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.

Also, prayers of deliverance and psychoanalysis are pretty patriarchal ways to try and humiliate a woman for having an opinion

"Would Maggie thatcher became prime minister without marry up?"

Not 100% I understand the question!

I think she had to be married - just like Ed M was "forced" to in 2011.

General comment regarding causing division here (MN) -

Sorry but when tweeter bans mostly women for saying just simple things like men are more violent then women.

Causing division is not the actual intention when saying men hate women here.

Either from personal experience or objective worldwide statistical evidence or both.

Stating this should NOT be causing a division at least not on FWR!

Sakura, how do you think you would handle things if you had a son?

MaeWest1890
It doesn't matter a jot how we apportion blame it's what practical steps we take now and if that is all a feminist has to offer, blame, I don't think we deserve the real rights we've achieved in my lifetime.

sakura184

I think soapona gave a good outline as to some of the reasons I think marriage is prostitution, and that was just off the top of her head

Hey nothing against the OP but a great deal of what she said sounds incredibly disconnected from non-wealthy people's reality. Honestly I spend enough time dealing with insulated wealthy individuals with huge inheritances in my day-to-day; and she's barely engaged in the thread. You on the other hand have spent countless hours writing posts (many copy pasted quotes as well) as evidenced by the pages and pages and pages of your text so I want to hear your reasons because in all of those pages you actually haven't stated why you think marriage=prostitution.

Again, stop hiding behind other people's words and make your own points. I'm asking you a direct question yet again.

To my mind this is case of "path of least resistance". Women have supported and helped run the world with very great effect - Thatcher. However, the stage is the Patriarchal Society. In all countries, the women have not been the ones "setting the agenda". Please give any real examples, if you do not agree.

Being the PM is not the only way to participate in "ruling the world". And what does that mean, anyway?

Women participate in life, they talk to each other and to me, they raise girls and boys, they do half the work, they write, they teach, the sit in governments and run communities, and a thousand other ways.

Human societies are varied over time and sex roles vary considerable in a way most people now don't really appreciate, the imagine some increasing progress over time. But all of these things have had women doing them, not only today but in the past.
History, the "agenda" isn't set by a few individuals, its a collaborative enterprise.

Imno

Is this 1950s?

After much trial and error the AAA policy was that the abuser has to admit the problem first.

Men will not admit their problem, are you saying women should not demand that men recognise their problem.

AAA was helping the abuser, so are women for the first part.

Men can not demand that women provide the solution for their problem.

Hey Sakura, I've been here a couple of years now and I can't sincerely say you are the first character that's made me wish a block function existed. Your marriage comment is offensive. Seriously mate.

Bring back Golfing Stepho, all is forgiven.

Goose

My point was that women "setting the agenda" is the absence of "Patriarchy".

You can not blame women for supporting Patriarchy if that is the path of least resistance.

As there is rampant unpunished abuse and killing of women in 2019 still, I would claim this is evidence that women are being controlled for the benefit of men.

Let there be no unpunished abuse of women and then let us see, how much women support the current (Patriarchal) system.

Okay let's see...

I think when you marry you sell your fidelity and sexual monogamy. It's not expected for women to be virgins anymore, but sexual monogamy still applies. Men insist on this because it's very difficult for them to ensure paternity. Or should I say, men need to be absolutely certain children belong to them, and in general it's difficult to do this without certain social constructs.

Why would women do this? Well there has to be something in it for them, and that's where marriage becomes transactional.
A child with a known father wasn't a bastard and that made for a better outcome for its prospects. I'm glad the stigma of a child outside marriage no longer really applies, but still there are other benefits to women of marriage. Some social and maybe legal protections, as part of the deal. Also, men promise to be faithful in return. This seems to part of the deal women strike. Whether men stick to this deal is not the point. This is what women expect going in. They also expect some measures of economic protection, in general, although it's true women do marry down.

So I think the OP is right in thinking that the sort of feminist idea that marriage is patriarchal and therefore we should reject it, has inadvertently negatively affected women. Because all that's happened is, they're not getting the legal protection of marriage but they're still doing the wifework.

That's why Dworkin wrote RWW- to understand why women still defend marriage and to scrutinize their reasoning.

Rampant killing of women?

Last data I saw estimated that there were 32m women in the UK (probably more now). Two women murdered a week is 0.000325% annually.

It was pointed out recently that this was less people than did from choking on their food.

I do think it's terrible when it happens but it's not rampant killing like we saw of Jews in the holocaust.

I don't see this selling of yourself to one man as any different from selling yourself to lots of men.

I think it's a lot safer to opt for the one-man route, well supposed to be, but incidents of wife murder suggests that protection from male violence is a lie sold to women upon marriage.
A good reason to marry: Marriage makes you respectable, another part of the deal you strike.

Two women murdered a week is 0.000325% annually

Oh fuck me well that's ok then.

I thought we should be getting worried about 2 women murdered a week or something . Always nice to be corrected LordRudolphVII

Oh fuck me well that's ok then.

Why would you think it's ok? I certainly don't think it is as I stated above.

I'm just pointing out that it's actually pretty rare. At risk of you accusing me of being an MRA (typical no-platforming technique) I'd say that 84 men comitting suicide a week is rampant (biggest cause of death of men under 50 and much more common than choking on your food). 👍

What are you doing to help bring down the number of men killing themselves?

Pointing out that something is actually rare is not saying it is ok. That is a really unfortunate rhetorical device.

You should not say something is common if it is not common. Words have meaning. Murder, though horrible, is actually not that common.

Women also, generally speaking, expect sexual fidelity of men. In many cases it's part of a promise both people make to the other, in fact it was even in many periods when people expected men would stray, monogamy was still the ideal.

Making a promise to another person is not selling something.

So I think the OP is right in thinking that the sort of feminist idea that marriage is patriarchal and therefore we should reject it, has inadvertently negatively affected women. Because all that's happened is, they're not getting the legal protection of marriage but they're still doing the wifework.

Exactly!! How can anyone disagree with this? This is what feminism has brought us.

@Goosefoot

Making a promise to another person is not selling something.

It's a transaction, you're cutting a deal!

How many women can men murder every week before it becomes unacceptable? Asking for a friend.

But what's the difference between a transaction in marriage and a transaction in prostitution?

Men hold all the economic power, that's why it makes sense to marry one if you want children so your children can tap into that.

Sakura184
I think when you marry you sell your fidelity and sexual monogamy. It's not expected for women to be virgins anymore, but sexual monogamy still applies.
That's it - your killer argument. You dont 'sell' anything and the vows are mutual. This is the 21st century ffs. And for the record there's a pretty high number of men bringing up children that aren't genetically theirs.

What are you doing to help bring down the number of men killing themselves?

It would be outing to say and let's be honest you would have no proof anyway of the truthfulness. But I have been involved previously on schemes for disadvanged teens as is a immediate member of my family (senior administrative role in a fairly large London based charity).

I appreciate it's a delicate thing for a bloke to comment on, but I do think keeping perspective is important.

lord
"keeping perspective is important"

As I have already asked FFS - why are you here?

You do not need to get along with any women to start a movement/action to help women.

With purpose I bolded the word unpunished in my comment about the rampant abuse and killing of women by men and yet you choose to reply with the number of men killing themselves.

Who shall we punish for this?

And made no reply to the rampant unpunished abuse of women by men.

I hope we do not get some number, of men abusing themselves or other men.

But what's the difference between a transaction in marriage and a transaction in prostitution?

Men hold all the economic power, that's why it makes sense to marry one if you want children so your children can tap into that

You are just on a wind up now- aren't you?