CAN be caring and loving and good parent, just as good as a mother can be if you can give them the chance to develop that skill rather than squashing it right from the time they are born by telling them 'they re strong' etc....
Role sis what is imposed by society and imo is mainly done throught education/endoctrination.

Basically, going back to only hormones and our femaleness to define who we are, is opening the door to women to ony be at home and look after children BECAUSE its a genuine propensity, thats nature and who are we to go against nature??

BUT im sure that no one here would think its ok to say that its 'normal' for men to be more violent and more prone to outbursts etc... because of their testosterone level.

No. If you think that’s why men are violent and abuse women, then you do not understand the issue at all. Male entitlement and male violence, is a product of social conditioning. Not high testosterone. It’s difficult to try and have this discussion with someone who does not understand the issues well. A lot of what you’re contributing I find very misogynistic. Comparing hormones which make women uniquely able to fulfil the needs of an infant, like breastfeeding, to men having high levels of testosterone that you claim makes them violent, and therefore we should all resist our natural biological roles, is grotesque. Really just mind boggling on a feminist board. I suggest going and doing some research on both male violence and the basics of endocrinology.

Basically, going back to only hormones and our femaleness to define who we are, is opening the door to women to ony be at home and look after children BECAUSE its a genuine propensity, thats nature and who are we to go against nature??

No it bloody isn’t! We don’t need to ‘only be at home’ to breastfeed for a start. You’re actually suggesting the way for women to have liberation is denying our fucking biology? Jesus fucking Christ. We live in a world created by men for men. That our complex biology doesn’t fit neatly into it is no surprise. Denying what makes us women, what enables us to procreate ffs, as a way to get equal rights, is ridiculous. It’s the opposite of what we should be doing. Women being mistreated and oppressed based on our biology of being female, is not a reason to deny reality. You’re giving in. No. It damages women to deny this. We can be women and all that entails, and do plenty of other things as well, it need not confine us to the kitchen anymore.

Sorry but you areally have made me laugh.
so somehow men hormnes have NO EFFECT AT ALL on their behaviour and its all society and patriarchy but women's behaviour is all hormnes and none of it is conditioning from society?

Come on. Its cant be bot at the same time.

and the issue you highlight is exactly the reason why i have an issue with the idea of 'genuine propensity' and our roles are shaped by our biology.
because thats what so many men have said women shouod be at home. They have used that explaination to say it is only natural and normal for us to be with our babies and only our babies.
Im happy to see that you think this idea is preposperous. Because as I said I woud fucking hate a world like this.

So I am interested, how woud a 'perfect' world look like if it was taking into account our femaleness (and i assume wouod also take into account men maleness)?

Sorry but you areally have made me laugh.
so somehow men hormnes have NO EFFECT AT ALL on their behaviour and its all society and patriarchy but women's behaviour is all hormnes and none of it is conditioning from society?

You have a habit of misrepresenting something that’s been said here by adding your own ending. Of course hormones impact men too, all humans. They do not make men lose control and become violent. It’s not an inevitable consequence of having male testosterone levels. Women being able to breastfeed because of hormones, a physical function, is not the same as men choosing to be violent. It’s gross you’re making that link.

because thats what so many men have said women shouod be at home. They have used that explaination to say it is only natural and normal for us to be with our babies and only our babies.

Who gives a fuck what men have decided we should fucking do? So we deny biology because men use it to oppress us? Don’t be so ridiculous. That’s the point of feminism isn’t it? To liberate us from what men have decided our lives should be just because we are women. Ignoring our female biology is not the answer. If you think that will stop men trying to control us, you are being very naive. The problem is not the difference between men and women. The problem is the value we put on those differences.

I don’t know about a perfect world, but a world that doesn’t view women and our roles as ‘inferior’ would be great. Not having to deny our biological lived reality and pretend we are just like men so they don’t find our reality inconvenient would also be great. Not having women tell us to ignore our bodies and our female biology so we look and act more like men, would be fucking great. I’m so sick of liberal feminists doing this.

The problem is the value we put on those differences.

Bang on.

Testosterone does not equal ‘increased violence’. Greater strength, greater muscle size... these are inevitable consequences comparable to say, female hormones that make us able to breastfeed, give birth etc