Many years ago, I read an essay by a clergyman who argued that feminism is for men only.  Throughout history, men have wanted sex with women, but not necessarily with any thought of commitment.  What has changed, he argued, is how women react.   Many women nowadays happily indulge in casual sex, and are not ashamed of it.  For men who like casual sex, this is an entirely welcome state of affairs.

 

The reader will probably admit that the good clergyman had a point, but few will agree wholeheartedly. Surely there are many aspects to feminism, and women’s attitudes to sex are just one small part of a bigger picture.

Consider a few facts.  In the UK, sex discrimination in the workplace was legal until the 1970s.  Marital rape was still legal in the 1980s.  Until very recently a local authority was not required to give victims of domestic violence any priority in the allocation of social housing. Surely it is fair to argue that women have benefited from feminism.  Nevertheless, I often find myself reflecting that maybe feminism has in some respects been detrimental to women.

A few years ago, a woman posted a comment on an internet forum to the effect that she would not date any man who did not earn more than her.  Another woman I once spoke with told me that she would not date an unemployed man.  It is fair to point out that in both cases the women were possibly condemning themselves to a lifetime of being single and unloved.

When I was a child, my father worked and my mother was a housewife.  That was typical in those days.  All the teachers at my primary school were women, but not one had young children.  It was normal back then for a woman with young children either not to work or to make do with part-time work.  Even women who did not have children were often content to be housewives.  Men were still very much seen as providers.

Nowadays it is different.  Women increasingly want to have careers.  They want to earn and to achieve.  That is not wrong in itself.  The problem from my point of view is that far too many women still seem to regard men as providers.  No matter how much women earn, some of them will still dream of marrying a man who earns even more.

A few months ago, a thirty-something journalist writing in a national newspaper lamented the fact that she and her sister were still single and childless.  She also lamented that they seemed unable to save money and buy a house, even though they both worked.  She seemed to think that marriage would lead to home ownership, and also to raising children.

Why didn’t she and her sister go down to the Jobcentre and pull a couple of unemployed men?  You might argue that they could not expect jobless husbands to buy them houses, but then again the jobless man of today might be the working man of tomorrow.  Also, a thirty-something woman has only so many years remaining in which to start breeding.  Is the thought of raising a family in social housing really so daunting?  Would she prefer never to have children?

Maybe it is time for women to rethink what feminism is and to what extent it actually benefits them.

 

 

 

Read Ceilidhann Donaldson's article in which she opposes the view that feminism has gone too far and let us know what you think in our Debate Night Poll.