Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

Wow, this went a bit bonkers didn't it?

Anyone care to summarise if anyone said anything about "Child-Free" in the last week or so?

(have been without internet)

Currently I suppose I am "child free by choice", technically. I may choose to change that status in the future.

I agree that "the only work of value is paid work outside the home", Dittany, and feel it's a mistake. As I've said, I feel that is changing - and could be moved along a lot faster with some focused government thinking.

The paid work matters, though. A society can only afford to consider the better things in life - the caring, the societal mood, personal fulfilment and rounded education - when its members are already safe, healthy, fed and sheltered. Maslow again: we're disputing what lies at the top of the triangle. This is a luxury and one that's only been afforded to the masses by capitalism.

I've written plenty about how I dislike our current shape of capitalism, and also why I think the model's in its death throes. It is a highly flexible model so, one hopes, the agonised examination that's going on across the world just now will yield a fairer, more fulfilling version for time to come.

it's no good slagging it off without looking at alternative structures, though. Without capitalism the food distribution doesn't work, the sanitation breaks down and local imbalances cause widespread illness & misery. Yes, the current (dying) model is sexist. Yes, it's exploitative of the poorest. Yes, it's as imperfect as all get-out. But it works better than not-capitalism for a greater proportion of people.

There never will be an unstructured human society: we're a pack animal, in simple terms, and will always seek structures and leaders. Not-capitalism (feudalism & communism spring to mind) lead to greater deptivation for most, so I'm all for working capitalism's flexibility in favour of a more ethical & equal evolution. I'm not quite sure which parts of this you disagree with, though I know you do.

Thoughts?

Herbeggs

You seem to be discounting the expense of raising children - more rent for a bigger house, transport, clothing, food, holidays etc... plus if the other parent is a SAHP their cost of living: all that comes out of the working parents wages so when you have children whether you go out to work or are a SAHP it reduces your disposable income - I.e. It costs you.

Of course raising children creates value, as dittany said for the child, and also for society when they grow up. I am not arguing against that. I agree.

But the point I was making is it doesn't create value for your employer (and their customers, clients etc...) and so they have a limited appetite to pay you for taking time off work.

Yes if we refused to have children the government would have to put in some incentives for us to do that (as they have in Italy) but that's not a problem in the UK. So I'm not convinced that taxes from potentially poorer people should go to potentially richer people simply on the basis that one isn't a parent and one is.

Been lurking on here...great post garlicbutter - lots of stuff I ddin't know about and food for thought

I think your points are good, Himalaya. Plus, I feel I have to keep stressing that I agree parenting is undervalued (or not-valued) and that caring in general deserves a higher status. It pisses me off as much it does everyone else that a footballer can earn the salary of 1,000 nurses.

If I keep on putting arguments against salaried parenting, I risk getting into pettifogging arguments and exposing personal reasons (which, although they apply in general, will lead to misconstruction). So I'm going back to the less-patriarchal business structure.

In Germany it is usual for large employers to offer a year's sabbatical for every X years worked. The qualifying period is commonly 5 years - so, for every six years with an employer, you only work five. The employers don't pay the cost of this: it's covered by a sort of employee fund, similar to the way contributory pensions were funded here. Thus, employers do actually support the fund but it's factored down to nothing on their books - I assume they get tax relief; maybe some German accounting whizzkid will be along to fill in the details. Employees set up and run the sabbatical schemes: they're voluntary and depend on a sufficient membership to work out financially.

Basically, it's a structured means of saving up to have every sixth year off work. Because it's structured and supported, nobody loses their jobs and everything is adequately planned. I would like to see schemes like this implemented over here. It doesn't favour parents, but it does allow flexibility to lead a more fulfilling life, in whatever way fits your particular Maslow.

Another, often-proposed, idea is 24-hour business. Personally I think it's crazy not to be open for business 24/7. We're all in a world market these days - if a business only has local customers, the likelihood is that those customers do business across timezones. A 24-hour working day means three 8-hour shifts. That's three times the number of jobs and two opportunities for a worker to fit their job around the rest of their life. Add flexitime into the mix, and the opportunities to create a life that works for your family become infinite. Some workers may choose shorter hours for less pay, others may choose more and so on.

Wrt workers who choose longer hours, I don't really understand why workplace childcare never took off. I know the big company I worked for put it to a vote - they proposed a levy on all employees' salaries, which was rejected, then a larger levy on parents' salaries only. That was also rejected. I wonder if a more concerted campaign, with government backing, would get such schemes moving again? If the tax breaks for employers providing the service have been withdrawn, they should be re-introduced and, perhaps, made bigger.

Part of me thinks that various child-friendly initiatives have fallen at the first jump due to ingrained attitudes amongst the fat blokes who have the veto. I can see attitudes changing very fast among younger people, though, and am tempted to think they could be got off the ground with consistent government backing. The problem also lies in the devaluing of parenthood, which is the topic of this thread. I do think that's changing - and could, again, be moved along faster with both government and commercial support. It's only - what, one year? - since we adopted paternal leave. As soon as the idea takes hold - and doesn't compromise one's career - the better the picture will become. I hope.

"People will undergo considerable personal cost to have children because they want to (or maybe less consciously their body wants to"

No Himlaya, women will undergo considerable personal cost. Men's earning power actually rises as a result of having children, as they are seen as more responsible, "adult" members of society, while women's earning power goes down.

"any time you are engaged in looking after your children you are not at work creating value for other people"

Would argue very strongly with that. Bringing up your children to be useful members of society, is creating huge value for other people. You've swallowed the line that child-rearing is useless time spent. It's not, it's socially necessary and if we stopped looking after our children and let them run wild, what effect do you think that would ahve upon society? How can you possibly believe that looking after children doesn't create value?

As for the taking the village to raise the child - of course they do it so that their children can join in with the labour of the village. Exactly the same as us. It happens to be different labour, that's all.

GB and others I wanted to come back on the question of why society doesn't give financial value to people looking after their own children, who should pay for childcare etc.. (before I got distracted by the other wierdness on this thread).

Society doesn't generally and automatically pay people to look after their own children (or to have children in the first place) because it doesn't have to. People will undergo considerable personal cost to have children because they want to (or maybe less consciously their body wants to). It costs them money - expenses, foregone wages and freedom - but it gives them pleasure and fulfillment and they think it's worth it.

As you say government money isn't free money so it isn't obvious at all that taxpayers - low and high income - should pay to compensate all SAHPs.

What they should pay for is keeping families out of dire poverty, because all children deserve a decent upbringing, and ideally they should do it in a way that doesn't trap people in the 'safety net' forever but enables them to become financially independent again.

GB - you were saying (sorry can't find the post) that employers should take more of the burden, and that if employers weren't patriarchal there wouldn't be such a high cost to being a parent. I think this is true to a certain extent - employers overly penalising people taking years away, not being flexible, overly penalising pt work etc...

But there is no getting away from the fact that any time you are engaged in looking after your children you are not at work creating value for other people (and vice versa) and someone has to pay for that. And it goes on for 18 years - everyone thinks of maternity leave and the baby years, but it gets harder once you have school holidays, multiple social lives, homework help to deal with.

If employers had to give everyone lower hours, term time working etc... at the same take home salary it would cost them money - and everything would get more expensive (including the cost of public services) - it would end up with the same result as charging everyone a higher tax. There is no free money either way.

What I do think should happen is that dads should take more equal role in parenting, and employers be more flexible.

Of course there is always room to change policy and shift the balance of who pays for bringing up the next generation between employers (and therefore consumers) tax payers and parents. But I don't think there is a perfect solution with no trade offs.

'It takes a child to raise a village' sounds nice a fluffy, but subsistence villages where that happens are small minded, controlling places (they have to be to be because it's such a hard life). Villages don't raise children and encourage them to follow their dreams they do it so they can start working in the fields.

Unfortunately I think some people will always be unjust, one way or another - I hope I'm wrong

• should have been obv, but just in case

There has been more 'good' people in power than bad people, like the news or even MN the bad news/people always stand out. The problem is (especially in modern times) is that people don't come into power with their bad intentions known. Look at Gaddaffi he came in as some revolutionary for the people at the time he was celebrated now look what he has become.

Bad people will get into power by deception or they may be changed from who they were whilst in that power. At the moment it is easier for men to get into power (slowly changing rate of change varies from country to country) but that does not mean if everything is all 50/50 that bad people won't get into power and they may also be a woman as well, looking at history women leaders have not exactly been all good either.

As Ormirian said:
"I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power"

• Yes. More often than not those people tend to be men because that's the way most societies have worked.

I do believe that, when power is evenly distributed between the sexes, their priorities and values will influence and change the structures and assumptions which currently drive the patriarchy. But I don't believe it will mean an end to the incompetencies & atrocities, because I think the drive to abuse is an ungendered human factor.

I take your point, HB, about unjust systems breeding unjust behaviour. Unfortunately I think people will always be unjust, one way or another - I hope I'm wrong. Again, we won't know until we try and I'm very keen to find out.

Of course there are good people in power! I hope I haven't suggested I thought otherwise.

I also think you're being unfair to people with power as well tbh. Good people have also made it to positions of power. When power structures don't encourage bad people to get into power, more good people will have power.

"It doesn't automatically follow that men = bad, abusive, selfish and women = good, compassionate, sharing."

But you are still arguing against something no-one is asserting.

Also I think you are wrong to believe that when 50% of the world's population have as much power as the other 50%, that their priorities and values won't influence and change the structures and assumptions which currently drive the patriarchy. One of the reasons why industrial carnage exists, is because it comes from a place of terrible injustice. Where there is justice, there is less psychological (and practical) need to persecute people.

I just don't believe that a society with both halves of humanity having power within it, will be one where one half of humanity is still brainwashed by patriarchal notions. I think to have got to the position of having both halves of humanity in charge, those notions would have been ditched generations ago.

"I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power"

Yes. More often than not those people tend to be men because that's the way most societies have worked.

We're talking at cross-purposes, I think, HB. No, I don't think it's a quirk of fate that most of the people running the world are men. That's why I'm a feminist.

I don't think the bad things are done by these men because they're men, I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power.

The fact that most of the people doing this are men is reason enough to be a feminist. It doesn't automatically follow that men = bad, abusive, selfish and women = good, compassionate, sharing. You get abusers in every flavour. Abusers like power. When feminism succeeds, I'm pretty sure we'll find lots of atrocities and incompetencies being committed by powerful women.

I do not need to believe that women are somehow better than men, morally or otherwise, to believe we deserve true equality. We deserve it because we are people; are just as clever and capable as the other half of the people.

If I still haven't got any further towards clarifying where I'm coming from and how that sits with your beliefs, it's probably impossible :(

And no-one has ever said that women are never nasty, or never kill or misbehave or whatever. That is the sort of false argument that anti-feminists always put forward and it's just so obvious that no-one reasonable would ever day such a thing, it's wearing to have to keep refuting it. We shouldn't have to be arguing Aunt Sallys with women who say that they're feminists.

GB, I'm picking you up on it because you talk about the fact that the vast majority of people running the world being men, is somehow incidental, an inexplicable co-incidence, and that it's mroe important that they are people, rather than men.

No, the very fact that they are men, is the important bit of them being people. If they were female people, they wouldn't run the world.

HB, straight after that i said My feminist issue is: the vast majority of people running the world are men, and that's unfair. There's really no logical reason to assume women would do a better job, but we deserve a fair shot at it. - which may look like denial to you, but it doesn't to me.

If I'm in denial, obviously I won't be able to see what you mean. But I'm listening, if you're telling.

I don't know whether Sakura was saying women are never "nasty" or somebody else was. Life's too short to keep searching 189 posts. This has definitely been said (or even insisted) more than once, though.

My point is that women and men are people. Since I've even been criticised for saying women are people, I'm on the verge of giving up! But, well, I care about feminism and am aware a lot of women who are interested in feminist issues read these threads. So I keep on plugging away.

I might have to give up for a while and re-engage with daily life in the patriarchy - but am still genuinely open to enlightenment on my denial :)

"Actually the incompetencies you describe are incompetencies of people running the world."

LOL you are in denial aren't you.

Most of those people are men.

And Sakura isn't saying that women are never nasty, that's just silly and missing the point.

... That's a really cheap way to avoid recognising the overall point, by the way.

I wanted examples of mass cruelty, abuse of power, plain malice and incompetence in public office. I gave the examples that first came to mind.
Maybe I should thoroughly research every post I write, being prepared to defend my presentation and provide a full bibliography ...

Not entirely sure a mediaeval monarch of the world's most powerful empire could be accused of collaborating for crumbs! Can't see how Allit was grovelling for male approval, either - if she was, it didn't work.