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.

Sorry about the crossed out bits, as I say the PDF is on the other thread for those interested in seeing why left wing men agreed to letting us have abortion and the pill

*Man hater" I can deal with, that's just another word for feminist isn't it.

The only people who say this are MRAs and, er, yourself.*

Eh? I've never in my life accused anyone of being a man hater or a misandrist or of being unhinged. Because I just think man hater is a term used to shut feminists up, same as the word misandrist, and lesbian. Just silencing words aren't they. Yes, often dished out by MRAs

Sometimes it’s accurate, when someone is not displaying actual feminism, but just seems to be shit stirring or really is a misandrist. It’s true feminists get called these things all the time, but here this is not the first time long standing feminist members have called you out on your extreme and frankly weird, illogical and not very intelligent comments. When you’re not copying and pasting Dworkin, that is.

Eh? I never said you said those things but you did say man hater is just another word for feminist.

They’re not making any sense... again, it’s not you

Eh? I never said you said those things but you did say man hater is just another word for feminist.

I do think it's another word for feminist. Your average bloke does think feminists are man haters. That's why I love what Daly said, if you're going to be a feminist you might as well go all the way, because even being a little bit of a feminist will get you the label of man hater.
So I laugh when women on here call me a man hater. I think, you do realize that people think you're a man hater too, for even saying you might have feminist inclinations

I think, you do realize that people think you're a man hater too, for even saying you might have feminist inclinations

Yes dear, we do realise that but just sometimes, there is someone who actually displays that kind of behaviour. A bit like how we get called transphobes for not wanting men in our spaces. That’s clearly a false use of the term that does have an actual meaning and can be on occasion accurately describing someone. Using the fact some men would call any woman a man-hater as a deflection, doesn’t mean you’re not one. It’s not your feminism that’s the issue.

But what I'm saying is manhater is a term used to shut feminists up, along with some other choice words. So manhater is synonymous with feminism.

So all you're talking about is degrees of man hating , which is just splitting hairs imo

It'd a bit like TERF is synonymous with Witch

Misandrist/Manhater is synonymous with feminism

I think that although we have made great strides in the equality of women, we still have a long way to go TBH.My mum remembers her friends father throwing her mother out into the street(1930s) .This was apparently legal then FFS!.However even today many men seem to hold all the cards ,and can leave their wife and somehow avoid paying any kind of maintenance .A friends colleague left his wife and 4 children, and despite owning several homes felt he only had to pay £400 p/m for their upkeep!.Even when married and working women seem to be on the back step somehow .

So all you're talking about is degrees of man hating , which is just splitting hairs imo

Only to really unintelligent people. People who are wise enough to understand the difference, and see the benefits to everyone of feminism, don’t think in ‘degrees of man hating’.

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?

No, social norms are developed in order to promote behaviours that are in some way useful to the society as a whole, and suppress those that aren't. They don't exist for individuals, they exist to avoid social problems caused by individual choices. that impact everyone.

That "some people" want to do something just isn't that relevant. You could make an argument that the issue isn't important enough to have a rule or noem about, but that isn't what you said.

People don't stop having kids just because their relationships are non-committal. That isn't what's happened at all.

Re testosterone:

From what I understand it doesn't seem to be directly the cause of higher aggression in male mammals. But on a species wide basis, male mammals are typically more aggressive than females, and that that pattern follows in humans though not necessarily to the same degree. There will always be a certain number of people who don't manage to suppress their impulses.

I tend to disagree that society overall creates male violence. Generally I think it's the opposite, it has a lot of different elements meant to keep it under wraps. It's not necessarily advantageous though for it to be totally extinguished, probably a society that managed that, if it's even possible, would not survive long, and there may be some other advantageous behaviours that are related to aggression.

On a different thread, someone even posted "women don't want children, but men force us to have them".
This doesn't bear any relation to any kind of reality outside of FWR - even elsewhere on mumsnet, women are desperately trying to convince recalcitrant partners to have children and are encouraged to leave partners and find men who will have children with them, even stopping birth control in some cases.

Yes, I agree that this is unrealistic. If a reliable male version of the pill becomes available, I really don't think there'll be tons of men tricking their partners into parenthood. If anything, there will be a massive decrease in "contraceptive failures", and a sudden increase in couples who are mysteriously "infertile". The birth rate will probably nose-dive.

I must be really unintelligent then JessicaWakefieldSV . I do recall getting absolutely lambasted on mumsnet about a week ago for daring to suggest marriage is prostitution, but now see that people are okay with Dworkin? When the entire premise of her book RIGHT Wing Women, is that marriage is prostitution .

That is quite some cognitive dissonance going on there . See I'm polite and use words like cognitive dissonance. I think calling people unintelligent is a little mean

but now see that people are okay with Dworkin? When the entire premise of her book RIGHT Wing Women, is that marriage is prostitution

You appreciate that different people can have different views

Its only cognitive dissonance if the same person is saying two different things

I tend to disagree that society overall creates male violence. Generally I think it's the opposite, it has a lot of different elements meant to keep it under wraps. It's not necessarily advantageous though for it to be totally extinguished, probably a society that managed that, if it's even possible, would not survive long, and there may be some other advantageous behaviours that are related to aggression.

Goosefoot* you are so right there.

And i can agree with someone on one thing...but not on any other

*You appreciate that different people can have different views

Its only cognitive dissonance if the same person is saying two different things*

No I'm saying the cognitive dissonance is saying that basically Dworkin is an okay and acceptable feminist while at the same time totally going for the jugular of a woman who basically espouses one of Dworkin's main views. So it's ok for Dworkin to say it but not for me? Why ?

This is a very ill informed thread. Women can make choices , good or bad. Marriage gives women some financial protection in law. Men can treat women badly in or outside of marriage. I believe marriage is a good thing when 2 people are truly committed to each other and intend to protect each other. It can also be a place of control and abuse. NONE of this is remotely connected to feminism. Sometimes reluctance to marriage suggests wanting to keep the door open for escape, sometimes not. Again, nothing to do with feminism. We made a lot of progress in the 70's but there has been a societal shift in celeb and pop culture which seems to have lowered the expectations of girls and young women. From the Spice Girls on the message has been very strange, not empowering at all, quite the opposite

Its only cognitive dissonance if the same person is saying two different things

^^

Nobody has to agree with Dworkin on absolutely everything. Also, the way Dworkin writes is quite different to you Sakura.

JessicaWakefieldSV

Yes I get it, you love saying I'm thick. I've never suggested I write like Dworkin

I'm saying why is it ok to dismiss me as a man hater for saying basic feminist theory espoused by a woman that is considered to be an ok feminist by those very same people doing the accusing?

You’re not being dismissed for ‘basic feminist theory’, that’s not what you’re writing at all. And I so hate to see you repeatedly misrepresent Dworkin. I really do.

Because you’re writing about feminist theory in a way that is often a non sequitur to the points you’re responding to, that assumes other posters are posting in bad faith, you’re dragging issues with one poster over on to a different thread with different posters, expecting others to keep up with your multi thread online drama and generally acting like you’re the teacher and we’re the students, or we’re just walk on parts in your story, rather actually having a respectful discussion.

Actually, the possibility of a male contraceptive pill makes me wonder:

Imagine the male pill is available. A woman wants a baby. Her partner doesn't, but pretends he does to keep the peace. He agrees to TTC (in much the same way that some men agree to get engaged while having absolutely no intention of ever marrying their partner). He continues to secretly take the pill.

After months of unsuccessful TTC, she worries that one of them is infertile. She wants to see a doctor, and after a lot of stalling ("You're worrying about nothing, just give it time!") he eventually agrees. The doctor takes blood or urine samples(?) and finds traces of the pill in the man's system.

What would the doctor do in that scenario? They can't tell the woman that her partner is using contraception, because it would violate medical confidentiality. But they also can't waste NHS funds on further investigations into fertility (and certainly not on IVF!) when they already know perfectly well why she isn't conceiving. But if they tell the couple, "Sorry, we don't know what's wrong, but we're not going to help you anymore", the woman will rightly demand to know why.

If the male pill becomes available, I don't think this scenario will be uncommon, frankly. It's a huge can of worms.