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.

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?

That's why I mentioned Russia downthread. The Russian women I met when I lived there were proclaimed anti feminists , because as far as they could see there was no point marrying , if you weren't getting anything out of it economically. It was basically "why should we?" And "Why would we?". What are men bringing to the table? , type of attitude, which I found interesting .

It is regarded as pretty feminist to marry for love and not for material security, isn't it. So I think soapona is saying, is marrying for love helping women, or is it in fact fucking them over . Or is refusing to marry on feminist grounds (not wanting to be owned) also not working out well for women because they don't end up with the legal protections that come with the transaction

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.

What a load of offensive, unbridled twaddle. Nobody, man or woman, should marry because they might do well financially out of it. What you’re describing is what happens to a large proportion of men in divorce, so why on earth should they marry? Why should they compromise their own living standards (and subsequently that of their children when the kids are in their care) to financially support a woman they’re no longer married to? One thing feminism has done right is to promote the idea that women can look after themselves. To ‘marry up’ is basically to volunteer to be owned and kept. Everyone should strive for their own financial independence. I’m not a fan of marriage in general because I don’t think legally tying your own finances to someone else is particularly beneficial for anyone, unless of course you just want to be bankrolled by someone instead of providing for yourself which is not an attitude that should be encouraged or supported

Why should they compromise their own living standards (and subsequently that of their children when the kids are in their care) to financially support a woman they’re no longer married to?

This is why you'll find it's extraordinarily difficult for women with children to extricate themselves from miserable marriages. Women are still ending up utterly trapped, in 2019. Men have made it this way precisely because they won't pay for children and would happily see the mother of their kids destitute if he no longer has sexual access to her.

Feminists have tried to make some provisions for married women, so that they're not destitute or on the street corner if they want to divorce but it's very hard to get the law to help them, and it's very hard to get men to hand over their cash.

So what women like myself find out too late is that the provisions we thought we were getting upon marriage, disappear when it comes to divorce after all. But going in, I think a lot of women do it under the understanding that ex wives have rights. I was conned. And I think lots of other women are too

it's agreed marriage to a poorer man is a complete waste of time

This doesn't sound like feminism to me. It sounds like the sort of thing entitled instagram "princesses" say.

For some women it's so difficult to divorce and survive financially with kids that divorce might as well still be illegal.
So it's like we fought for the right to divorce ( I think Muslim women still can't? I might be wrong) but if divorcing means prostituting ourselves to get by then might as well just stay with him, till death do us part

I think Muslim women still can't? I might be wrong

Maybe you should, you know, find out the facts before spouting nonsense online.

Islamic marriages are not recognised in UK law so it would depend on whether the marriage was legal or not. Anyway, that’s by the by.

I think we’re talking at cross purposes though sakura, I don’t think marriage is a good thing on the whole precisely because of the possibility for financially disadvantaged women to be trapped. Having said that I also recognise that some marriages are more equal than others depending on a lot of factors so while the institution itself is not something I’m a fan of and is certainly transactional, it’s reductive to say every single marriage on an individual level is akin to prostitution

Muslim women in the UK have the same rights as any other women in the UK.

Sharia courts do not over-ride normal courts.

There are cultural issues in that Muslims, men and women, may feel pressured not to use the normal system but they are just as entitled to it as anyone else.

Suggesting they are not 'entitled' to exercise their rights isn't true or helpful.

Muslim women in the UK have the same rights as any other women in the UK.

Yeah but not in Muslim countries, am I right?

Feels like we're just splitting hairs.

Western women defending marriage as a good thing, because it has been made somewhat more bearable for them than it was, and than it still is for many women around the world.

And then finding out the deal is not actually as good as the promise after, and she's forced to stay with him because he and the state will make dam sure she won't be provided for if he doesn't still have access to her wifework and sexwork, Roads out of marriage often lead to the street corner for women.

Without the deal, many women wouldn't marry. That's why men cut a deal with them. But they don't follow through.

Like I say I think marriage is prostitution and I think if it was eradicated patriarchy would fall. So whether these women or those women don't have the right to divorce, it's just splitting hairs to me

Stating something as fact, then being corrected by others isn't "splitting hairs".

The other group of people that think marriage is prostitution is those "men going their own way" creeps.
They state that marriage is a transaction of their money, security and the other things they provide for sex. And that wives basically charge them for sex.
Because of this, they use prostitutes because they figure if they're paying anyway they may as well just pay.
Funny, their extreme and extremely minority views are very similar to sakura's.

If you wish to say women in other countries do not enjoy the same rights we do why not say that rather than singling out Muslims?

I'm not sure women in India or Alabama are having a fine and dandy time right now either.

My boss in work is Muslim . He proudly tells people that if he and his wife divorced he would automatically get custody of their son.

Now even I know the Koran says the woman can keep her girls until 15 and her boys until 8. Feel like telling him he's not being a good Muslim.

But at any rate this woman is clearly now bound to him through her child not Lear because of her poor English skills . I don't know how educated she is

I actually think the Koran offers women better rights , because at least they have some acknowledgement of mothers rights and her contribution to the children. She gets to keep them until they're a certain age upon which point she has to hand them over to the dad.

In our secular courts the dad can get custody on the claim he carried out 50% of the childcare, which is most likely all in his head.

And don't get me started on women who WOHM and lose custody to SAHDs. I think that might be possibly be feminisms biggest fail, if it had anything to do with feminism at all

My boss in work is Muslim

So you are talking about Muslims in the UK then?

In which case my original point stands. What the Koran says is irrelevant, your boss's wife has the same rights as any other UK woman.

There are cultural reasons why she may find it harder to access those rights but suggesting she does not have them is both wrong and unhelpful.

Sakura184
You haven't answered my question earlier. Is marriage between 2 women of unequal wealth prostitution?
And please stop dragging Muslims into this.

And don't get me started on women who WOHM and lose custody to SAHDs.

I do not know what WOHM means.

I do know that courts in the UK award custody on the basis of what is in the best interests of the child. Not the father. Not the mother. The child.

This is rarely 50/50 and if the father has been the primary carer that will certainly, and rightly, be taken in to account.

As with Muslim marriages was there not a documentary a while ago with Muslim woman who got married in this country in mosques in some kind of sharia ceremony? They found out upon being separated they are not legally married in the uk and thus have no legal rights.

For a marriage to be legal in the civil sense it has to be performed and registered by an authorised person. This is not limited to registry office officials or Christian ministers but many Islamic marriages are NOT conducted by authorised persons. Hence many Muslims finding out they don't have legal rights.

This is exactly the sort of 'cultural reason for finding it harder to access rights' I am referring to. If people are not aware their marriage does not have legal status they are left vulnerable.

Telling them they don't or can't have the same rights isn't helpful. Ensuring they make informed choices/enabling religious leaders outside of Christianity to officially register would be.

WOHM- working out of home mums.

And yes the courts will take(or should take) the child's best interests in consideration. It's not in a child's best interests to be removed from their main carer and only see them every other weekend or whatever just because they have a penis.

I get your mother's rights views tbh,even if some are extreme. I understand where you are coming from. That,however stops when children's rights and wellbeing are threatened.

Sakura

Again your perspective is just out in left field somewhere. Prostitution is the act of selling sex (or parts thereof) wherein the objective is to pleasure the customer/John/oppressor. Boundaries are likely to not be observed or transgressed with impunity.

I don't have sex without regard for my own pleasure I never have and I never will. There's a big difference between selling your body and giving your body (as is the partner) for experiences that are mutually enjoyable and respect boundaries. Just like there's a huge difference between being raped and having consensual sex - they are not the same thing on any level.

This conflation of marriage and prostitution obscures actual prostitution and does a disservice to women/girls that are actually trafficked and/or feel they have been pushed into prostitution for reasons they are coerced to believe to be beyond their control.

You felt owned you felt like chattel when married but you admitted that you didn't get married for the right reasons - you were looking for that list you made and that's on you. You made bad decisions take responsibility for your own actions. Your perspective of what relationships are is incredibly emotionally unintelligent because you are only seeing it through your personal lens - your reality is not the default reality. As someone that has been in a successful relationship for 24 years I think I know a little bit more about my station than you do.

You don't get to speak for me, you don't get to call me a prostitute. You don't get to degrade my chosen partnership calling it prostitution wherein I am owned.

Do some research beyond Dworkin because she doesn't have a clue about marriage and taking pages from her book and quoting them ad nauseam as if they're fact is manipulative.

Your continuous disregard for women who choose to get married and don't have children is just as bad as a TRAS putting us in with a group of men because we haven't had children. I'm an intelligent educated and successful woman - none of which is due to a man's financial support or effort. I made my life, I make my happiness and I am not chattel.

I'm going to keep enjoying my life with the person I chose to spend it with for no reason other than the fact that we enrich each other's lives.

If my hubby earns most of the money and I do most of the housekeeping does that make me his prostitute or slave, or does it make him my wage-slave?

Or, if we are both doing what we want to do, quite happily, is it just a partnership?
Who gets to decide what the worth is of who brings what to a marriage? - well in my house that would be me and my DH. And no, there is no master-slave/prostitute mentality in it.
And neither of us has sex with other people, not because we own each other via a piece of paper, but because we have shared values on fidelity and respecting those values are part of the love we share. Nor do we have sex with each other unless we both want to.
And anyone who calls me a prostitute for choosing marriage in my life can piss off.

youkiddingme

or does it make him my wage-slave

Oh my god...i LIKE this

Not gonna tell him obvs

@StopThePlanet My mother married for over 25 years would probably kid herself when she was younger that she had a balanced equal marriage. They both worked full time in professional jobs. She ended up with the most housework and the most childcare. My father was definitely the most selfish in that relationship and his needs came first which is often the way, a mans emotional needs come first in the family. It doesn't come naturally for women to put themselves first the way men do. It may be extreme to say prostitution but in reality there is often a power imbalance and a trade off of some sort. You only need to read the relationship boards on here to see that women on the whole struggle to put themselves first. As for the rape/consensual sex. I struggle hard to believe that many women don't just go through the motions with sex. I'll admit to doing it! That's what prostitutes do. I know girls who have been escorts (hookers) and they will say "some of the clients are just like having a boyfriend".