What does being an empowered mother mean?

I was quite enjoying the article until this bit:

"Being an outlaw mother has enabled me the satisfaction of seeing my daughter discover her potential already at the age of 12. She is the youngest child political blogger in the UK, and was voted the seventh most influential child blogger in the world. Apart from my daughter's intellectual prowess, I am humbled by the interest that she shows in my work and other activities."

Ghastly display of smuggery that does the author and her philosophy no favours at all.

This bit made me giggle - "Meeting other mothers for chats was not the way. Quite often the mothers would be having conversations while the babies would fall asleep with boredom because a busy cafe is not a place in which to develop a baby's needs." Eh?? How can you tell the difference between a baby that is falling asleep out of boredom and one that is falling asleep because that is what babies do for 15 hours a day?

I think the basic issue she raises - that it should not be assumed that giving birth = becoming a SAHM for the next 18 year, is important (...but not news...)

I agree with RealLifeisforWimps, I don't recognise this "The state of play of mothers in the UK is rather black and white. Good mothers stay at home and do everything for the children and her partner - playing, reading, physical care, and looking after the house. A working mother is expected to feel guilty and to put her work last. She will be watched to determine whether she is having and doing it all."

I think there are factors that push mothers into giving up more of the world, and their independence than fathers do, but its not as simple as a guilt which can be overcome by rebranding motherhood as 'outlaw motherhood'.

Anyone read Christina Hardyment on the history of childcare advice? Advice books weren't that widespread before about 1960s, but those bits that did exist also give interesting snippets on actual or desired norms of family life.

Most of the characteristics of patriarchal parenting (as listed in the post above) are very recent constructs, and would be laughed at for much of 20th century.

So the question in my mind is: What has happened in the last 50 years that has disempowered women?

I wondered what world she lived in: 'mothers in the UK, generally, tend not to have conversations which stray beyond the confines of domesticity' frankly wtf? I have worked with many wonderful women, the majority of them mothers and none of them spent much time talking about domesticity. Here on mumsnet conversations which are rich and interesting, funny and silly too can be easily found and even on a parenting site we are allowed to stray from domestic type stuff.

Also I wasn't sure what 'outlaw mothering' is. I work and dh is a SAHD - am I an outlaw? I feel generally like a normal human being, in fact pretty similar to most of my colleagues (and no I don't feel guilty - why on earth should I?). I don't disagree with some of what she says, but it just seems to be knocking down a bit of an extreme position, with not much of an alternative laid out.

Sorry, but I don't recognise the picture she paints. Most of my friends who have children work (as do I) and no-one demonises them for it (except the Mail but they demonise everyone). Two working parents is the norm these days in the UK. SAHMs are a minority.

The article simply sets up a straw man to knock down.

er. that's kind of the point, landphil. to note how restrictive and exclusive the concept of 'mothering' (as opposed to parenting) has become. and suggest alternatives. plural. in as many ways as possible. the whole point being there is no one right way to 'mother' or parent. and to push that idea so that it becomes as mainstream as possible, so that women who choose alternatives to sahming in a hetero relationship are not ostracised, and so that women who do choose sahming in hetero relationships are equally celebrated...

it's interesting that you latch onto labels though. how do you feel about the label 'mother' itself? limiting or limitless?

(there was quite a lot of chat about fathering at the mirci conference i went to - although apparently i can't actually have been there given the dearth of uk delegates according to jc )

it's all parenting. it's society that insists it's women's work and uses the term mothering, not jane chelliah.

I think it's even worse than that, landphil - we do have the word, but when we talk about fathering a child, all we mean is the act of procreation. As if that's the last point at which a man is seriously expected to be involved. After that, anything he does apparently comes under the umbrella of babysitting. (A friend of mine remarked that it was kind and sweet of my daughter's father to take her off my hands for a bit. He says he's never felt so patronised in all his life.)

How come there isn't even any such word as "fathering?".

"empowering" is an odd concept too.
and why so much emphasis on mothers? What about fathers?

Sorry , that was short and unhelpful.
The article sets up an overly complicated ( and fake ) construct of motherhood then suggests an alternative.
I don't relate at all.
I hate labels.
"outlaw mothers" . Meaningless. Pretentious.

I can't stand it

tintoy I really like your post.

One of the expectations of mothers in a patriarchal society is that they feel guilt - whatever way they are bringing up their child. I'm a single parent for example, so I'm supposed to say it's so hard blah blah blah. Financially, it is hard, but emotionally, I am a far better mother and far truer to myself because I am single, and I don't want to have to apologise for loving every minute of being a single mother (apart from the money side).

For me, feminism is about celebrating the fact that there is no right or wrong way to bring up a child (save obvious extremes), and just as people have a multitude of personalities and lifestyles, so too are there a multitude of ways to bring up a child to be a happy, healthy, successful and caring adult. And quite often the mother herself is the best judge of which method will suit her and her baby best.

ecclesvet I think you may be seeing a dichotomy where there isn't one when you say a child's needs should always be put first. I don't think the article advocates doing anything harmful to your child if that's what it takes to achieve personal fulfilment. I think the article is saying that, contrary to popular belief, most mothers can be trusted to love their children, so they will make more patient, attentive and loving parents if they are able to fulfil their own needs rather than sacrifice their personalities on the altar of motherhood.

Also I disagree that 24/7 parenting should be provided. Of course a 6-month old baby shouldn't be left to fend for itself for 6 hours a day, but does 24-hour care have to be provided by a parent? Why not another carer with a vested interest in making sure the child thrives? If you look at our evolutionary history it is highly unlikely that a child would have stayed with either parent 24 hours a day. Indeed, the menopause is thought to be due to the 'grandmothering' hypothesis - where older women could care for children while the younger mothers went off foraging. A person with a vested interest in seeing the child thrive doesn't have to be a blood relative either. A close friend or a highly motivated professional can do just as good a job if the arrangement is voluntary and well thought out. Problems can arise when women are forced back to work before being ready to leave their child, but then there are also plenty of women who are downright miserable because they've had no choice but to SAH when they'd really rather go back to work. Different families suit different arrangements.

I liked the article very much.

This sort of thing, though, always makes me want to talk to other stay-at-home mothers who feel as good as I do about what they do - not because they're getting patriarchy points(TM) for keeping the house tidy (mine is a pit and my husband does considerably more housework than I do), but because it's fulfilling, varied, interesting work and they enjoy doing it. I have a whale of a time with my kid each day and, because I don't push myself to do all the housework or feel remotely guilty about letting my husband do his share of childcare, I get quite flexible time round the edges. Since my daughter was born two years ago I've picked up a fourth language to intermediate level, am now on a writing course and have begun selling my artwork, all long-held ambitions. I do sometimes, fleetingly, want to go back to an office environment, but only once every few months. About as often as I fantasise about moving to the top of a mountain and growing my own yaks.

Outlaw mothers can also be women who choose the work of mothering as a full-time job, and who stand up and say that it is valuable, skilled work that's worthy of respect. God knows I'm not trying to play oppression olympics and claim that my life is so much haaaarder than anyone else's - I'm not and never would. I know full well that I gain a certain amount of privilege by taking the gender role laid out for me, and also how lucky I am that our finances (just about) allow me to do what I want. But I have demanded and obtained what I personally need in order to be happy and good at what I do, and I think that's something to be celebrated too, even though it doesn't include paid employment outside the home. Hell, just contradicting people when they say "Oh, so you're not working at the moment, then," seems to be a revolutionary act, judging by the looks on their faces.

Sorry that should read ?mothering and?

I just wish there could be far less emphasis on mothering SMS far more on parenting.

Hmmm. She describes 'outlaw' motherhood as being a contradiction to partriarchal motherhood, those characteristics being:

? Children can be properly cared for only by the biological mother,
? this mothering must be provided 24/7,
? the mother must always put her children's needs before her own,
? mothers must turn to the experts for instruction,
? the mother must be fully satisfied, fulfilled, completed and composed in motherhood,
? mothers must lavish excessive amounts of time, energy and money in the rearing of their children, and
? the mother has full responsibility but no power from which to mother.

but I'm not sure that those are all true, or worth contradicting. I'm not sure I agree that children's needs should ever be put second; I'm also not a fan of the "mother knows best", anti-intellectual, point about experts - that way anti-MMR stuff lies.

24/7 parenting is something I would also say should always be provided - what on earth is the contradiction? That the child should go without parents for a while? Who's to say how much time spent 'rearing' is excessive?

Perhaps I'm just missing something, but the concept of 'outlaw mothering' seems to boil down to "the usual mothering model, but with time off". It also seems (to me) that this is a drastic overreaction to a problem that feminism has had the solution to for ages: instead of inventing a whole new system of motherhood to fix issues of "exhaustion, guilt, anxiety and loneliness" caused by not living up to the patriarchy's motherhood model, why not just get rid of all the models, all the gender roles and gender stereotypes, all the objectification and categorisation?

i knew this was mirci before i clicked on the thread

i love their organisation.
loads of great books here - and their journals are fascinating