Feminism

Agree. Totally agree. That's what I want with my partner and I do have that except we didn't have children together. I married him too late for that.

However, there are a few women who don't want a career.
Or who have never worked since having children or even when the children have left.
Or have a husband who does all the cooking and helped bring up the children.

I know such a women to whom all the above applies to. My brother has been married to her for nearly 40 years. Both are very very happy.

It should say "know such a woman" ..

Wish there was an edit tab with these posts.

I agree too if that's what women want then that's what women should have. It's not for everyone though as Woodmouse's post illustrates.

GagaJo, I could not agree more with your opening post. My wife and I have throughout out fifty years of marriage always functioned in the way you describe.

I have always considered myself more equal than my DH. I have had the choice as to whether to work or not. I was able to stay at home with my children. I manage our finances so what we spend is down to me. No my DH is not weak it is how it is. I think feminism is overrated - it is humanism.

dragonfly I agree with your post!

If women want to stay at home and care for children and they can afford to do so they should be free to make that choice. Feminism is about supporting other women and challenging the old rules and patriarchy. It is a male concept that only work outside the home is of value, only when child rearing is recognised as a real and valued contribution to society will we have a hope of equality.
We may think that we have achieved much but in actual fact in some areas life is becoming more difficult for women. There is an organisation called "Pregnant then screwed" which is fighting for women who lose their jobs because they get pregnant.

Feminism is about women having the choice to do what they want.

But it ISN'T humanism or egalitarianism. It's about gender equality. It benefits men as well as women but started as a movement for women's liberation in a time when women couldn't vote, own property, retain custody of their children after divorce.

I appreciate that being a housewife is a choice, but if you don't work and your marriage ends, life will be very hard financially. There is no spousal maintenance anymore.

I have friends who lived through this very circumstance. Ex husbands continued to have a comfortable lifestyle, while they struggled to find work after years out of the work force. Not for nothing is it called the feminisation of poverty.

Rampant feminism serves women badly because it is based upon a male perception of individual worth.

In some relationships it is appropriate for the female to be the principle bread winner and the male to be the principle carer.

However Gagajo to argue that males are generally as suited as women to be carers and in particular to be as well provided to bring up children is not right. Generally women's brains are far better at multitasking than are mens, to manage a household and children is beyond the capability of most men. To argue otherwise is to devalue women.

Equally women do not have the same physical size and same strength characteristics as men and like it or not they are generally not competitive as men in the same

Sorry tremors led to me pressing post, so I continue.

Women are not as competitive as men in the same way. These have been used by the prime measures worthiness, by men and rabid feminists adopt the self same measures of worthiness, in the process denying women there proper status of equality.

Finally I would argue that all of the income in a partnership or marriage is of joint ownership. However I do believe each partner should have some monies available for their own disposal, effectively giving them a sense of independence.

What is a 'rabid feminist'?

I think I am feminist. I firmly believe that everyone (male/female, young/old, black/white, rich/poor gay/straight etc) is equal, and should be given the same chances in life.

I also think that there is no right way of living, so for some people this will mean that women do X, whereas to others it means that they do Y. If it works for the people concerned, it's not for me to comment unless it impacts on others in some way.

I certainly don't hate men. I married a lovely one, and am mother to another who is equally fab. I am very anti patriarchy, however, and think it is bad for both men and women.

I get confused by all the theory, though. Intersectionism, trans-exclusion, radical feminism etc - all of that makes my head hurt. I prefer to take everyone as I find them, treat people the same, and speak up when I see that this isn't happening.

Intersectional feminism is just feminism that supports any feminist. Of any colour, nationality. sexuality, gender identity. Traditional feminism was primarily for white, middle class women.

Adsthame, men are just as capable as women at bringing up children. I was not a natural mother. My male partner is very motherly. We are not anomalies.

To say women are 'better' at running a home is ludicrous. An anti argument that posits women as superior in the domestic sphere is a velvet coated trap to keep them there. Choose it if you want, but it isn't a gendered skill.

I think feminism means choice ,nothing more or less.the choice to have the life you want unrestricted by gender bias,to reach and go through any glass ceiling that is within your aim.If its your choice to never work thats fine but you must be aware of the consequences if you're widowed and have no personal income .With choice comes responsibility .

My young friend has not one but two university degrees ,she gave up her job to have children and hasn't worked since they were born 10 years ago.That to me is a waste ,whether her husband can support them isn't in question but the fact she chooses to stay at home isn't a great role model for her daughters ..in my opinion.Why will they bother getting a good education when their mother has thrown hers away ?They can just do what she has done,find a man with a good income and be a lady who lunches .

I know what they mean, I just don’t find theories like that useful in practice.

Why do some feminists criticise some woman as paddyann
has done ?

paddyann your prejudice is based on the model patriachy has laid down for society that only work outside the home has any f value and that raising children is a waste of time. It is one reason why the caring professions have been a low pay occupation for years. Until we can challenge that perception there is no hope of feminism ever reaching true equality
Your friend may have creative and interesting occupations which fill her days and provide stimulation and education for her children. Earning a wage may be necessary but not being employed is not necessarily a waste of someone's life.

Its not a prejudice ,I believe in teaching by example why spend years at university and give it up to stay at home EVEN when the children are both at school ? I genuinely dont understand it .

I have been chastised for saying the same about many women who qualify as doctors, at huge cost to country. Makes no sense.

Because paddyann it’s the woman’s choice. You want her to be forced to seek employment? Where then is a woman’s choice.

I agree with paddyann, mostly.

Why bother going to uni if you're not going to use your learning? There are thousands of people worldwide or even just in the UK that would desperately love to be able to go to uni but can't afford it, and for someone who has been fortunate enough to do so twice just to not use their learning...

Temporary hiatus when children are young, obviously. But long term? No spousal maintenance anymore, remember. So if the marriage breaks down, financially you're screwed. It's a HUGE gamble.

A woman hasn’t returned to work for ten years so isn’t a great role model for her daughters?

Gosh I didn't realise there were so many on GN who don't recognise what patriachy has done to our society and continues to do. A university degree is an acheivement and should be valued for itself not for the financial gain it brings. The idea hat it is a step to earning more is in fact quite a recent concept which means that education is only valued financially and not for the benefit to the individual.
I can't believe that people don't realise how devalued the process of raising a family has become and how some women are buying in to this concept. It really doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman but if someone chooses to stay at home and look after children that should be recognised and honoured. One of the great mistakes of old feminism is that it thought it would be enough to allow women the same opportunities and to behave the same as men. This has resulted in much pain and many problems. Until we manage to change the philosophy and make society more female orientated (that's the only way I can think to put it but this society would benefit men as well) we won't have a better future for our GDs and all the old patriarchal standards will remain behind a veil of equality.