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 am well aware of the position of unmarried fathers pre 2000 given my own children were born in the 90s and their father and I were not then and are not now married.

You keep talking about fathers' rights. The legislation is about children's rights and parental responsibilities.

Marriage or lack thereof should not alter children's rights. That legislation in this area is not always effective does not mean it shouldn't exist. Children should be supported financially and should, barring extreme circumstances, have the right to relationships with both mother and father.

Father’s do not have rights. Children have rights.

I fundamentally think babies do belong to their mothers

Nope they dont because they are property.

Children DO have a sense of belonging but that sense is towards both the (genetic) mother AND the father. I know many people who dont know their fathers and are missing that sense of belonging, of knowing where they are coming from. They are adults who, as children didnt have contact with their biological parents because of adoption, mother having had an affair (but being brought up by her husband as their father) etc... Sometimes, it's only to be able to say to a consultant 'Yes I know my farther had xxx and this means i'm higher risk of developping that illness'.

Many cultures recognized that, whether you talk about genetics or ancestral links etc.
So I fully disagree that somehow the father doesnt matter and the child belongs only the the mother. They do not.

@BertrandRussell

So how are children rights helped by this legislation? We know they have to pay regardless. It just gives the fathers rights to education, medical, travelling abroad etc when they may not be committed in a way marriage would give more reassurance of commitment. So the rights with no extra responsibility?

To carry on on that theme, that statement babies do belong to their mothers is fundamentally sexist.

First it enshrines the idea that father cant parent a child as they ONLY belong to the mother. Why?
Second, with responsibilities come rights (and with rights come responsibilities). Do you really think you can give men responsibility for their children, expect them to pay to their 'upkeep', to be there for them, to look after them AND at the same time, tell them they have no rights whatsoever towards the child?

I truly believe that fathers have some rights towards the child. But associated with those rights are responsibilties. And we can certainly insist on them taking rsponsibility. Some countris like France have done so.
The big difference though is that both parents are asked to take responsibilty for the child and the outlook is about doing what is best for the child (rather than 'getting back' at men for being useless and aving t 'force them' into taking responsibility)

@Myriade The bond between mother and child can affect their mental health for life. For example many times ADHD can be misdiagnosed and it childhood bonding that causes problems and instead they have attachment disorders.

@sakura184, you re missing the point.
Its not about rights for the father. its about rights for the child. Who on earth says that the MOTHER is always right and will always do right by the child??

The state has made it so men have the power without commitment.

Exactly. As horrible as it was in the past for wormen, if a man knocked a woman up he was usually obliged by his parents and others (the church , maybe) to marry her. It's gross on some levels, in that he might have raped her, but still there was some onus on him to take responsibility, I guess, so her child wouldn't be a bastard. Obviously loads of men didn't still, as we know from the Magdalene laundry type situations or the general idea that young single mothers should give up their babies to a "good home".

Anyway I hate the fathers rights topic as I realize virtually the whole word disagrees with me, but essentially I just feel this is another area where feminism as failed women. You actually get women advocating and fighting for fathers rights in the name of feminism: I don't see any difference between fathers rights activism and men's rights activism. To me it's exactly the same thing. I think the whole premise of patriarchy, its whole purpose, is to control women's reproduction. Fathers rights just falls in line with this.

Back to marriage as prostitution, I don't blame women for getting married, I was myself. I certainly felt owned and that it curtailed my freedom and autonomy. It was the hit I took cause I thought it was better to have children in this environment.
Some feminists, however, are more critical than me towards women who do marry.

So for example, Dworkin points out in RWW that some women tacitly understand that a few women will have to be sacrificed so that most women are okay. They think the sacrifice is worth it.
Wives and prostitutes are what men require from women. Whichever path you take I don't judge, and if wives can use their relative material well being to help prostitutes exit then of course that's great. But what I'm confused by is why some wives don't understand they're perpetuating patriarchy simply by being wives. And there will always be plenty more prostitutes. Also, where are prostitutes supposed to go when they exit? What kind of jobs? I know a woman who became a wife after being a prostitute, she was getting old and wanted out. Some punters do "save" prostitutes by marrying them, it's not unheard of.
So I think it's great if wives help prostitutes , who are arguably in a worse situation, but I think it's ridiculous for wives not to understand their own condition as chattel and as being owned:

Its not because the bnd betwen a mother and her child is important than the bond between a father and their child isnt.

they are not mutiually exclusive.

I actually would love much more reserach in the influence of fathers. there isnt a lot around tat bevause, ah yes, the mother-child bons is just the only things exists (nice input from the patriarchal society there)

Myriade

Yeah I did add after that I think babies belong to themselves, not to mothers . They definitely don't belong to fathers though even though marriage traditionally meant they became the father's property. Like I say I just equate fathers rights activism with men's rights activism, and women support fathers rights activism in the name of feminism because man tears

As horrible as it was in the past for wormen, if a man knocked a woman up he was usually obliged by his parents and others (the church , maybe) to marry her. It's gross on some levels, in that he might have raped her, but still there was some onus on him to take responsibility

And that was a good thing because? Those women had no choice that marry a man they might not have wanted. To have sex wth them (remember, there was no rape in marriage then) and do as those men said.
And you think that was better??
I much preffer our current arrangement where, at lest, I still have control over my life! (inlculding who im having sex with, if i want an abortion etc...)

Rates of domestic violence increase when a woman falls pregnant. So just by being pregnant your chance of getting beaten up by your husband is greater. It really makes me wonder how useful fathers are, to the children and to mothers

Well I disagree. I woud fight for FATHER's right for the sake of the CHILDREN first.

And because with rights come RESPONSIBILITY.

I much preffer our current arrangement where, at lest, I still have control over my life! (inlculding who im having sex with, if i want an abortion etc...)

No I don't think it's a good thing, sorry if it came across that way. I personally think the abortion model is "better" , I'm just saying that forcing men to marry the women they knocked up was an incentive for them to keep their dicks in their pants

Well I disagree. I woud fight for FATHER's right for the sake of the CHILDREN first.

Women often start to get beaten up by their husbands if they fall pregnant, it's one of the things that starts domestic violence, a woman's pregnancy! Can you imagine fighting to give men like that rights over his baby, and I'm sure some will argue it's better for the baby if a wife beater is in its life: in fact I know some women will argue to the ends of the earth for the domestic abusers right to be in the kids life, for the sake of the child

I actually would love much more reserach in the influence of fathers. there isnt a lot around tat bevause, ah yes, the mother-child bons is just the only things exists (nice input from the patriarchal society there)*

Childhood sexual abuse by fathers is quite common and underesearched , if that's the sort of thing you mean? Also domestic violence beginning with the woman's pregnancy , as I've mentioned. Then there's parental alienation syndrome , which seems to me to be a narcissistic projection of what fathers do to mothers, even though it's usually the woman accused of it . Then there's family annihilators (always male) which are scarily common. Very common for the battered wife not to be given custody, and then for the father to go ahead and kill the kids. The news articles on this type of situation are endless

Marriage doesn’t offer “protection” for women. If you are the higher earner or have more assets, it’s quite the opposite. Marrying a rich man might offer some woman financial benefits but surely we are better off making our own choices. I would hate to have to be dependent on a man for my financial security or that of my dds. To be forced to stay in an unhappy relationship or be impoverished. How many women do we see posting on mn who have awful, even abusive relationships but feel they can’t afford to leave. Some people may still have the attitude of marrying well as a goal but I’m so happy that feminism means that is no longer the only ambition women can have. I love being independent and living on my own terms. I don’t care if I might be better off financially marrying a rich man (how many men think like the op - regret not just marrying well?). It’s a success of feminism that many (but unfortunately not all) women have moved away from marrying a provider to marrying a partner.

One thing that would advance women is a system of child support that is fit for purpose. Women should not be left bearing the brunt of the costs (financial and otherwise) of raising children, regardless of whether they are married to the child’s father.

@Myriade

*Its not because the bnd betwen a mother and her child is important than the bond between a father and their child isnt.

they are not mutiually exclusive.*

yes but I'm sure you agree in the first months the mother feeds and usually bonds more with the child. When children are considered to have "attachment disorders" no one says "what was the relationship with the father like". It's the mother as it the expectation is entirely in the woman. This is one reason why we should not be under estimating mothering and the support and security mothers require.

@zsazsajuju it's agreed marriage to a poorer man is a complete waste of time. You could end up having to sell your house to pay them off and your children's standard of living falling, then paying spousal maintainable with them paying a pittance in child support. Don't marry someone poorer than you. Even with feminism it's plain stupid weather it's 1945 or 2019.

And the idea that it was better when pregnant women were forced to marry a rapist because the rapist was forced to marry the woman is abhorrent.

@sakura184 just to add to what she said. If you look back parish records it was expected fathers paid for their illegitimate children back in Victorian times too. They were requested to by the church.

And the idea that it was better when pregnant women were forced to marry a rapist because the rapist was forced to marry the woman is abhorrent.

I said I don't think it's better. I'm pro abortion, anti marriage, anti rape and basically anti men. I was just saying that with marriage came rights but there also came obligations, and that maybe this made men think twice about how important it was to stick their dicks in

This is one reason why we should not be under estimating mothering and the support and security mothers require.

Thank you soapona. I didn't expect to see any support at all for my opinion. I think a feminist priority is supporting mothers, proper financial and emotional support. The amount of stress we go through at the hands of abusive fathers. Do you know that lots of men confess they are jealous of pregnancy and sometimes don't even want her breastfeeding because they feel it excludes them!

@soapona so you are saying feminism is bad for women because many women are no longer marrying a rich man? Just living with him “giving him children for free”. Shouldn’t marriage be a partnership? For richer for poorer?

I personally think you should marry for love, not because you want so, someone else’s stuff. Also that all parents should be forced to support their children (at least financially as I can’t see how forcing other support could work practically) and we should have a much more wide ranging child support system that actually ensures women are not left with all the financial hit from children.

zsazsajuju

One thing that would advance women is a system of child support that is fit for purpose.

Totally agree: and I think this is something the post war feminists wanted. I think the UK does an okay job in terms of supporting single mothers. It could do better. That would be part of my mother's rights activism, so that marriage isn't necessary to raise children. I am pretty left wing.