Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

You are a friend of the people

You are a friend of the people

Fuck me.

If only men were as sane as women.

Jeysus, thank the lord I have a twat.

Really, otherwise I may be spending my time ensuring my wife gave birth to a deformed foetus rather than enjoying our humanity.

Thanks.

Good lord Sak

That's a little harsh, if not to say insane....

Yep, the father of my children is intent on wiping life on earth out.

It is, after all, in his best interests.

If only I'd noticed it sooner......

as long as patriarchy exists any time of peace we experience is a "respite" from the perpetual state of war that is patriarchy.

Please, do NOT tell me that when women finally reclaim their power the world will look anything like it does under patriarchy

otherwise we all might as well pack up and go home right now. The jig is up.

then ask yourself garlicbutter, why men are hell-bent on polluting the planet.

It's intentional. THe oil tankers that "accidentally" spill into the sea because they weren't made properly. THe nuclear power plants built in earthquake zones. The mercuarly leaked into the water supply causing foetuses to become deformed. ALL corporations headed by men. Mary Daly believed patriarchies are necrophiliac, and I'm inclined to agree with her. Gynocides in Rwanda, HOlocausts in Germany. Men as a group are out to kill all life on the planet. It's written in the script of patriarchy.

Women-as -a group, on the other hand are biophiliac, they love life.

I don't think two groups of people could be any more different than men and women.

It takes a fair amount of critical thinking to think 'through' the obvious problems as we live them, HB, and to come up with more satisfactory solutions. Critical thinking was not a feature of education over the last 20 years, so I reckon it's understandable that most don't see past or through the issues - plus, you have to bear in mind that many people are constitutionally unsuited to do it. That's not sexist, classist or anything else-ist, it's a deep-seated human quality.

I 100% disagree with your latest statement that "if it advantages men, then it disadvantages women, because women are different from men". We are more alike than unalike. Clean water, healthy food, non-toxic air, warmth & shelter advantage us all. We're all human. We're all people.

And if it advantages men, then it disadvantages women, because women are different from men.

No GB I haven't been thinking of equal as being like a man.

But when non-feminists (or IMO even some liberal feminists) talk about equality, that is what they mean.

They do not challenge the way the world is constructed and the way it works. They just want to be accepted on equal terms with men in that world. But they can never be equal, because it is a world that has been designed to advantage men.

Have only skim-read the past few hours' worth of posts. HerBeggs, you gave me an "AHA!" moment with this:
Equality just means being accepted in a man's world on a man's terms.

So that's what this is about, huh??!!

No, equality to me means equality of value. I am a female person. I am just as worthwhile, just as important, and should be just as equal as a male person and, also, a trans or intersex person. Gender does not define personhood, we're all humans. And we should all be equal in terms of rights, opportunites, freedoms and perceived worth. With all our differences.

If you've been thinking of 'equal' as meaning 'like a man' - well, that explains why so many feminists' stements on this thread have struck me as coming from a patriarchal pov! Phew

I feel the need to point out the blindingly obvious. Parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not apply to everyone - they are not just about our common humanity. They are often about minorities, and in particular relevance to this thread is part of article 25:

Motherhood is entitled to special assistance.

So many people will go to the ECHR because they are specifically protected as mothers, not as generic human beings.

oh feck. i just typed a really long reply and then got booted out.

err. it was so important i can't remember a word of it...

oh i know 'It is far more common to turn a blind eye to difference than to someone's status as a human being.' i don't agree. i don't think the slave with the placard would, or the women fighting their way to employment tribunals, or in fact the entire existence of the ECHR.

lenin - yes i agree, she might. but that's her choice, rather than one that should be imposed upon her. i'm proud of how she deals with her disability, but i'm not particularly proud that she has a disability. (or the converse - it's just a part of her). i'm not sure how i would feel if she felt it was the most defining aspect of her, or saw it as her prime identity, rather than one of the things about her, tbh.

interesting that you identify your sexuality first, then being a woman, and then presumably a person/ human (if it even figures). i dragged goffman's 'stigma' out the other day intending to read it (though he is an unremittingly sexist dinosaur), and suspect sexuality is bound to come up.

identity is pretty fluid in terms of which aspects you promote in any given context. on reflection i suppose i oughtn't to be too shocked that most feminists identify as women first, (particularly on a feminism board) and believe it to be strictly relevant in all aspects of life, because the sad fact is it is. it just shouldn't be. (re-enters the loop)

i am glad y'all care enough to argue with me, though

I don't know what the contemporary view is, but for me personally, our common humanity is not of any more intrinsic value than experiences that I have as part of a minority group.

It isn't a question of us existing as people or as minorities, it is the question of our expression of that the recognition by other people. It is far more common to turn a blind eye to difference than to someone's status as a human being.

I think the issue with disability is that very many people's disabilities are not visible, which gives people the opportunity to ignore the need of the individual with the disability.

millyr - but only when you are discussing those 'rights' in particular. the fact of pg and childbirth is not relevant when you are discussing anything else for a man or woman who wishes to remain childless and intends to.

lenin - then you end up trying to work out how you can make a difference. to eradicate the inequalities. and apparently end up trying to prove you do actually agree on mn fem threads, but no-one believes you...

the race/ disability thing is interesting. clearly diversity exists. fwiw dd2 suffered birth hypoxia and has cerebral palsy as a result, and one of the defining issues for parents of children with disabilities is to get the world to see them as people first, the old 'person with a disability', not a 'disabled person' chestnut. ('child with downs syndrome', not 'downs child' etc etc) sometimes the fact of your humanity has to be pointed out, prior to the sub-text (as in the case of slavery etc). clearly the fact that dd2 is disabled is a pretty major part of her identity, but i really don't want it to completely define her. in the same way that being a woman becomes even more problematic when you additionally fit into any other disempowered sub-group (race/ disability/ sexuality).

it's interesting that you see wanting to be defined as a person primarily as a 'mild' attempt to erase diversity. i don't see it as a way to erase diversity at all - the diversity is still going to exist, in exactly the same way that you argue that the fact that we are 'people' is still going to exist (and is therefore not relevant).

i rather see it as a reminder that despite the diversity, the key issue is the fact of our common humanity.

i just hadn't realised that wasn't the contemporary view.

Of course pregnancy and childbirth come into the equation for the childfree. The ability of the childfree to remain childfree is based on them having the right to not get pregnant and the right to terminate a pregnancy, which are rights many women do not have. Control of reproductive potential - either the right to have children, or the right not to have them, is central to feminism.

I don't think the desire to be seen as a person is a bad thing; I simply think it is an incomprehensible thing. I really do not understand the sentiment from someone living in the UK in the 21st century. DS has done a project on slavery recently, and there are many posters from the era (Atlantic slave trade) of slaves with the slogan 'Am I not also a man (in the species sense)/human being?

I can understand why people in that situation would have a desire to be viewed as a person, but I really don't get why people on this thread would. It seems to me to be a more personal version of the justification for racism/homophobia/sexism where people say "I'm not prejudiced; I treat everyone in the same way. Why can't Asians/lesbians/women/disabled people just be like everyone else?" We are clearly not all the same, and people have different identities, and multiple identities. The fact that part of my identity to others is always that I am a woman and is very frequently that I am a mother. That fact that it is part of my identity does not mean that is solely defines me.

I find it impossible to reconcile myself to a viewpoint that does not value diversity, does not recognise and respond to people as individuals, and does not recognise that part of someone's individual identity, experience and personality is their belonging to various subgroups and minorities within society.

So until someone can explain to me what "my identity is that I am a person/human being" is meant to mean, when everyone in the UK is already considered to be a person, I am going to assume that it is a mild way of attempting to erase diversity and the experiences of women and mothers as a political, economic and social minority.

But I'm happy to be corrected if someone can explain what they mean. I also understand that their are many situation where people keep their jobs by keeping quiet about being a parent. But you can't hide the fact that you are a woman, no matter how much you insist on being a person instead.

it should be pointed out that i always end up in a loop on the trans threads as well. it all depends on your view of the binary. i don't care whether you identify as male or female because it shouldn't matter. (and very clearly it does lol)

but i've given up posting on trans threads largely, because that ideological assertion isn't compatible with the prevailing feminist discourse. it doesn't mean i don't identify as a feminist as a fact of necessity, given the (patriarchal) structure of society. but if it didn't matter whether you were a man or woman in terms of your value to society, there wouldn't be a need for feminism.

loosely translated as 'i don't want to be a feminist', i think. because there shouldn't be a need for it.

there's the rub, really. back to the ideology of equality. in my head, 'person' doesn't equate to 'man'. or shouldn't, anyway. but context important.

lenin, pg and childbirth doesn't come into the equation for the child-free, though. so why should it define the childless in any way?

rights in pg and childbirth (and bf) are pretty much the sole areas where it's impossible to define yourself in any other way than as a woman even i'm not arguing that.

"i'm still unsure why the desire to be viewed as a person is a bad thing (less the criticism of 'person' being equated with male)"

In other words, less the whole problem with being viewed as a person! A male is a person, a woman is an- other.

i tried to get dh to reverse his vasectomy. he wasn't having any of that nonsense. bit late for him to sign up as child-free though.