Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

It is a funny thing how the "child free" forums should be supportive for women in situations like that, but I know that if I wanted to discussion my wavering and indecision, I'd be much more likely to find the kind of support I'd need on mumsnet.

fwiw gb, i think it's just to do with terminology - i don't think your actual view is any different. i don't see 'person' or 'people' as a patriarchal term in a general context, not like 'mankind' or whatever, but i can see that other people do, because their context is slightly different.

i would say 'person' first (or human, but that leads us off down the humanist path), and and then specify gender second, in an ideal world. (about anyone, man or woman). but i can kind of see that might not work if you are used to dealing with 'people' usually referring to the male voice/ pov/ experience.

i fully accept my status as a woman, and have proved everything is in working order, (much to the shock of certain acquaintances who hadn't pegged me as mother earth) but would still prefer to be judged on an equal playing field without the distinctions of male/female being brought to the table generally. that said, in certain debates the fact of the distinction is the prime point, and the rationale for differentiation, so 'person' doesn't cut it.

but anyway, i think you're arguing the same point. but i've been wrong before.

who is going to write to the dm and ask if wills has seen a fertility expert?

sakura,

I have to admit, I'm either really confused about and don't understand what you are trying to say, or I'm actually quite offended by it.

"We must incorporate our image of ourselves as the bearers of life"

If women are defined by their ability to create life, where does that leave women who choose not to or can't apart from out in the cold?

MillyR: Sorry, don't have any links but I have read stuff in the past (books and magazines) of people giving thoughtful and thoughtprovoking comments on the choice to be childfree, which do not involve being vile about women.

I'm confused by this entire conversation. I can't separate myself off into woman and person. I am always a woman.

SGB, do you have any links to a representative child-free movement website. I've had a look but all I can find are broken links and webpages of people who don't like the child-free movement.

Phew, thanks for that SGB! What you said.

SGM: I think you know how well aware I am of existing power imbalances between men & women on a personal, communal, national, worldwide and even spiritual level. It feels odd that you seem to be suggesting I don't.

I still don't know why you took issue with my saying women have value because we are people, but given that we're both human and both women (and that Lois Griffin is my favourite cartoon character), perhaps we'd better just settle that your identity is woman first, person second, and I do the reverse for mine.

At the risk of rerailing the thread I do think that considering the raving screaming nutjobs on some of those fora as representatives of the whole childfree 'movement' is along the lines of saying that all feminists are lesbians or all Muslims are bound to be in mourning for Osama or something. Every movement or alternative viewpoint attracts bucketheads. And there have always been strands of the childfree movement who do not hate women at all and do have a feminist perspective: as others have pointed out, a woman who is choldfree by choice gets loads of shit on a daily basis, concescension, intrusive questioning and outright abuse, so there is bound to be some resentemtn and indeed some of the posters on the childfree fora are just enjoying the opportunity to vent unreasonably.
Because motherhood is revered by the partirachal society. That doesn't mean they support mothers in any way, or want to give them any practical help, they just say motherhood is sacred so you can't criticize it or ask for aspects of it to change for the actual benefit of mothers, or anything...

we deserve equal value and not simply for being people
... can you really not see why I'm confused?

Am also most mystified by "keep bringing this up over and over again", not to mention my supposed insistence that someone has said men have less value than women.

Odd

Keep bringing what up over & again? [confuded]

You said: we have value because we are women; not for our wombs

I asked if I could rephrase that as "we have value because we are people."

You took issue with that, for reasons I'm still trying clarify. In your explanation, you said we have value because we are women

I've tried to point up that my value is not due to my gender!
It still looks to me that you were suggesting human value must be gender-based (I realise it's impossible you think that) but am still completely stymied as to what you mean by saying I'm not a person or am more of a woman than a person, or something ...?

That was in reply to SGM above: No, I meant we have value because we are women. Men already have value for being men and women are treated as second-class citizens. I am saying our sex/ gender is important but that we deserve equal value and not simply for being people.

I'm perfectly happy to have value for "simply" being people. I find it exraordinary that anyone doesn't, unless they're either a male supremacist bastard or a female supremacist ... well.

I can't tell whether you're asking me to believe I can only be a person if I deny my gender, or that men don't think they're people, or that a mother is a superior kind of woman who transcends humanity. I'm not sure you want me to believe any of the above, but you've lost me if not.

I do not "have value" because I'm a woman, unless you exepct me to say that men have less value. I'm a valid, worthwhile human being - and so is that man over there.

That's entirely different from saying I don't want to be defined as a woman, which is bollocks. Of course I'm defined as a woman, I've got the bits & stuff (well, most of them.)

garlicbutter - I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Why don't you want to be defined as a woman but are happy to be defined as a female person?

Ahem. I am a female person!! By suggesting that "I am a person" is tantamount to saying "I'm a man", do you not think you might be succumbing to the patriarchal value you reject?

This might look different to women who are mothers -- i dunno, I'm not a mother. But I'm starting to feel very, very uncomfortable here

"To make it the primary reason for respect, is to leave out huge numbers of women who are not mothers."

Don'T be ridiculous Where did I say it should be the primary reason for respect? I've repeatedly said that the most brilliant feminists, those deserving of the most respect for their work ever: VIrginia WOolf, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin are childless

I've never said women should be defined solely as mothers either. That's a male POV.

I've said that divorcing our potential to give birth, our life creating potential, from our personhood (whether we choose to have children or not, whether we are able to have children or not) will never be the route to liberation. We must incorporate our image of ourselves as the bearers of life, and expect men to respect us on our terms
Saying to men, "oh we can do everything you can,see, but we can have children too" is a no go, because you're defining women in relation to men.

I'm getting uncomfortable with this. Would you mind if I rephrase your last sentence, SGM?
It starts from the perspective that women have value because we are people; not for our wombs.

To say that motherhood is an intrinsic part of womanhood suggests that unless you are a mother, you are not "whole" as a woman. For women who choose to be childless, being a mother is not an essential part of being a woman, although I can see that a woman who wants to have children, but can't for whatever reason, may disagree.