Oh dear. A split.

When was having babies and women’s functions ever including men? In various societies men weren’t allowed to see women on their period, men weren’t allowed at the birth, often men weren’t expected to appear at all, ever pick up a baby etc. it’s always been that way. This dads are parents too for the roughly under 8s seems pretty recent (& thank goodness we have that now).

And the other big massive thing is.
It used to be accepted, and surely in general it goes back through human history.

That in groups of humans- tribes, villages, communities, onto societies. The children of the group are important, should be protected, cared for etc. So grow into healthy adults who are important for success of group. In a variety of different ways.

The history here of people and groups working to improve lives of children who were disadvantaged is well documented and those people seen as doing essential good thing.

The general idea that the children of a society are important, that they can be vulnerable, that they are not in a position to change their circs.

I'm sure most would say as individuals I don't think that. But that doesn't match with so many things said and done now.

Individualism a reason?
Others?

Depressing though.

Read whole post the quote is from, fair enough. It was around looking after children.

Different women make different choices.

This is the big change that has come in relatively fast in social attitude.

When it comes to babies, children. It's moved very fast from families, couples etc.

To anything to do with having babies and raising children, it's just women. The men have been written out pretty much entirely!

General views, comments (on here all time in fighty threads!), lots of media output news etc.

Women are the ones who want babies.
Women choose to get pregnant
Women choose to have children

Women make personal choices.
Women who make bad choices, that's on them.
Why should reckless women who don't do the research, calculations, projections, future income analysis, large pension pot, healthy savings, etc etc etc. get handouts?
Women who are irresponsible, selfish, having babies just because they want to. They made their bed etc.

You'd think we reproduced asexually!

How and why have the previous long standing attitudes changed so fast?
I'm sure we all are familiar with -

Men and women, couples, have children. Men despite bizarre current popular ideas. Do want to have babies, children. How can anyone genuinely believe in general men don't, women do? It's so obviously not true.

The expectation that women, when thinking about having a baby. Should consider if can afford etc. As an individual. Vast majority will be in established relationship with man. Somehow he's out of the whole picture when thinking about baby, considering, practical and financial considerations etc.

That's weird isn't it?

This fundamental change in general thinking about babies etc. I have some nebulous thoughts about why.

It's imo not good for women. This new framing of it all.

CheeseMmmm
And I put stuff together and consider for myself.

I think CheeseMmmm puts her finger on it.
Most of us seen a problem, sort of wandered in, took a look around at "feminism", recognised what we saw and decided to stay and learn a little more. We may not agree with or even understand everything but are free thinking enough to learn what we need to get the job done. And gently used a barge pole on other bits

@namitynamechange
Or to broaden it "the baby growing workforce is the most important workforce". I don't think that attitude will lead to greater respect for mothers/women in general. In fact I think it could all get a bit Handmaid's Tale-esque

Having and raising a baby is never the total sum of the woman's contribution but it's the "to support" bit that is the problem. Women carry forward the economic cost of being the sex which carries the child.
Each year women are still sacked for being pregnant, they are passed over for promotion. There is always the dilemma of who stays home with the sick child. Etc

Under the current system it would not lead to greater respect. Imaging if women were thanked for their service the way the soldiers are thanked. How many women have been pregnant (not just birth) and not changed in some way.

(Haven't read the HT only seen the original production)
In the Handmaid the scarce resource were children?
Your loved ones should obey or die and if needed fight (and die) for the ideology creating a new world order. But if there is no future, there is no new world, and the social structure will fail. So the women who could give birth have to be controlled. If you have no children to protect why fight/die for a regime which suppresses personal growth/happyness. Rape, sexual slavery and the stealing of children; all war crimes and acts of slow genocide are justified as for the common good.
The children were removed to be trained by the "believers" and child was a reward for loyalty. The child became a valuable tradable commodity.

@namitynamechange
As a young women I found it was older woman in supermarket/restaurant/bar jobs who were the most protective in terms of preventing sexual harassment of younger women etc
If women stop participating in the workforce entirely when they have children/if they all step back in their careers then we stand to lose a lot.

They have been there, know the signs as it was done to them. They have had the time to listen and understand women's oral history. And they in turn will pass that oral history down to the next generation. And it takes a lot to be a mother from sleepless nights, terrible twos and teen tantrums. They have set a line of minimum acceptable social behaviours of what they expect from their children because that is the world they want their grandchildren to live in.

SantaClawsServiette
while people in the pre-industrial world didn't always have the freedom to go, they did have the freedom to stay, which many people today do not have.

This is very true.

Minding children can't be successful industrialised. It's bad for the child and subsequently bad for society. MN has a multitude of threads about how to find the best substitute. From childcare to schools matching personal values and carers values and how to balance that with paid employment.

the only way to sort out the very complex issues is to start from the premise that different women make different choices and face different circumstances

Yes, but we also have babies in the equation, which is where things become complicated. As ever.

Fuxake. Epic post lost.

Example.
First on scene when gender> sex started to get media/ public attention.

Many were feminist academics and others who were long term full time Feminist activists, writers etc.

They had known for years. Who, how, why. That losing our words was an all out attack, what it meant. The obvious risks. The sexism. Impact of redefining us as a role, costume. Separating us from our biology, our reproductive function. The reason behind our global oppression for millennia (longer?).

Forewarned, forearmed. Used to being seen as extreme, getting shit.

Ready to spell it all out, having been watching thinking etc for years.

That's the difference between feminism (the theory, ideology) and what would be better named feminist activism. (Feminist in the well known use. Supporter of / believer in feminism as a set of principles, theories etc.)

IMO
It's like saying what's the point of political thinkers/ theorists/ historians/ etc when there's political parties and supporters on the ground doing the do.

It's same situation as eg

The ideology/theory of free market capitalism is to those who think it's the way to have things, and/or who profit from it in a deliberate way (obvious example traders in stocks shares purely to profit).

(Obvious example obv unrelated totally! And clearly those who are amateurs interested in capitalist theory or Feminism aren't you know. Generally writing world changing publications!).

Of course feminist is usually applied to what maybe should be called feminist activist. The fact Feminism is actually an ideology, set of theories etc I don't think is generally known outside universities..?

Like here getting stuck into SAH/WOH.

Which has nothing to do with this.
And is naturally for many a personal topic, and v emotive/ often upsetting when gets going. As about individual mothers looking after their children.

It's IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand.
Divide and rule. We are set against each other by constant judgement everywhere including media.

It's a society with deeply embedded views about women, stirring the pot. Toxic.

The topic of the thread OP is about all women and girls. We're being fucked with to distract.

In the end. When it comes to the aspects of women and girls rights. That are not linked to the fundamental principles of any political ideology.

How can it be a surprise that the massive majority of women across the board know sex> gender. And that males in women's stuff is unfair, bizarre dangerous and utterly shit?

Why would that view be. Limited to women with this politics or that label?

It's obviously not. It's women and girls. Reacting to something that whatever the spin is, is wanted, being fought for, and lots been got already, by males.

There are so many threads on can women who aren't left even do anything for women? If they do but they're not left, isn't that a PROBLEM (somehow..? not sure how!). If right wing women agree, shouldn't left wing women know that are obviously wrong? You must vote labour or you're a fascist!

Irrelevant really. A distraction. Fun to get arguing over though so off we go!

It's all a distraction.

This is about women and girls. All of us.

Politics of Breastfeeding is a feminist book with demands for changes to improve breastfeeding - some were enacted. There was lots of campaigning around this. Because babies used to be taken to a nursery and often given formula by nurses, even if the mum had said she wanted to breastfeed. This was a time when formula was being pushed.
I know there is now a major lack of support around breastfeeding, but then the situation was worse as breastfeeding was sabotaged by how hospitals operated.

When it comes to women and girls and many of the issues that exist.

Then that is neither of the right or the left. It is about women. Women in general care about women and girls. Irrespective of politics.
(And there are women who have no interest/ actively support or believe things that to most women here are... Some things that are extreme and detrimental to women and girls. Across the political spectrum, including in feminism. (Most of the time but not always these women are awful about a certain area but fine otherwise. People are complicated).

Irrespective of political opinions. Women as a group tend to care about rape stats, sentences. Levels of VAWG. DV. Girls being sexually exploited. Our issues being taken seriously, acted on, rather than pushed to the side.

Having a voice and not being dismissed, ignored, patronised.

Do women (across the board) care about and want to change things for women and girls. Or is it equal across men/women?

Do labour supporting men, in general. Treat left wing women with respect, listen to us the same as to men? See us as valuable individuals with a variety of skills and abilities, personalities. Naturally as intelligent, rational, politically sound, focussed as men? Important to listen, think about views, points? Etc?

Do all conservative supporting men dismiss women totally. Believe they have nothing to say worth listening to, are not capable, do not have the qualities to understand let alone express rational political ideas....?

Ummmm. Weelll.

Not true that, is it. Demonstrably not true.

Yes, the divorce of labour from the domestic sphere was what I'd meant. That was the beginning of the idea of the 'stay at home' mother as an aspiration for higher classes and what broke up most home-based employment - children sent to mill schools, parents to factories. Previously labour was largely home based, albeit in servitude. Mary Harrington has talked about this, but I can't find the article now!

Servitude is an interesting word - while people in the pre-industrial world didn't always have the freedom to go, they did have the freedom to stay, which many people today do not have. In part perhaps because we don't think of it as a freedom.

'Now THAT is an interesting thought! I'd have thought there was no difference between these two things - what do you see the difference is?

Ok I admit I haven't explored feminism deeply other than the books written in the 1970's. However to me feminism seems to have a rather narrow ideologically left wing viewpoint which focuses on patriarchy and oppression.'

ONE branch / strand of feminist theory/ beliefs does. Some, maybe.

Other types of feminism have other ideas.

In general though as with other rights movements. Gay rights back in the day, civil rights USA, disability rights, etc.
It is when it comes to agitating for change across society for groups that are experiencing oppression/ are sidelined in society/ lives impacted by discrimination etc. Wanting things to improve for groups in society that are struggling/ suffering because of basic characteristics/ groups born into.
Sits more naturally with socialist political principles than conservatism principles.
Talking not specific parties or countries, but the political ideologies, by the generally accepted definitions.
(Because left in UK is not the same as left in USA and they're not the same as left in other countries etc).

Next post though gives more nuance here... Sorry splitting posts keep losing them!

@SantaClawsServiette But I would say that some things that have intrinsic value are also things that can be analyzed in terms of economics. Education may have intrinsic value but it also has important economic functions. It's important to keep both things in mind because sometimes one can get in the way of the other. Childcare too, is intrinsically good, but also plays a role in the economy.

I agree with that - the difference to me though is that childcare/education etc are policies/services - of course those can have (measurable) value to society generally as well as women/children as individuals. However, I think that is different to saying women as individuals are of value BECAUSE they provide measurable benefit in terms of good or services. The same goes for men by the way (although generally I think that goes without saying more often). I think all human beings worth is intrinsic and non-negotiable. Otherwise it gets weird very quickly...

probably - I had a look but nothing jumped out!

I think I've seen the same article Arabella - probably on Unherd?

And sorry that was very poor wording - we all raise our own children. But I think wanting to be at home with your child is a valid choice, and when feminism seems to deny that choice, or even - to get back to the op - sneers at it then women are let down.

It's an awful dilemma. Becoming financially dependent carries so many risks and yet advising women against it is effectively telling most of them 'Don't raise your own child'.

It's a fascinating discussion.

Hmm, that's interesting, flytterbug.

I would say yes, we don't have to put all valuble things or activities under an economic paradigm in order to value them. Absolutely. Children for example, are people, and citizens, they are valuble in themselves. I also think education is valuble as a fundamental human activity totally apart from any economic advantage it creates.

But I would say that some things that have intrinsic value are also things that can be analyzed in terms of economics. Education may have intrinsic value but it also has important economic functions. It's important to keep both things in mind because sometimes one can get in the way of the other. Childcare too, is intrinsically good, but also plays a role in the economy.

Additionally, I think it is important for the state to value things that may not be economically productive. When we say that the role of the state, or even the role on industry and business, is only limited to dealing with economic roles, that leads to an unbalanced and toxic civilization. The state should be deeply concerned with the most human things, if we want a humane civilization.

sorry, name change fail!

@SantaClawsServiette
Your talking about productivity has made me realise something... I think that trying to define/defend women in terms of their value is always going to be problematic. E.g., "women have economic/productive value as part of the workforce" (true); "as the only people that have babies women are essential to the survival of the human race" (true); "women's rights are worth defending because we are sexually alluring" (thanks liberal feminism!). etc etc. It misses the central point that all women have value in and of themselves as human beings regardless of their contribution to the economy, human race, community, male titillation etc etc. I think if we try to argue are rights are worth defending only because of our contribution to society/men we lose the argument immediately. And it all becomes a bit dystopian.
So, that's why I think I felt happy to see having my child as the most significant thing I have done so far. But I don't want the state/society to value me based on that.

When I was young a lot of women still did home working with sewing machines. It was poorly paid though.

Someone, maybe Arabella, mentioned the industrial revolution - that's a really interesting point IMO. There was a time when the domestic/workplace sphere were not so separate as they are now. Yes, work was divided often by sex, but the home and land around it were in a more direct way the workplace for many men and women. If you made shoes in a shop in your house that's not so much removed from managing the household itself. If you were a farmer, growing food to feed yourself and some to sell is not so different than processing that food to feed yourself, and maybe some to sell too.

We tend to assume that the domestic sphere is unproductive, that it's the place where we consume, rather than where we produce for ourselves. And feminism has seemed in many cases to say, well, the way to make women producers then is to put them out into the productive workforce, like men.

The underlying issue though may be the outsourced productivity. Which can be tricky to see when you only look at the situation of women and don't stop to think, maybe this is a wider issue.