Unfairness to childless women

[zeezeek]

It does seem that on here at the moment, as well as in society in general, we seem to be completely unsympathetic towards and misunderstanding towards people who do not (for whatever reason) have children.

I spent most of my adult life without children - after having cancer treatment I assumed I was infertile, so it was a damn miracle when I got pregnant once, let alone twice.

I have lost count of the number of times that I was told that I did not understand because I did not have children; how I had to make allowances for parents because they needed to be with their children; how it was less important for me to see my teacher parents during school holidays than it was for a parent to spend time with their child.....you name the cliché, I heard it.

When my children were born I did not find the meaning of life. At the age of nearly 45 I still wonder if there is one.

Having children didn't suddenly make me appreciate things more - surviving a life threatening illness had already done that.

My dogs are still the centre of my (and my DDs) universe - although my DDs are there as well, even if my dogs are better behaved.

More than anything, I am not more worthy, more important than I was before I had children and I don't see why the world should revolve around me (or my children) just because I happened to have sex with my husband at the right time and get myself knocked up.

Rant over.

Whereas the emotional applies only to some mothers?

""I will say to non mothers as a collective group, you either do not understand or you do not care." how do you read the above?"

non mothers = men, and women who don't have children

It is mainly men who have set the world up in such a way, with such little regard for mothers

Bones - it's not all cultures that three women this way.

In many tribes the highest status is grandmother.

Treat

Unfortunately these tribes have been displaced by the the societies that perpetuate this attitude towards woman which is interesting and an entire other thread in globalisation as displacement.

'On globalisation and'

bones - is that really that different: it groups together men with children, men without children, and women without children,

because what really matters here is Being a Mother. or am I missing something?

I am not sure what your objection is, YouAreMyFavourite.

Logically speaking, mothers and non-mothers is a completely legit way of slicing up for the world for the sake of argument. If you want to slice it differently, for the sake of your argument, do so. This momentary rhetorical / logical device hasn't actually inflicted any disadvantage on women who are not mothers, or asserted any actual primacy of women who are. It's just one way of pointing out that, actually, being all "boo hoo hoo everyone is mean to me because I have no kids" is kind of spectacularly myopic to what happens to women who do have kids.

Still, as I keep saying, there is no enlightenment to be gained by mindlessly accepting this as being an argument between one group of women and another. If you like you can talk about The Patriarchal World v. Childless Women, you would get some sympathy from me then. Or you can talk about The Patriarchal World v. Mothers - as you can tell that gets a lot of sympathy from me too. Try to frame this as Mothers v. Childfree Women and I think you are spectacularly missing the point and I will get bored and sweary and wander off, doing a big Victoria Wood eye-roll.

personally I would not use the phrase 'non whites' to talk about black and Asian people because its grouping vast numbers of people together and saying at some level they are all the same.

"boo hoo hoo everyone is mean to me because I have no kids" I am not sure what to say to that.

bones so you write "boo hoo hoo everyone is mean to me because I have no kids"

i imagine you would never write on a thread discussing racism "boo hoo hoo everyone is mean to me because I am [black]"?
i imagine you would never write on a thread discussing poverty "boo hoo hoo everyone is mean to me because I am [poor]"?

what make childless women fair game? on a thread entitled 'Unfairness to childless women'

The reason why it is completely unacceptable to use expressions like "non-whites" is because there is a historical fact of long lived systematic oppression of people of colour by white people. It is nonsense to imply that something like that is happening by mothers to women without children. And it is very important here, to make it absolutely clear that it is those who are not mothers who are calling the shots in how society is structured. It isn't mothers who made it like this. It's a completely legitimate point.

Same with the "boo hoo" comment - sorry it was mean and tasteless and I do apologise for that. But you know what, systemic racism does exist, so no I would never say what you suggested. So does systemic oppression of certain economic classes. But there is no systemic oppression of women without children.

The pain of not having children is that in itself (where it exists) childlessness qua childlessness. It is not something that falls into a cascade of vulnerability to oppression. It doesn't lead to you then losing your job, then being passed over repeatedly for a new one, then finding you are losing your home, then finding it very hard to find another because landlords don't like childless women, and now you have no job etc etc etc. It doesn't mean you will get stopped and searched a statistically wildly disproportionate number of times. If you are being paid less than a man it is not because you have no children, it is for some other reason. If doesn't disbar you from mobility, physical presence in the community or taking part in public life. It doesn't mean you are likely to lose your continence or your bodily confidence.

It does mean you don't have a child. I am sorry for those who don't have a child who want one. But it is not oppression.

Oh I forgot. The other thing that happens to childless women is that, every now and then, someone will say "well I suppose you love your career" in a sneering way. And you will think "fuck you fuck you what the fuck do you know". That's what I meant by "social costs" I suppose

There are no economic costs. If you take on the cost of buying yourself a bunch of tulips every mother's day over a lifetime, you're still quids in.

you keep listing why its worse for other people than child less women.
but there are very few people who actually have the worst life in the world. by definition.

but why are mothers putting so much effort into telling child less women their problems are small?

also - in history - being childless was shameful. BARREN women. I think that does live on. in families generally its the ones without children who are expected to accommodate those that do.

agree with bones entirely.

Childfree women who blame mothers for perceived unfairness are missing the larger picture which is complex and messy and so it is easier to blame the perceived beneficiary than the fact that society is often unfair and illogical and the reasons are a morass of capitalism, patriarchy ...

YAMFWOT, because black people and poor people are empirically disadvantaged groups across multiple indicators or inequality and childless women are not. Women as a group are and mothers as a group are. It doesn't make the remark acceptable, but it makes it a very different context.

As I have already pointed out, the context of this thread started from the OP as being critical of mothers. It was never just a thread about the issues of childless women. It was set up that one situation, the issues of childless women were caused by the entitlement 'the world revolves around' mothers.

Lessons, I think the point of insensitivity is that while it would have been more acceptable if I had applied this to say, white people, who are not stereotyped as being uncaring, it was insensitive of me to apply it to childless women who are stereotyped as being uncaring and un-nurturing. So I can see that it is quite valid for you to pick me up on it.

That said, it isn't fair for you to put things in quotation marks and attribute them to me when they were not my words in that context, or to paraphrase me as calling people bitches, when I most certainly did not. I am not offended by you calling my remarks bitchy, but I wouldn't choose to use that word myself, so don't want it attributed to me. I don't think it is unfair or lazy to talk about collective groups if I am talking about structural problems in society. I do appreciate you responding to my posts and acknowledge my wording was insensitive, given the topic.

Like the issue of childless women as being stereotyped as uncaring, tasks that are most frequently done by women rather than men are stereotypically devalued and seen as requiring no skill. I may be able to empathise with the feelings of a mechanic, but that doesn't mean I know how to fix a car. I may be able to empathise with the feelings of a road sweeper, but that doesn't mean I know how to operate the equipment or have the skills to do the job. I may even be able to empathise with the feelings of people playing checkers, but I wouldn't claim to understand how to play, as I never have done.

So someone who has never had or worked extensively with children may well be able to empathise with being a mother, but that doesn't mean they understand how to raise a child. It actually requires skill and experience, learnt on the job and by having many discussions with other people with experience, with teachers, HCPs and so on. I did not know how to look after a baby for more than a few hours; I had to learn. I did not know about how to be the primary carer of a three year old or understand the specific cognitive development of NT three year olds or how to respond to that; I had to learn. And now if somebody asked me what is normal or what to do with a three year old, I actually wouldn't know because I haven't looked after one for ten years. While some knowledge will be specific to my child, a lot of it applies to most children because of their similar physical and cognitive development. So for people with no children to say of course they understand, that is insensitive because it plays on the stereotype that caring for a child is not based on developing skills and experience, but something anyone just turn ups for and immediately know how to do because it is so easy and mindless, therefore devaluing it. It also makes many mothers who did not know what to do and require reassurance that it is okay to be that way feel inadequate.

Good points bones

........ I haven't given up the hope of having children but I have many lovely and talented friends who will never have children and their whole lives wont be what they have been told by society is normal.

and you mention buying a bunch of tulips.

recently being pregnant has made me think a good deal about how to treat my friends and this thread certainly makes me realise what they are up against and I might well be. if I can carry a child to term, I know what type of parent I don't want to be.

Almondcake but it appears we aren't allowed to say childless women don't understand are we, as then WE are being insensitive, I was lambasted for that earlier.

I agree with your sentiment exactly that by saying there is an understanding it devalues the tasks of raising children.

denying that historically and globally 'barren' women are not discriminated against is just rubbish.

If also like to add that posters have mentioned having children is a choice but having an illness disability isn't. Women who suffer birth injuries or PND or relationship breakdown or the myriad of issues childbirth and children rearing can present are not active choices either. Yes they are risks but they are not choices.

I am not offended by you calling my remarks bitchy my only reference to the word bitchy is quoting other posters. I think you are confusing me with another poster.

In my 34 childless years I never felt that I was treated unfairly because of it. Nor was I expected to take second choice on leave etc. Maybe your colleagues are just dicks who would use any excuse to get what they want.

I am amazed that you seem to put your dogs above your children. Maybe I have misunderstood? When people say having a dog is like having a child I do think they are being ridiculous, but I don't say anything to that effect.

"in families generally its the ones without children who are expected to accommodate those that do."

I don't know what is meant by this.
I have experienced this in my own family to a completely reasonable extent. Most it is actually not about accommodating mothers, but about accommodating children. They can't stay up late, they get hungry at certain times, they can't go to certain films or shows, they need outdoor exercise, etc. That isn't their mother I was accommodating when our activities were dictated by these things - not their father (that rarely mentioned shadowy figure) - but the children themselves.
To the extent that the mother was accommodated, you know what, she needed it. I could see it then and since having children myself, I can see it now.
Anyone who thinks a bf-ing mother is getting unfair special treatment by being given some time to rest when briefly in the company of her wider family who can help out - fucking hell, words fail me.

however I think it is very likely the case that in many of these situations an unfair burden of care falls on childfree women. Because women's labour is, in general, taken for granted as free. So you might have a room full of men watching the match and "oh, you go and have a rest dear, Childfreen Aunt can play with the baby for a while" - that isn't unfair to her because she is childless, it is unfair if it is always her who has to do it and none of the uncles ever do. Because society is unfair to WOMEN. Maybe the aunt has a massively stressful job and was hoping for a lie in at some point too. Maybe she shouldn't always be the one to lose out when her brothers never do. But what is the point of comparing her to the exhausted bf-ing mother? Aunt can have a lie in next weekend. Mother can have a lie in, oh let me look at my calendar, maybe in about a year if she's lucky.

There was a thread on Parenting (I think) about a year ago called "Has being a parent affected your mental health?" (or something like that). I really think that anyone who doesn't have children, but thinks they know aobut it, should look that up. I actually don't know if I am talking to anyone like that on here, I don't know your circumstances, but it was a magnificently eloquent and honest thread and if you just look at that one thing, sleep deprivation, alone, properly, and read, for instance, that thread, you could not possibly see an instance where it is unfair that families tend to accommodate mothers. I totally give the benefit of the doubt in assuming that people who say INSANE things like that JUST DON'T KNOW

Some childfree women really do not understand. Sorry, but they don't.

If they are not sure if they are in this category or not, they could try reading this

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parenting/a1765025-Has-parenting-affected-your-mental-health

YAMFWOT, that part of my post was addressed to another poster - Lessons. Sorry if that was confusing.