Why the sexual revolution has been a disaster for women

[MalagaNights]

I wonder what people's thoughts are on this article?

I've been thinking about this for a while, reflecting on my own views and experiences when younger and many of the threads I see on here now, from younger women unhappy with dating or fwb situations, or men who won't commit.

It's interesting she uses the line about sex having become separate from reproduction, which is something I've heard the USA right wing commentators make.

While the pill and access to abortion have undoubtedly allowed women expanded opportunity because we can now control our reproductive choices, do we need to recognise some of the negative aspects of this in our relationships with men which has led to a hypersexualising of women and lack of men's responsibility around sex?

I'd be interested in people's perspectives on this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10862331/Why-sexual-revolution-disaster-women-Feminist-Louise-Perry-sparks-fierce-debate.html

I think that is hard because it is very normal for young people to live together. I don't think its a bad thing at all. But if you live together, it may not seem like such a high priority to 'put a ring on it' unless you have traditional parents nagging you. I mean, DH and i were from different countries so we had to get married to be together but for most people, that is not an issue. I think many international relationships actually fall apart for that reason actually, which is sad.

In the past, i didn't understand why women had babies with men they weren't even married to. I understood why they had sex cos sex is a human need. But now I think I do, you live together with this guy, you think you would be with him forever, you get broody, lets have a baby! Boom, we have a baby; oh I can't leave my baby and childcare is so expensive and my partner earns ok, I will quit my job. And then I find out that the DP isn't such a great guy... and I am stuck.

All true @onthefencesitter.

Maybe young women need to start thinking about what they want earlier in their mid to late twenties. Transitioning out of the 'it's all just fun' into some serious discussion about what they expect and when.

Moving in with someone would be part of that discussion in advance: I'm happy to do this but expect to be married within 3 years and discussing children, and if that's not on the cards I'll be moving on.

Young woman need to be more assertive about what they expect, have more boundaries and not be afraid to set them.

Don't let dickheads waste your time.

People seem to think when I talk about the importance of marriage and fathers that it's some trad-wife passive position.
It's not. It's the opposite.

It's assertive, take control, get what you want and don't take shit.

I like Louise Perry, but I don't agree with all of what she says here. I do find myself in a sort of misty-eyed nostalgia in which I imagine that my cohort - coming of age in the mid-90s - was blessed: we were allowed to have sex, but weren't told we had to.
But what I really want to say is, isn't Mumsnet brilliant? A really nuanced, intelligent, generally civilised discussion about a complex subject.

saw another article from Loise, she seems very conservitive, with get married - stay married mindset.

Also suprised how old fashioned people are here on the feminist board.
Assuming women want marriage and kids or sex.
And sex referred as a ’need’.

Bot to mentioned the classic where all mums think that their son’s are the ’good one’s’.

The whole thread just sounds like the 60 and up aunts at the dinner table making sure the young girls know their place and get husband’s and kids. And not be dangerous women who actually lives their lives.

Most women do want sex with men, kids and a secure relationship.

It's a type of feminim which takes into account what women actually want not what some radical feminists think they should want.

Of course be free to live a 'dangerous' life without sex, men or kids if that's what you are seeking, it's fantastic that some women can and do choose this. But the proposal that this should be the aim for women, will just leave many women unhappy.

And I really do think my message : Be assertive, take control, get what you want and don't take shit, is a good feminist one.

Life without sex, men and kids actually sounds pretty safe to me! The poorest demographic in this country is the single parent household and those households are overwhelmingly led by women. Women are effectively penalized for our ability to produce children. Its one reason why I only want 1 DC; I want to be sure I can support my child on my own. And that is when I am married and can claim 50% of the equity in our flat plus child support in the event of a divorce (despite earning less than DH). There have been many arguments on mumsnet on this matter- being married with children vs being unmarried with children; but for as long as there is a gender pay gap, it is safer to be married if you have DC.

The high powered career woman with assets is still not the norm in this country. . It may be more common in wealthy parts of the country. And the women I do know who fit that description tend to get married anyway, usually to men who are as rich as they are or even richer. I do agree that for such women, marriage is an irrelevance, even if they do choose to marry.

The pill has made women more convenient for a man’s world.

Since being pregnant, I have really started to think about and realise just how difficult reproduction is - for women. We are now expected to be able to reach the top of our careers AND grow a human, and give birth, and be a mother.

Pleased I’m not the only one who thinks this. I’ve been noticing this trend a fair bit on the feminism boards. I don’t think it used to be like this.

The pill has made women more convenient for a man’s world.

Perhaps so but the advantages of freely available effective contraception outweigh any disadvantages to such a massive degree that it’s not even worth mentioning.

But the proposal that this should be the aim for women, will just leave many women unhappy.

Yes, because marriage and kids are proven to make women oh so happy.

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert

And why couldn’t it be aim for women?
Why should men/marriage/kids be?

I think the hierarchy in terms of happiness is:
Childless, Single woman
Married childless woman (by choice)
Married woman with 1 child
Married woman with 2 children
Married woman with 3 + children
Single Mum

Since we are on the forum mumsnet, a disproportionate number of users want to be mums. We don't necessarily always want the thing that makes us happiest.

I would settle to be a married woman with 1 child as that is the best balance for my happiness and my biological instincts.

I think it's changed on FWR because more women are here for the Trans issue than radical feminism.

So women interested in women's issues but who don't subscribe to the rad fem tenets.

So a more varied view. Which is a good thing right??

Most women do want children and a partner. That's just obvious from the choices women make. In every culture over the whole of time.

Those polls are meaningless as most women who don't have children will have made that choice and it's a very small minority. So a minority of women make a different choice and are happy with that. Great and not surprising.

No one is saying women have to be mothers or get married anyway, just if they want to, how to best make it work for them. Surely a good aim? If you don't fine, live your life however you wish.

Feminism can seem so dismissive of women who do want to be mothers and who want men to bring them up with them, which is one of the things which puts many women off it.

There is a sneery view, barely concealed, towards the majority of women who want a traditional family life.

Feminists seem to want women to be different or 'better' than they actually are. And seem perpetually disappointed that women still want children and men.

Women should listen and be more like them. Not interested in what most ordinary women want. There's this feminist idea of how women ought to be and we're constantly letting them down.

Those polls are meaningless as most women who don't have children will have made that choice and it's a very small minority

While the majority of women do want and do go on to have children, it’s incorrect to say it’s a very small minority who don’t. At least 20% of women now will never have children and out of all childless women, research suggests that at least 60% of them are voluntarily childless. So I would actually say it’s a sizeable minority. You also get frequent threads where people confess that they regret having children (most don’t of course but it definitely does happen). It’s just socially taboo to admit that. Not to mention the many many posters on here who go NC or LC with their parents as adults.

Feminists seem to want women to be different or 'better' than they actually are. And seem perpetually disappointed that women still want children and men

Some radical feminists argue that true liberation of women won’t be possible while women remain in heterosexual relationships with men. That’s how movements like lesbian separatism and political lesbianism have developed. They would also take issue with the “what they actually are” comment because they’d say a lot of that is down to socialisation and societal norms and pressures. By the way, I don’t think it’s realistic AT ALL because most women will still choose heterosexuality. But I do think they are right that true liberation won’t happen while the family is structured in the way it is. Maybe true liberation is an impossibility anyway.

So at least 80% of women want children.

Yeh feminism can try to keep selling the utopia of a childless manless life to women and sneering at the majority who reject that version of a fulfilled life, but most women aren't going to buy it because of biology, instinct and innate human drives.

Be very wary of anyone trying to sell you a utopia which goes against reality, it never ends well, which is what some feminists seem to want to do.

Yeah, well, as I said, I don’t think it’s necessarily a realistic aim. I’m just trying to explain how radical feminists reason. They see the heterosexual family as representing the ultimate in patriarchy and therefore believe that women cannot be truly liberated while it still exists.
I think it’s interesting that there are different viewpoints but tbh this sort of thing isn’t what I expect to see when I go on FWR and I’m not sure I personally like this shift (obviously everyone is entitled to their own view but some of the stuff that’s posted on some threads is actually quite anti-feminist so of course it will rankle feminists). You’re probably right that the board has attracted women who are mainly concerned about the trans issue.

Be very wary of anyone trying to sell you a utopia which goes against reality, it never ends well, which is what some feminists seem to want to do.

To be fair, the “going against nature/reality” argument has been used throughout history to try to keep women oppressed. It was going against reality to allow women to join the legal profession in the early 20th century too. Seems to have worked out okay though 😂

I think that's true @GCAndProud and those women are interested in women's issues they just don't subscribe to the feminist viewpoint on how that's addressed.

That's true for me anyway. I am very interested and involved through my work in issues for women and girls but I think radical feminism has got the solutions very wrong in many ways. Some which really harm women.

I've been on these boards for about 5 years and it's that that convinced me I'm not a feminist (as often defined here). There is too much of a ideology you have to subscribe to, much of which seems deeply flawed to me.

But I am still interested in women's issues so I stay for the discussion.

It is less orthodox these days which I like, but I can see how others would miss the old times.

The 'Feminine mystique' was published in the 60s. We have known that traditional marriage with children makes many women miserable and unfulfilled for a long time. So it's depressing to see marriage being presented as this wonderful, empowering panacea. I think the problem is that women are stuck no matter what they do. Marriage is shit, casual dating is shit...because many men are just so shit. The solution is to change men, and that is really hard to do.

Women only want children because we're oppressed into thinking we do...

You do know all living forms are driven to reproduce? That reality thing?

It's nonsense like this that's allowed the idea that men can be women.
We can overcome biology and redesign humans!

l'm out.

Some things are so absurd I'm not going to waste time arguing about them.

Fair enough. I do know that feminism isn’t for everyone. And I didn’t actually mean that women shouldn’t reproduce at all (and most radical feminists don’t argue that either). However, overall, the world needs fewer children at the moment and the heterosexual family isn’t the only way to bring up children. If you give women true choices and stop telling them that there is one true way to live them you might find that while many still do choose a certain path, many others will not do so.
Interestingly, as soon as women are given access to education and other rights, the birth rate goes way down. That doesn’t suggest that women’s greatest priority is to reproduce.

Honestly, the only one ’sneering’ is you.
Why are you so angry at single and childfree women?

And seem you’re angry at feminist too…

Absolutely. I guess I'm one of the "old-fashioned, non-feminist" old aunts sitting around the table lamenting the decline of the traditional family! When in fact I was raised my a super feminist single working mother in a very traditional country (ex-colony), and had a very unconventional childhood and youth.

That's why I grew up always questioning labels placed on women. I don't care about the a good feminist label. Women trying to dictate what other women should think and want and what they should strive for is exactly the reason I rejected that label. I don't give too hoots about being sneered at. I don't do feminism. All my values come within. I don't march to anyone else's tune.

I am fortunate enough to only have good men in my life: my son, my son in law. My husband was one of the good ones, and so was my father. Experience taught me how to eradicate the toxic ones from my life.

I am not ashamed to say I wanted children and wanted to raise them myself, which earned even more sneers with ex-colleagues informing me that my mind would "grow rusty" caring for kids and that I was too smart to change nappies all day long. I did it anyway (well, a bit more than changing nappies...)

That's why I don't give a hoot about being a good feminist. I don't care about this being a feminist board and I should keep away. I come to speak about trans issues and the title of this thread attracted me as I agree completely.

For me the greatest liberation came with the freedom from any need or desire for sex, and knowing that I would never again need a man to complete me. So sneer away and question my right to post on this board as much as you want.
I'm done. It's so immature.