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.

@Dervel

Where we can perhaps meet in the middle is if a whole lot more was done to educate children on relationships, sex, the responsibilities of parenthood, consent, domestic violence and general emotional development and self esteem. I’m not for a minute advocating that childcare should be exclusively women’s work. In fact there are studies that show the positives of a strong paternal bond on areas like mental health and the development of empathy and strong social skills.

Agreed!

I was under the impression that single mothers were accused of having bastard children and that the word bastard was so awful that it was a huge disincentive to become a single mother. I've also heard a lot of stories of forced adoption.

No, women who had children out of wedlock were accused of having 'bastard' children in many situations, but many single mothers were widows. And many women who weren't widows were effectively single mothers while husband was off to war or sea sometimes for years on end with no way of knowing if he was alive or dead.

Yes, there were many more adoptions, forced or otherwise, of my children's four grandparents two had 'bastard' half siblings put up for adoption that they knew nothing of until well into adulthood and a third, my mum, was the 'bastard' put up for adoption. Many other 'bastards' were passed off as the grandmother's child/mother's sibling.

Having children out of wedlock is undoubtedly more acceptable today, but that doesn't change the fact that many, many women have always been left holding the baby through no fault of anyone. Single parent families have always been with us.

I'm not talking about widows, really, when I talk about single mothers. This issue isn't really about ex married women.

It's about the "whore" women who never married, the fallen women with bastard children. Those who had brought so much shame upon themselves that they fueled an adoption industry run by the religious.
This was the type of dichotomy that feminists found abhorrent and wanted to eradicate. They wanted to eradicate the male preference for a virgin upon marriage, by insisting that it was ok for women to sleep with men, that this didn't make women whores, that men would from now on have to put up with wives who weren't virgins upon marriage, that men would have to lose a little of their grip over their demands of women: that they couldn't have a virgin wife turned mother and their whores on the side.
So women, in solidarity with each other, opted for "free love" with left wing men, rather than saving themselves for marriage. I can see why they did it.

Today's radical feminists are saying no, maybe we got it wrong after all. That you can't get rid of the Madonna/whore dichotomy by turning all women into whores, which is really what the plan seems to have been. All that has happened is men have lost their obligations and women are giving it away for free-- and still suffering the consequences of diseases and abortions.

So maybe what women need to be doing is saying no to PIV and well as no to marriage after all. Maybe we have to turn into the dreaded prudes that men despise, rather than the whores

@soapona so a woman with no assets, money or house of her own is fine to look for a man to sponge off, but god forbid a man do the same? Stop being such a hypocrite! You sound like an absolute gold digger and parasite

So women who have sex without being married are whores?

You might think I'm simplifying your posts but that's what it comes down to. We either tow the line of no PIV/ideally no men(because marriage is prostitution )or we fall beneath it in the whore category because men think we are anyways (and some women apparently)?

dodgeballchamp

I think yours is the type of feminism that has failed women, to be honest. This idea that we can ever be equal to men on male terms. The kind of feminism that has women pregnant and laboring in childbirth uncompensated so that a deadbeat dad can stay at home with the baby as she returns to work as the breadwinner, only to lose custody to him because father's rights.

that has women pregnant and laboring in childbirth uncompensated so that a deadbeat dad can stay at home with the baby as she returns to work as the breadwinner, only to lose custody to him because father's rights.

1.children's rights
2.how often does that actually happen?

So women who have sex without being married are whores?

Umm well I think a lot of men still see it that way, but maybe thanks to some feminist efforts and the enthusiastic cheerleading of left wing men it is now socially acceptable to sleep with men outside of marriage, not too many of course, that would definitely make you a slag, but you can sleep with an acceptable amount. I think women probably know what is acceptable, it depends on their social circles, maybe their area, that sort of thing. You can also have an abortion if it goes tits up, again thanks to feminist efforts, and again thanks to the support of left wing men who wanted to ensure their continued access to free sex, and realized that women getting abortions would facilitate this

It apparently annoyed left wing men when they realized some feminists were starting to say no to sex, but they still wanted abortion to be available on demand. Apparently male left wing support for abortion rights fell dramatically when they understood some women were going to say no anyway

children's rights

Yeah we've gone over this below. People fighting for the wife battered to have access to his kids "because children's rights". Or for the free loader to keep the child he never birthed because father's children's rights

"Wife batterer" that was

There are loads of news items about courts awarding custody to the father against the protests of the battered wife, only for the dad to go on to kill the kids. Loads. I've been following this for years.

There are loads of news items about courts awarding custody to the father against the protests of the battered wife, only for the dad to go on to kill the kids.

That is definitely a huge issue and a complete failure of the justice system when it comes to the welfare of women and children. Sadly it's prevalent both in family and criminal courts.

The kind of feminism that has women pregnant and laboring in childbirth uncompensated so that a deadbeat dad can stay at home with the baby as she returns to work as the breadwinner, only to lose custody to him because father's rights

The situation of a woman returning to work full time and the father staying at home is unusual. It happens and I have seen posters on MN explain that this arrangement suited them well.

For example. I had a trainee solicitor who was married to a postman. The average wage for a postal delivery person is £16,000 to £18,000. The Law Society of Scotland recommended rates are £19,500 for first year trainees and £22,500 for second year trainees. Once she qualified- who knows what she might achieve. The post person's salary will only rise, if at all, by inflation. If they have children it makes sense for the whole family economically and her professionally to be the one in full time employment.

Why is a stay at home dad a "dead beat dad"? Isn't parenting one of the most important jobs on the planet? Other than breastfeeding there is no part of parenting which cannot be done by either parent.

And you have been told time and time again that your posts about "custody" and "fathers' rights are simply wrong.

Oh and as for "women pregnant and laboring in childbirth uncompensated" I don't know a single woman who feels her pregnancy was "uncompensated"

Everything is just a commercial transaction to you isn't?

@dodgeballchamp

Talk like a man why don't you! When children are involved things are different and besides as I said men like to be the leader and run the relationship. I think that makes my choices sensible unlike liberal women who are being doormats!

unlike liberal women who are being doormats

What all if them???

Because you said so?

sakura my kind of feminism advocates for everyone, male and female, to take care of themselves first and foremost. While your kind of feminism is what exactly? Dismissing the role fathers can and should play in a child’s upbringing and assuming that women have no agency over who they have sex with, and encouraging women being dependent on men while simultaneously saying marriage is prostitution? I’m not sure even you know what the hell you’re blathering on about.

YourSarcasmIsDripping

That is definitely a huge issue and a complete failure of the justice system when it comes to the welfare of women and children. Sadly it's prevalent both in family and criminal courts.

I'm glad you agree with me. It's very hard to find women who agree with me on this. I am arguing on another thread that I don't regard genderism to be the biggest issue that feminists face.
I actually think that this is one of the most important issues. But because the issue only affects vulnerable mothers, it's not getting any of the attention it deserves in feminism because it affects the women without voices

And let's also not forget that the reason marriage exists is so that men can be aware of and certain of paternity. If women were economically independent, why would it be so important to us that the father is aware of paternity? It would just be a nice privilege we would extend to the father, no? If he was a nice man.
It works like this for some women still. I have a friend who doesn't know who the father of her child is. This would be a lot more common if there wasn't so much social engineering obliging women to coparent with a father.

my kind of feminism advocates for everyone, male and female, to take care of themselves first and foremost

Mine is just for women I'm afraid. And if you advocate for women, you're usually doing the best by children.
For example it was women who fought for the age of consent, and it was men who fought bitterly against it. Because the age of consent for children runs against male interests, apparently

@soapona if anyone, male or female, is actively looking to financially profit from another human instead of striving to take care of their own needs, they are a sponger/parasite/golddigger, whatever you want to call it. Your “feminism” would do absolutely nothing for me as a woman. I’m failing to see how making a choice to take care of themselves and eliminate the need to rely on a man (about the most misogynist arrangement you can have) makes liberal and individualist women doormats. But then again your entire thread was started with a misogynist premise so I wouldn’t expect any kind of sensible response

While your kind of feminism is what exactly? Dismissing the role fathers can and should play in a child’s upbringing and assuming that women have no agency over who they have sex with, and encouraging women being dependent on men while simultaneously saying marriage is prostitution?

That's a fair summary.

Sakura literally nothing about your stance makes sense. You hate men and want to deny them all rights but still want women to be reliant on them, however being reliant on them is also prostitution? How about you have a long hard think about what you actually believe and come back when your views aren’t so cognitively dissonant

You hate men and want to deny them all rights but still want women to be reliant on them, however being reliant on them is also prostitution

dodgeballchamp your skill at précis is commendable !

I actually think that this is one of the most important issues. But because the issue only affects vulnerable mothers, it's not getting any of the attention it deserves in feminism because it affects the women without voices

I know that most threads on here are about trans rights and self ID, but I've been here a few years (still a newbie though) and this has been discussed, as well as many other injustices in court decisions ,how women are used and abused etc.

And I know many women on here would agree with you on that point. However many of the things you say either contradict themselves,are demeaning towards other women or promote an extreme view.

The thing is there is no woman on this earth dead or alive that made solely feminist choices in every single aspect of their lives. Especially not with the goals and theories moving from one extreme to the other .

Many of the things that I support is because of my background, I know what happens when abortion is banned or not freely available, I know what happens to "bastards" or unwed mothers, I know what happens when contraception is not freely available, I know what happens when there's a value put on virginity and a woman's/girl's worth is only her reputation and so on. More importantly I know what happens when women support and enforce that shit with no regard to their role as caretaker or responsible for safeguarding or whatever because that's the line in the sand and you dared to deviate from it(or worse you were pushed).

Exactly yoursarcasm, I don’t think anyone on here would disagree that abusive men should not be mandated to have access to their children through family courts. But you can recognise there are severe failures in that system without saying, right, that’s it, NO man can have his parenting rights recognised. That’s extremism. We hear similar from people who think all Muslims are to blame for terrorism

And sometimes I can help but think that it's due to the privileges of the western worlds, of having these freedoms,rights and choices and most importantly not having them denied when you needed them the most that some women can go to such lengths to criticise,dismiss and reduce them to prostitution/whores/transaction/failures etc.

It's all theoretical . I'm too emotional in my arguments and I own up to that. I'm emotional because in so many scenarios I can say "It could've been me" or worse "that was me".

Many of the things that I support is because of my background, I know what happens when abortion is banned or not freely available, I know what happens to "bastards" or unwed mothers, I know what happens when contraception is not freely available, I know what happens when there's a value put on virginity and a woman's/girl's worth is only her reputation and so o

Same. That's why we're feminists, no?

But radfems are going further now. They're saying, maybe the accusation of prude shouldn't be as feared and despised by women. I mean calling women prudes is a way of shaming them into having sex with men. And the accusation of whore is a way of shaming them into not having sex with men. So feminists thought they could maybe reject prude and reclaim whore, or something.
But maybe a feminist prerogative is saying no to men, no to their version of sex? It's just an idea that's all. And it coincides strangely with what right wing women have always known, I guess.

I'm left wing, slept around as a young woman, was very glad abortion and the morning after pill was available and so on. Thought "nobody can tell me I'm a whore, I own my sexuality, I want to beat the double standard that men create whereby they can sleep around and we can't. I was lucky in that I escaped without an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. Today's radfems are wondering , is any of that worth it. Is the pleasure you might get worth any of it? Only right wing women have been saying it's not worth it and we've been ridiculing them for being religious prudes.