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.

The theory that marriage is prostitution? Or the theory that women should reject intercourse?

You haven't commented on the fact that marriage doesn't guarantee paternity either.

I think marriage enables men to keep a very close eye on their wives so they have the best chance possible of being sure of paternity.
But Dworkin points out in RWW, that men realize what she calls "the farming model" is flawed. Wives have spare time and so on, some of them become feminists, they "might" be adulterous ( we know this because of the strict punishments enforced upon women for this crime, death in some countries , loss of custody of kids in others).
So she theorizes that marriage isn't really an ideal system for men, because of its inadequacies. She thinks men would prefer surrogacy to be the norm, then he knows 100% for sure that it's his sperm.

From what I'm seeing there are moves in this direction and she was right

But it doesn't give any better guarantee of paternity than any other form of monagamy.
Monogamy (whether formal marriage or not) benefits women hugely, and I would see the paternity "benefit" as a not-very-good side effect.
It's well understood that throughout history many many men raised children that weren't theirs.
Geneticists prefer to trace through the female line because they know the mother is guaranteed.

@sakura184 that women should reject intercourse(and by the sounds of it,I might've got it wrong, any relationship with a man).

But it doesn't give any better guarantee of paternity than any other form of monagamy.
Monogamy (whether formal marriage or not) benefits women hugely, and I would see the paternity "benefit" as a not-very-good side effect.

I have a theory that women aren't naturally monogamous for life to one man, but they may be monogamous during the initial pair bonding stage that gets them pregnant. Many women aren't of course. I know a couple of women who don't know who the father of their child is.

So essentially I just see monogamy as completely unnatural for women and it's just something that is enforced by law, economics and social punishments for those who transgress.

I don't see how women benefit from male monogamy? You might be hurt if he has an affair I suppose, but I think that's most probably socially constructed. If you had your own money and your own place and resources it would just be part of life for him to move on? Or for you to move on.

that women should reject intercourse(and by the sounds of it,I might've got it wrong, any relationship with a man).

Sheila Jeffreys writes about it in The Spinster and Her Enemies, that rejecting men used to be far more feasible and possible. Dworkin wrote a scathing critique of it in her book "Intercourse". Greer too in her book The Whole Woman- where she argues the mess women have to deal with through abortions is because of men's insistence that sex involves PIV. Now a lot of younger women are what they call "PIV critical". I've seen them all over, on tumblr, Facebook and blogs. So young radical feminists seem to be running with it

I am pretty sure a significant majority of women would prefer to be living with a man than alone, including those who have tried it before, and without a monetary benefit.

I've been married for many years, and if my husband kicks off first, which is likely, I suppose I will have to date again because I really prefer being married, though the idea of dating horrifies me. I have considered just marrying some old bachelor friend, because that would be easier. Or maybe by that time some of them will be widowers, which might be a better bet.

While it's true marriage doesn't guarantee paternity, it probably is better than nothing which is the other option.

I reckon it’s more like 50/50 Goosefoot. I personally tried cohabiting but much prefer living alone. I’ve got a friend who split with her partner last year, they lived together. She’s now buying a flat by herself and has no plans to move her new partner in anytime soon. I’ve got another friend who’s been with her boyfriend 3 years but has told him she prefers living with her friends. And another who does live with her boyfriend but actively doesn’t want to marry, and says she’d remain single if they broke up because she couldn’t be arsed with the hassle of dating/men again. Sometimes she wonders if she’d be happier single but on the whole I think she likes her partner. She frequently goes travelling alone which I think helps.

@Goosefoot Would you REALLY? if you got a decent widows pension consider loosing it? Absolutely no chance if it was me. My mothers widows pension was substantial even though they were separated at the time of death, (my mother didn't believe in divorce conveniently) It also had provisions for the children's education right through university. If she co-habitted or remarried she would have lost it!

I suppose if I wouldn't have enough cash to live on that would be a confounding factor. But it would be a real piss off, so I'd not consider it evidence that I'd "prefer" to live alone.

In a pinch I'd go live with my sister, or maybe certain other female friends, but I'd really much rather live with a man rather than a woman. The idea gives me flashbacks to my university days in the women's residence.

@Goosefoot I hear you. But you would choose to live alone if you had an expensive house. You have a good career,children you're close too, friends, a good amount of savings and a widows pension. You could live alone fine. I bet at that stage you would also be glad you didn't entertain cohabiting with your husband especially if you were separated at the time.

If a woman cohabits, has children, gives up her career she is on a hamster wheel of co dependency for life she will never be free.

Um, no, I wouldn't choose that. If I had an expensive house I doubt I'd be in a position of being forced to live alone, but in any case that wouldn't likely be my preference.

The reality is that living with someone else/being married gives people (men or women btw)!something quite valuable. Some support just there at disposal.
So you have an accident, you have someone to support you financially and emotionally. You develop a chronic illness, ditto. You suffer from a bereavement? You have someone who can support you practically (eg cook meals or look after the dcs etc...)
Because the reality is that, in the RL world, those things happen.

Between me and h, we’ve gone through the first two. FIL is terminally so the last one will happen soon. The system in our society doesn’t have anything in place to replace that ‘on tap’ support.

Everyone thinks that’s teh ideal @myriade. It’s just that many if not most women find that support isn’t reciprocal.

In times of crisis, most women find that meals are cooked and children are cared for by female friends and relatives, not by men.

When did you last hear a man say “ I’m just popping round to Johns to do his ironing because he’s injured his shoulder/ taking a casserole around to Dave after his op / watching Marks kids because he’s depressed”.

The only thing I’ve ever seen in my entire life is men saying “ why don’t you look after Marks kids while I take him out to the pub for a drink to cheer him up? “ .

Or “ You look tired after your illness / operation, why don’t you ask your mother to take this kids thsi weekend so we can go out ? “

The fact that Your Nigel does it isn’t relevant when 99% of other men don’t.

I know these practical things are a long way from the kind of theory that Sakura and other posters are talking about. But it’s the only way I can understand it - to relate it to RL.

Sakura184
Anyway the lesbian separatists would say that they could tell the het women were getting material advantages by living with men, for example the women in their work who were het would wear expensive clothes and so on.
Well that sounds like a fun blog, bit like the sleeping you way to the top slurs successful women have had to put up with. None of my lesbian friends would say anything as crass as that.

Just a question why has same sex marriage been seen as such a landmark achievement of the institution is so oppressive?

It's curious that people who want to live alone think that everyone must think the same way.
Most women want to, and choose to live with men.
Often women are the ones pushing for marriage, trying desperately to convince the men (see Relationship board).
Many women get married two, three or more times.
Not solely for financial reasons, too (that's pretty insulting to be honest to these women who make their own choice and know what they want).
Just because you don't want something, don't assume all women don't either.

Just a question why has same sex marriage been seen as such a landmark achievement of the institution is so oppressive?

Heterosexual marriage is different because there are deeply held stereotypes about what women should be doing for men and doing in a marriage, even if you reject them on a conscious level they are hard to get rid of on a subconscious level, they are pervasive and everyone had grown up with them.

While it's true sex roles can be something that is more complicated between a heterosexual couple, I don't think that really means the impetus is different. The fact is that we are a social species and people like to have a sexual partner and also a companion.

In any case living with another person always has its complications, and homosexual couples have role issues pretty regularly as well.

Heterosexual marriage is different because but why the need to marry, why wedding cakes, ceremonies etc I think Goosefoot is right, bonding and sharing a life is a normal human impulse. No relationship is perfect, same sex partners will argue and divorce. We all have baggage about what a 'good' relationship entails.
So when we abolish marriage as some people are suggesting will that include abolishing same sex marriage? And if monogamy is unnatural for women, is it also unnatural for lesbians?

And if monogamy is unnatural for women, is it also unnatural for lesbians?

Pretty much. Some radical feminist lesbians are what they call "marriage resisters" . I've heard that one reason American lesbians want to marry is so they are the next of kin when their wife is in hospital. Sometimes if they're not married they're not allowed at the deathbed, that sort of thing

Wanting to be at the deathbed is surely a reflection of pair bonding, which is what monogamy and marriage are expressions of.

I've never understood the claim that marriage is somehow "unnatural" for humans. It's probably the most ubiquitous human institution ever, and while there are some cultural differences it's remarkably recognisable for the most part.

The idea gives me flashbacks to my university days in the women's residence.

This actually made me smile wryly. Because I know what you mean. Some feminists say that living with other women is hard because women are just so traumatized.

Golden girls scenarios would be ideal. Women in China are doing this

"Traumatized" isn't the word I'd use for life in a women's residence.