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.

Goosefoot, you were ruder than I was, and made a more personal comment than I did.

I have no issue with criticizing feminist theory or action, its what these boards are for. I don't see much of that happening on this thread.

If 'feminism' has failed women, be specific. How has feminism failed women? Which women? Focus on feminism, not things that are not feminism and outside of its control.

I agree with “Goose*

But also Op, I feel your opinions on feminism are rather polarised and limiting a huge concept into specific practices.

I think you have a lot to offer to the discussion... many people don’t like to rock the boat.. but in reality rocking the boat is sometimes needed to change..

However you do need to appreciate some elements of feminism which I’m sure you do, because it would be against logic if you don’t. You can dispute the implementation and interpretations as I do think there is many ways to be a feminist and not just one.

I think you need to be less defensive in your approach also and examine all sides of the argument.

'Tell me how life is for women and girls in communities / countries where contraception / abortion are not generally available / legal please'

???
OP you aren't engaging.

Q 'What are your plans for abortion rights please?'

A 'like the pill, legalised abortion has for the most part benefitted men not women!'

You aren't giving straight answers to straight questions.

Not any of them.

Remember OP said this

'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?'

An interesting perspective.

Goosefoot, you were ruder than I was, and made a more personal comment than I did. I have no issue with criticizing feminist theory or action, its what these boards are for. I don't see much of that happening on this thread. If 'feminism' has failed women, be specific. How has feminism failed women? Which women? Focus on feminism, not things that are not feminism and outside of its control.

I made personal comments, in so far as people were trying to shut down the OP.

Plenty of the ideas she has mentioned are ones that a lot of people wonder about in one way or another. Has the pill had the effects expected for women? Has it made them more easily exploited as sexual objects? That's one thing the OP asked and basically was told to stop being an idiot of course the pill was good for women.

What about how its injected women into capitalism in a more complete way? Did it get the wrong end of the stick there, maybe the problem was men needed to get out of it as well? The suggestion that the history of women in the west isn't as straightforward as some here seem to think - that's objectively true and worth talking about.

How has feminism helped working class women compared to professional ones? Virginity - pretty clearly there are reasons unrelated to hating women that it was valued, and some of the reasons it no longer values are actually rather negative.

The Op has brought up all those ideas and some have tried to talk about them, and then the usual subjects just go with "well, if that's true do you think it was better for women under X regime don't be stupid." You just want to blame women.

Talking about real outcomes of different things that have been tried since the 60's is not blaming women or feminists. It's recognising that few things on that scale work out quite as intended.

Remember OP said this '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?' An interesting perspective.

What do you think she means?

I wasn't sure, I think her English is a little limited. But as far as I could tell, she's talking about exactly what several other posters said without being told they were "interesting", that is that it's a risk for a woman to tie herself in marriage to a man with fewer material assets.

@Fraggling Call me old fashioned but I believe if more women looked upon marriage but more a business head, they would have greater security. It's a legal transaction marriage like buying a house. If a woman is bringing much more to the table and having the children I can only assume the man has a wonderful personality and be incredibly supportive for her to make that choice.

Has the pill had the effects expected for women? Has it made them more easily exploited as sexual objects? That's one thing the OP asked and basically was told to stop being an idiot of course the pill was good for women.

I think the pill was part of liberal feminism. I mean it's damage limitation isn't it.

I like reading the anti PIV feminist blogs

@Fraggling if you make a choice to marry someone with no assists when you have them and you're having the children. You must think much harder, it will affect your children long term. You could end up supporting the man AND the children.

Virginity is an interesting point too. I mean it's obviously related to women being chattel and yet maybe it's a deal women cut with men. Dworkin's Right Wing Women is interesting, about how conservative women strike deals with men that aren't feminist but ultimately work out better for them personally-- not for women as a class

Assets

You could end up supporting the man AND the children

Yes to this. I lived in Russia and many Russian women are vehemently anti feminist because to them this is what feminism means. They want a man to provide, to offer something to the table

@sakura184 hmm that's not want I was meaning. Say someone with a good job takes up with a handy man. What happens in divorce? There has been stories on here where the woman has had to sell the family home to pay off the man who will give a pittance in child support. In this case women should think carefully. That does not make one a devious poverty stricken Russian out in the make!

I agree with much of what Goosefoot says (but wouldn't have dared voice it as a man as I know I'd be called a misogynist).

@soapona you seem to think that the current setup of culture and society is the one that feminists have been fighting for. There is a long long way to go yet. In many areas things have got worse not better. A few gains have been made but we are very far from true liberation.

The various problems you mention are all part of ongoing patriarchal oppression. We need more feminism, not less.

The absence of feminism is sexism and there is an overwhelmingly huge amount of sexism everywhere you look if you have your eyes open.

I agree with Fossi, but I do think the OP is disagreeing with approaches that were promoted under the banner of feminism to liberate women.

Perhaps she disagrees with the current approach. Perhaps she thinks it has enabled patriarchy in some way.

soapona

Yes I see what you mean but it's the same thing really. Russian women would try to marry up, the ones I met.
It's astonishing considering that during the Soviet Union Russian women were amazing career women and even today Medicine is dominated by women in Russia. I had a homestay for a month and the grandma who lived in the house was a geologist. Russia sent the first woman up to space. I think they were also the first women to enter universities but I have to check that.

Now they seem to be saying they want to be provided for, and they reject their mothers and grandmothers' educated career roles

Goosefoot,

I think the advent of capitalism in Russia in 1990 made things a lot worse for women, in particular the proliferation of pornography, which was at first an American export into Russia.

I think communism is better for women. I studied Soviet politics at uni and I know this to be true

The reason I'm a feminist and not an anarchist or a communist is because anarchy and communism are for working class men who want a bigger share of the patriarchal pie.
So even though I think communism definitely and possibly anarchy too, would work out better for women, ultimately men will still be on top.
I'm not fighting for communism when I'll still be serving the tea to men. So feminism it is for me

Anarchist Emma Goldman didn't see much point in fighting for the vote. According to wiki:

Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminismm^ and its efforts toward women's suffragee^, she developed new ways of incorporating gender politics into anarchism.

I can’t even begin to express how offensive I find yours and some of Goosefoots views OP.

You both seem intent on viewing women as lacking in autonomy or the capacity for making decisions, not to mention forgetting that not all women are heterosexual or want to marry or have children.

Marriage is inherently misogynist and traps women in a role where they have far less autonomy than if they were single - you only need to read the threads on here to see how many women are in abusive marriages but can’t leave because all finances are joint and they haven’t got any money of their own. This shouldn’t be encouraged. Pursuing financial independence on your own terms should be prioritised and taught in schools.

Women are not just wombs. I do not want to live in your handmaid’s tale-esque society where it’s assumed that working, having an abortion, choosing to be single/not cohabit etc are things that have been forced on me by men. They are choices that I’m enternally grateful to feminists before me for making available.

Feminism has given women choices. If women want to protect their financial well-being they can do this on their own terms and without men. Men do not even need to feature in women’s lives if they don’t want them (yes, I’m simplifying because structural oppression still exists but relationships are not obligatory).

I find it quite depressing that there are women out there harbouring such internal misogyny, centering your thinking around men and what they can bring to your life. How about operating as an individual and nurturing a decent life for yourself?

Similarly to a PP I have no desire to marry because ideologically I believe it’s a misogynist institution that disincentivises women from being independent (financially and otherwise) and I also want to keep my assets owned by me. Not that I have much in the way of assets, but my money is mine and I earned it and I don’t want anyone else having a claim over it. If laws gave cohabiting couples the same rights as marriage I’d simply never cohabit.

For me, feminism is about liberating women from the perceived ‘differences’ from men. We can all work and earn equally. Parenting should be viewed as a 50/50 job with men and women taking equal time out of the workplace and childcare more heavily subsidised.

Marriage and the ‘family unit’ should not be held up as the model to aspire to. Plenty of women live fulfilling and joyful lives being single, dating other women or having casual sex with men because they don’t want relationships. That’s nothing to do with men not ‘giving them commitment’. If I’m a neoliberal then I’ll claim that title proudly because I’d rather be that than whatever you seem to think women are. I am equal to any man out there - I don’t want to be defined by the fact my body is different to theirs. Who needs the patriarchy when there’s women out there doing its job, huh!

I've wondered a few times about the benefits of the pill for women, especially now we seem to be faced with the growing ideology of men having a right to sex and a growth in the refusal of men to take responsibility for the obvious results of sex. Was society so sex-obsessed before the pill, was there so much pressure to be sexually active and 'sex positive', was porn so common? It's one of those things that perhaps is beneficial in some contexts but not in others - or that every silver lining has its cloud? I can't see safe accessible abortion as anything other than a good thing though.

dodgeballchamp

I agree with all your post except this

For me, feminism is about liberating women from the perceived ‘differences’ from men. We can all work and earn equally. Parenting should be viewed as a 50/50 job with men and women taking equal time out of the workplace and childcare more heavily subsidised.

I think feminism has been really useful and helpful to spinsters, lesbians , women who prefer not to marry.

But why do some women want children? I thought it was a biological urge: I'm not sure if it is.

But anyway, feminism has utterly failed Mothers with the equality rhetoric. You only realize how silly the equality rhetoric is when you get pregnant, see your career immediately slide out of view ( in my case), lose out on promotions, have to turn down business trips. And to boot, the man thinks he's doing 50/50 with the childcare when he helps out and judges in family courts and society at large are totally on board with this nonsense. Erm no, it was my unpaid labour when the baby was growing for 9 months inside me, totally destroying my body , while his body gets to stay the same. Then the woman often breastfeeds (again devalued). In my case it was me getting up in the night and doing the care in the early years. No business trips for me, while he could. I realized equality was a total and utter joke. And the horrible thing was: I didn't want to be apart from my babies: that's the thing feminism never told me about. I went back to work part time 4 months post partum and was weeping in the toilets because I missed DD so much.
That's when I saw that equality had nothing to do with feminism and really only benefited a minuscule amount of women

DarkAtEndOfTunnel

It was much more respectable for women not to have sex, yes. So the pill and the abortion have inadvertently benefited men in that they get unfettered access to women's vaginas in a way they possibly never have before.
Obviously I'm very much pro abortion because to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby is heinous, but we as women really need to be looking at why being called a "prude" is so terrible, shaming young teens into having sex. It's like now that the pill and abortion is available it's expected that you should be having sex.

Lots of feminists are PIV critical. I love their blogs and they cover this topic