Germaine Greer doesn't agree with David Furnish being named as 'mother' on birth certificate

I should say regardless of whether birth certificates are redesigned...

This is the feminism board, yes? The issue is not about the child having parents, adopted, biological or whatever - the issue as I see it is that a man (DF) is trying to take a title that technically can only belong to a woman. I'm pretty sure that's why it's been posted in here and not in AIBU.

It's happened already. The battle was over before it was even held.

Even if birth certificates are redesigned, mothers are now optional, wombs are commodities. It's done.

I wish I could feel that optimistic, lynette, but I don't.

I think Greer has a point that women's reproductive capacity is being exploited quite badly at the moment.

Why not do away with the terms mother and father completely and just use "parent"?

The status of mothers and fathers in society is different. I think mothers are held in higher regard, generally atm, but I think it's soon to be a thing of the past, and parents will be held in equal regard.

Oh I definitely do see language as important. But this one case of someone's private life, possibly necessitated by documents, doesn't bother me. That really is just me though, I'm not saying anyone who does mind is wrong.

However - I don't see 'mother' as a belittling term like your other examples- this is sort of a reverse on that, and I'm not really sure where I stand on the use of positive female terms for men tbh, I guess I need to have a think about it. I don't think I feel it will lead to the extermination of women though!

As a woman who likely won't have a child, I am very keen on 'woman' having a worth and meaning outside motherhood, so that might be colouring my views too.

Yes, orlando, I said that upthread.

But sausage suggested that if the role is gendered, it is heteronormative to object to gender-flipping. Which it isn't: it merely reifies the gendered nature of the role we call 'mother'. It does nothing to address the social status issue at all.

If you are a mother, society views you differently and more barriers appear. Work and the way mothers are perceived by employees being one. Fathers don't have those barriers.

The roles should be the same. To be a parent to your child. The status in society of mothers and fathers is different.

"The idea that motherhood is only attached to a set of behaviours rather than an identity attached to a female parent is a bit weird and heteronormative"

yy this- and other posters who said it too, but easier to c/p this one on my phone!

That said, the specific Furnish example doesn't bother me. Whether it's to do with forms or because he personally wants to be called 'Mother' I see it as a personal quirk and not really any of my business. There are rich white men making far more damaging claims and decisions about parenting and motherhood all the time and in this case because it's a celebrity AND because it's 'weird' (and let's look at why it's newsworthy, and consider whether perhaps the people who consider it so are more at fault here- 'oooER he wants to be a mother how bizarre') it's being covered.

Not to say there aren't valid points about sharing traditional 'motherhood' roles leading, in a lot of cases, to women getting more and more of the shit end. I think that's absolutely the case, the way it is/was with employment stuff. But I really don't think that's the fault of or even related to whether David Furnish put a name in a box labelled 'mother'.

Link fail!

Is it terrible that David Furnish naming himself 'mother' reminds me of immortal Monty Python moment? s

it does kind of seem that words mean what you want them to mean

I wonder why a man would want to identify himself as mother?

I know several lesbian mothers, none call themselves the dad

The idea that motherhood is only attached to a set of behaviours rather than an identity attached to a female parent is a bit weird and heteronormative

If someone is filling a role that normally has a gender attached we are just being heteronormative if we dislike the concept.

No, we're not. You have inverted the situation.

It's not about 'filling a role'. The role is 'parenting'. It has gender attached because our society is sexist (as well as heteronormative), so idiots thinking mothering requires different skills from fathering. And then they slap on some nice gendered discrimination against those associated with 'mothering'.

Please tell me what it is you think men lack to such an extreme degree, that they cannot provide the same nurture or emotion women can, for their children?

They can't breastfeed. Nor can some women. That's pretty much it, post-birth. So to say that they are 'mothers' if they act a certain way is absurdly sexist.

Dione, if you read my post again you'll see that I wasn't accusing anyone here of fetishising anything; I was criticising the fertility industry and questioning the lengths people will go to to ensure a genetic connection.

Orlando why don't you ask one of your friends? Or one of us on here?

Imo there should be a record of the genetic patents, a record of the gestating mother and a record of the people after the birth who are committing to raising the child.

I agree with Athenaviolet - the birth certificate needs to be updated and dragged into the 21st century, otherwise it's just a piece of paper where anyone can fill in any of the blanks....

Plus, while there are probably not many health effects from any inadvertent incest, and the chances are tiny, the mental effects could be quite devastating.

He isn't claiming to be a mother though, so I don't really understand a lot of the grievances with this.

There are only two slots for the parents names on a birth certificate and unfortunately in this country one of those slots is titled 'mother'.

I strongly believe this should be changed, as it has in other contries, to say 'parent 1' 'parent 2' and then maybe an option for 'relationship to the child' ie, mother/father/surrogate/other.

I imagine fathers in DG & EJ's situation aren't exactly thrilled about the fact that they have to be listed as 'mother' on their DCs BC as they aren't a mother.

I also don't understand why so many are getting offended by the suggestion that a man may want to be referred to as a mother, it's only a word, a title, a term of endearment.

I had an "enforcer" mother and a nurturing Dad. They both worked but Dad got me up and made my breakfast every day.

Dad/father should be what you make it. No one should be hidebound by gender stereotyping.

Was my mum my father?

No filling the role is fine.

Saying that if someone is filling that role then they must be X is gender stereotype.

eg DH is much more maternal than me, I am the enforcer. Our roles are reversed to the norm, that is fine. The suggestion though that he should be called "mother" and I should be called "father" is ludicrous. The names are linked to sex, they are not and should not be linked to expected stereotypical behaviours. Just because I act more like the stereotype "dad" doesn't mean I'm not their mother. Obviously.

So it's not destroying gender roles at all it is removing the sex component and basing them entirely in stereotypical or perceived behaviours.

Well in this case I expect it's just because the form didn't have enough options but that applies to the wider conversation.

If someone is filling a role that normally has a gender attached we are just being heteronormative if we dislike the concept. Find it strange that on a board that is normally trying to destroy gender roles we can't accept that someone filling the role does not have to be of a that sex to fill the role. Got a hangover so may not be making sense but whats new?

I am deeply uncomfortable with this. I also am uncomfortable with the way motherhood is being diminished, and once pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding is out of the way then anyone can crack on at it. I think we ignore basic biology at our peril, no matter how much that may upset feminist principles.

Every time I see something like this, it just feels like something is chipping away or enroaching on, women's relationships with their children. I can't always put my finger on it but it feels like people (men?) muscling in on the positive roles, whilst, yet again, women are left with the crap, except someone has run off with the spoils of motherhood.

sakura don't exaggerate - maternal death rates in developed countries are not sky high. Planned Caesaeran births in developed countries if anything are safer than natural birth.

Just had a Google, Nepal thing shocking. On device at no so can't really post easily.

If the children were born in the UK the woman who gave birth is the person who is responsible for registering the birth. She is named as mother and the father will follow from her marital status.

www.surrogacyuk.org/legalities