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.

I completely agree with
Women got the right to vote, to marry who they want and divorce who they want. They got the right to work and have their financial independence. They got the right to abortion and birth control.

I really don't think it can be sensibly argued this is not a good thing.

The issue I have is the latest movement that says because women are equal we should expect the same from women than we do from men

I agree with this to the point of women have to contribute equally financially to the home or they are regressing things for women.
Everything needs to be 50/50 in every single element of the relationship or you are regressing things for women.

But it does not seemed to be recognised that all these supposed feminist are trying to stigmatise women who are making a choice and have a very loving respectful relationship that works in the dynamic they have set.

These types of feminist are giving men this supposed power that they simply don't have in these such relationships.
So by drumming this sort of talk, it is peddling the idea of these "powerful men" are ruling the roost of these poor little women,which is counter productive and pushing the idea of a powerful men alive.

When the women in these relationship are actually promoting and teaching their children the complete opposite. They are teaching they don't have to earn the same to have a decision in the home, they have a say in their own lives without having a comparable job title and deserve a seat at the table of any discussion being made about their family despite not having the same bank balance.

I just think if you want to have sex with a man you'd just do it wouldn't you? Same with having his baby and/or living with him.

why Is a transaction necessary?

This is the feminist viewpoint that the OP is talking about, that has got a lot of women into hot water, because now they're doing the wifework without any legal protections, and women are also expected to work outside the home as well as in the home. So RWW understandably hate feminism.

Just because I understand the RWW point of view, doesn't change my opinion that marriage is prostitution. Feminists were right but they didn't have a strategy that's all

People pair bond because they have hormones designed to make that happen. They also do it because they think it is good for their children to have a father. And because they value the commitment as an important thing in itself.

having his baby and/or living with him.

Please explain why it is "his" baby.
This is sexist bollocks, and frankly infuriates me. It's not his baby.

To be clear, it's not "you having his baby" like you're doing him a favour.

To be clear, it's not "you having his baby" like you're doing him a favour

That's a bit of a tell isn't it- from someone speaking so much about their feminist credentials- yet Sakura thinks mothers are just there to provide children to men.

Recently I was out for dinner with an acquaintance of my husband's. The acquaintance didn't know either of us very well and at one point asked if my husband was my son's stepfather as I had referred to "my son" not "our son". My husband was and is a brilliant, committed hands on parent to our son from day one and despite that I still talked about "my son". (It actually made me think I was being unfair)

It doesn’t occur to me to say ‘our’ children

Its always my children...or ‘the’ children I suppose

It doesn’t occur to me to say ‘our’ children

Nor, apparently did I- but having that pointed out did make me think why.

(It's "your son" when said child has done something spectacularly dim or provoking)

Ive just checked with dh (most hated phrase on mumsnet) and he doesn’t think he does it either

So i would say ‘my’ children when its just me...and probably ‘the’ children if dh is with me or we are having a conversation about them

I do find myself apologising to the children when dh is being particularly irritating. In a ‘he was cute when he was 17’ sort of way

Then he is ‘your father’

So i would say ‘my’ children when its just me...and probably ‘the’ children if dh is with me or we are having a conversation about them

We were both present when I said this though and as we only have 1 child "children" would not work. "The child" or "the son" would have been seriously weird.

Anyway the point is, I don't understand how it is possible to refer to "his children" in the way Sakura did unless one has deeply bought into the idea that men own children. Which is kind of weird given how vehemently Sakura has been protesting her feminist credentials.

He is "our" son

"The child" or "the son" would have been seriously weird

Good point

Which is kind of weird given how vehemently Sakura has been protesting her feminist credentials.

I really don't think she values women very much, from her posts.

No I think if you want a baby you would just do it, loads of women do. If you want to live with a man, same. If you want to have sex with a man, you just do. You don't need payment or a transaction or a deal.

So that tells me that without the transaction element of marriage far fewer women would cohabit with men. I think they strike a deal.

many women knew and know this that it became quite a big thing in feminism, where women thought well I'll sleep with men for free (liberal feminism- with the pill and abortion now available) and other women thought well I refuse to be owned so I'll have babies and live with this man but without the ownership aspect of marriage. It could be a class think idk, with more middle class women going for marriage than working class women, I can't be sure. Right Wing Women strike me as being quite middle class.

Now the OP quite rightly is wondering where feminism went wrong because although fewer women are owned in marriage it turns out that fewer of them are protected by the transaction aspect of marriage.
And RWW are also questioning the value of abortion, which they regard as being granted by left wing men only because of their need for the cynical use of women's bodies through free sex, porn or prostitution.

RWW reject this, which is why they're anti abortion. Also remember that the right are the only ones against using donor eggs, I think, which I personally believe is connected to the integrity of life. RWW would probably see it as an act against God.

People pair bond because they have hormones designed to make that happen. They also do it because they think it is good for their children to have a father

I agree with you Goosefoot. I think it would happen anyway, without the institution of marriage. And it does, now that marriage is no longer obligatory.

But I think the marriage contract exists to encourage a lot more of it than would normally happen, a lot more fidelity, a lot more monogamy ( punishments for female adultery have traditional been quite harsh, often death) , a lot more interdependency, due to men still having almost all the money in society, and so on

Well Lass, I fundamentally think babies do belong to their mothers, if they belong to anyone at all. Fundamentally I think babies belong to themselves. I'm a mother's rights activist. I invented that term yesterday, just made it up.

Anyway, I obviously regard marriage as a transferring of rights and ownership of infants over to the father because a) the man is aware of paternity b) laws which allow him these rights

Fathers rights are now extended to men who sired children outside of wedlock , which is another area that feminism has failed.

I agree with you Goosefoot. I think it would happen anyway, without the institution of marriage. And it does, now that marriage is no longer obligatory.

But what is marriage, apart from pair bonding, making a commitment, and having kids?

From the POV of an anthropologist, in some societies, that is marriage. The only other element would be social acceptance, so whatever the rules around who you can and can't marry.

We happen to write it down on a bit of paper, though that's gone out of style somewhat.

If children belong to themselves, they might have opinions about having fathers.

@Goosefoot some people argue that children belong to the state as soon as you have registered the birth. Some whacky parents refuse to register their child for this reason.

By having unmarried fathers getting equal rights just by signing the birth certificate and not necessarily having any intention to commit or care for the child. The state has made it so men have the power without commitment. The next crazy thing might be men having a say on abortions, you get a few on this forum thinking men should make these decisions and they probably call themselves liberal feminists too.

Children have two parents whether the mother likes it or not.

Fathers are legally obligated to care for their kids, which is a good thing, though it isn't always as effective as it should be.

“Children have two parents whether the mother likes it or not.”

This is a joke, right?

@Goosefoot

Children have two parents whether the mother likes it or not.

Fathers are legally obligated to care for their kids, which is a good thing, though it isn't always as effective as it should be.

They are legally obligated to pay csa and care regardless of bring on birth certificate we are talking rights, the same rights as a married father!

Have a look a the single mothers boards some women say don't have a feckless father in the birth certificate others say he should you are selfish to not. Yet us woman are obligated to put men on the birth certificate and give men the same rights as a married man yet co habiting mothers do not have the same rights. How can that be equality?

So along with the easy accessibility to the pill, abortion, co habiting and having children outside marriage we have made life easier for men and difficult for women especially when it comes to security.

They are legally obligated to pay csa and care regardless of bring on birth certificate we are talking rights, the same rights as a married father!

Such legislation is not about the rights of fathers but the rights of children.

It is an effort to ensure all fathers take responsibility for their offspring regardless of marital status. It is the right of the child to be financially supported. It is the right of the child to know their parentage.

You can agree or disagree with the legislation but it is not, and was never, about fathers' rights.

*@ArnoldWhatshisknickers
*
*Such legislation is not about the rights of fathers but the rights of children.

It is an effort to ensure all fathers take responsibility for their offspring regardless of marital status. It is the right of the child to be financially supported. It is the right of the child to know their parentage.

You can agree or disagree with the legislation but it is not, and was never, about fathers' rights.*

Yes but unmarried fathers could be on the birth certificate in the past pre 2000 and have no rights. They always were expected to financially support their child it makes no difference having paternal rights to paying. You can claim CSA regardless of weather the fathers name is off or not the certificate it gives unmarried and uncommitted father right.