There will be no progress until we name the problem

[TinyRick]

worldnewstrust.com/there-will-be-no-progress-until-we-name-the-problem-mickey-z

AIBU to think this article should be shared far and wide?

There is a real problem with Male Violence being swept under the carpet and not addressed fully on news sites and papers.

If we don't say what it actually plainly is then we can't address the real problem.

Datun well my experience is this. As a mother I carried the babies and gave birth to them. Yet I felt pressure to quickly separate from the babies even before I felt ready.

So many times I've felt that I'd be of no real value to society unless I went back to work, told that sending to nursery is good for them, better for them. The role of a mother being at home is a bit of a joke to many.

I say mother because I think the mother and child relationship is the most important in the early months and years.

That doesn't mean I believe that working mother or feminists are to blame for male violence, i was actually replying to a pp.

Because boys are brought up to believe that women are inferior to men.

But that's the critical point isn't it?? Like I said it's the maternal relationship in the context of a mysogynistic and patriarchal society that all together contributes to the problem of male violence.

So for example in India male violence is a huge endemic problem. I'm not saying that a nurturing maternal relationship will cancel out the influence of the wider society. What I am saying is that the maternal relationship (and yes, Datun I specifically means mothers - I don't think fathers can provide this initially... I'll explain in a minute) is crucial for setting up the brain at a neurological level for the development of empathy and moral reasoning. If you don't have that to start with then you are going to struggle to effect real societal change (the same way that you cannot ever rehabilitate criminal psychopaths - yet literally do not posses the brain structures for experiencing empathy and remorse).

TinyRick

Is that really the only point that you take out of my post?

*meant mothers

*they literally do not

I need to proof read

Abs it sounds to me like just another excuse to blame women.

How do you explain how the fact make violence is historic?

I'm not explaining myself properly here and can't type right now because my toddler is demanding attention. Probably shouldn't have started posting because now it looks like I came on to be goady and then sod off. Sorry.

Should have some time to reply this evening (I'm 5 hours behind the uk).

I'm not blaming women though

@Absofrigginlootly, it's hard to imagine that kind of set-up outside of misogynistic patriarchy. Women who are at home are without economic power and they are subservient to men. If the man is the 'sole breadwinner', it's hard to see how it can be an equal relationship.

The only reason women are more liberated in western culture now is because we have economic power.

Mittens

Abs- I agree that caring and nurturing is undervalued in society. Where I disagree is that you call it 'mothering'. That is a socially assigned role- that it is the mother who is the nurturer and the father who is the breadwinner. It is portrayed as something biological and inherent and that women who don't want to do it are unnatural.

I do not think feminism has 'let women down' and I would suggest you do more research about the history of women's positions. It was far from the case that women were 'happy in the home'. They lacked power, they were not allowed to work in many professions, they could not attend university, they were not seen as equal citizens because they could not vote. The law permitted their husbands to rape and beat them. If they did leave the marriage, they would be penniless and often had to turn to prostitution, the law directing that the husband kept the children. It is utterly horrifying.

It is easy for you to suddenly discover the joy of looking after your child, but think about the fact that you have already benefited from what women didn't have- an education, a job, the option to leave an abusive relationship. That is what feminism helped you to get. It is also easy for you to say that women should be happy at home when you are in a stable and happy relationship. Read the relationships board where women have given up work to do childcare and their husband leaves them for another woman. They then face financial uncertainty. Divorce can bring financial devastation- courts rarely make long term maintenance orders these days. It is invariably women who end up worse off, not men.

Having a job gives you options. I fully agree that caring should be classed as work because it is work (it is not 'mothering'- it is performing the daily grind of essential tasks for society to function). However, by saying that feminism has let us down, you are implying that it is women who should be responsible for caring, housework etc. Why? That just feeds into the whole women as nurturers/men as hunters dichotomy that is so harmful.

and yes, Datun I specifically means mothers - I don't think fathers can provide this initially

The only thing that a woman can do that a man cannot do in terms of nurture is breastfeeding. Millions of babies are never breastfed. Thousands of children are adopted by non-biological parents, who provide nurture without breast feeding. The whole 'women have a nurturing brain' has been debunked (if you were going to cite Carol Gilligan).

The reason why you believe only a woman can perform nurturing for children is because of the social roles given to men and women, whereby girls are always encouraged to look after others and boys are encouraged to be strong and not show emotion.

It's quite easy to understand that an intimate and loving relationship with a young child is important. I struggle to understand why that has to be the mother. Or a woman.

Women were seen as a lesser precisely because they were excluded from society and power. Seeing women as lesser is what contributes to male violence.

@absofrigginlootly. I think what you're saying is that the mother's job is so important that it needs to be valued more. But I think you make 2 mistakes:

Firstly, it's not feminism that has devalued motherhood. The lack of respect (both monetary and in terms of status) that western patriarchy has accorded motherhood is what led feminists to react against it. Feminists want women to have the same opportunities outside the home but they've always been adamant that motherhood is an important job.

Secondly in countries where motherhood is more respected women tend to be more restricted outside the home and this lack of presence in the public arena gives them both less financial independence and less political clout when it comes to making laws that affect them directly. They also usually undervalue women and girls so the mother's work at developing empathy in her son is constantly undermined by the surrounding culture.

If only there were a system where mothers were respected for what they do but also given a role in political decision-making .. unfortunately it doesn't exist.

I will honestly think properly about the points you have all made and properly later. I just do not have the time to sit and write a proper coherent reply out right now.

But I would point out that some of the replies I've had have already exactly illustrated my point about how the crucial role of the mother in the mother-infant relationship has been devalued and denied.

It have not said that this makes women lesser. Nor do I hold my ores because of the social roles I have been conditioned to accept (how patronizing - I have a brain and am a sin my opinion on all the things I said above)

But this is what I mean about feminism letting women down on this one aspect I did NOT say they have let women down overall!! I said modern feminist have let women down in relation to downplaying the important role of being a mother.

But this is why I don't usually post my views - you just get shouted down as unenlightened and niaive

*Basing my opinion

And numerous other typos....!

Oh autocorrect how I hate you!!! (And dyslexia!)

I said modern feminist have let women down in relation to downplaying the important role of being a mother.

But I don't think they do say that. A constant refrain from feminism that being a stay at home mother is undervalued. It's unpaid. And it frequently traps women into a cycle of dependency and financial hardship.

A perfect solution is impossible.

Mostly you get mothers working part time, juggling everything, and trying to fit it all in.

A radical solution would be to pay half the population for the most important job they do to sustain mankind.

In the absence of that likelihood, women are often stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Feminism recognises that. Feminism recognises that motherhood should be valued. But it isn't.

It have not said that this makes women lesser. Nor do I hold my ores because of the social roles I have been conditioned to accept (how patronizing - I have a brain and am a sin my opinion on all the things I said above)

But this is what I mean about feminism letting women down on this one aspect I did NOT say they have let women down overall!! I said modern feminist have let women down in relation to downplaying the important role of being a mother

I am sorry, I really did not mean to come across as patronising- of course you have a brain, but the whole natural biological roles thing is so deeply ingrained that most (intelligent) people believe it to be true. It was not saying that you haven't got the capacity to think for yourself- but why is it that it is only the mother who can nurture and care?

I agree that some of the earlier radical feminist movements in the 1970s were perhaps downplaying the role of motherhood. However, this radicalism did prompt social change. That is not what modern feminism is saying. Modern feminists are concerned with various things.

Firstly, they are concerned with the fact that we, as a society, value economic work above caring and nurturing (which is what you said). There is a lot of feminist literature on this. This is a problem that needs addressing.

However, by automatically tying it to being a mother, being female, it means that it will never be valued. It is currently undervalued because women do it and men do not. Social ideology presents it as something inherent- women are suited to it, they want to do it, it is their biological destiny.

We therefore need to break down the socially assigned gender roles and expose them as social constructs before any progress can be made. Otherwise, those that care and nurture will always be women and they will always be undervalued. If men were forced to take on the burden that women do, I am pretty sure that it would no longer be seen as fulfilling a natural role.

And if you read about some of the DHs on here- society allows them to completely shirk their responsibilities as parents, spend their time doing hobbies rather than with their DC, go on holidays with their mates rather than their family. But we would never accept the same of a woman. Why precisely is that? We see it as normal for men to be emotionally distant towards their children. What if we turned that around?

Several posters (who I get the impression would call themselves feminists) have literally just posted to say they don't understand why only mothers/women have to do the job of nuturing an infant.

I do think feminists undervalue this crucial relationship

I really will write a proper reply later... but think of this: women in abusive relationships are often recommended to do the freedom course. To read books like 'men who hate women'.... what do these courses/books who quote current neuroscience and psychological theory say? That men's views of women are shaped primarily through their relationships with their mothers. The role of the father is paramount (I didn't say it wasn't!) and mysogynistic society as a whole for reinforcing negative views towards women of course. I have never said that all these other factors are not important.

And if you read about some of the DHs on here- society allows them to completely shirk their responsibilities as parents, spend their time doing hobbies rather than with their DC, go on holidays with their mates rather than their family. But we would never accept the same of a woman. Why precisely is that? We see it as normal for men to be emotionally distant towards their children. What if we turned that around?

And if that, a very important male role model scenario, doesn't help explain why some boys grow into men who don't value women, don't respect them and treat them as a lesser, I don't know what does.

We therefore need to break down the socially assigned gender roles and expose them as social constructs before any progress can be made.

But I don't believe it is just assigned by society.

Women are the only sex that can gestate, give birth to and breastfeed their infants. Infant physiology is innately tied to the mothers. They are hard wired through millenia of evolution to need their mothers peawnce to regulate breathing, heart rate, temperature and emotional response.

Argh I need to step away from this thread and attend to my DD!

Be back later

Peawnce ??? Autocorrect how is that even a word?!

Obviously I meant presence

The op is right and getting grief for daring to state the obvious. Op there are some intelligent men and women who are aware of the epidemic and acceptance of male violence. It is really worrying and dominates both men and women's lives in many ways. I think highlighting it is a good thing but you will get lots of opposition as the truth always does unfortunately.

Several posters (who I get the impression would call themselves feminists) have literally just posted to say they don't understand why only mothers/women have to do the job of nuturing an infant

Yes, if you read my post, I said that the only thing that a woman can do that a man cannot, is breast feeding. A man can share the nurturing role, the woman could express breast milk for example, allowing them both to bond with the child. Most women do not breast feed for longer than 6 months, so there is no reason why it has to be the woman who stays at home for the whole maternity leave period. Many women do not breast feed at all.

This is not undervaluing it at all. It is valuing it, saying it is an important job, just as important as earning money, but that it does not HAVE to be performed by the mother/woman- it can be shared between the parents, allowing both of them to develop a strong bond and for both of them to take responsibility as caregivers.

A man can share the nurturing role, the woman could express breast milk for example, allowing them both to bond with the child

You just did it there. You just devalued the role of the mother after saying you didn't.

Women are the only sex that can gestate, give birth to and breastfeed their infants. Infant physiology is innately tied to the mothers. They are hard wired through millenia of evolution to need their mothers peawnce to regulate breathing, heart rate, temperature and emotional response

Yes, see above my post about infant nurturing and sharing the responsibility. But you are talking about the first few weeks and months of a child's life. Why is it that it is 90% of the time the mother who drops her hours at work, goes part time, becomes a stay at home parent? If the child is 4 years old, are you still saying that s/he is dependent just on the mum for heart rate, breathing etc?

By saying the woman can express BM you reduce the very core element of what makes the role of the mother so important.

It's morning just about food. It's about physical and emotional comfort, bonding and love. As well as responding to the touch of the infant in terms of immunity (skin to skin contact from infant mouth to mothers nipple actually sends signals to the mothers immune system to produce the exact antibodies the infant requires).

This is what I'm talking about.

Have a baby, give it to someone else - they're just as good so why not? Express BM and back to work with you!

They are hard wired through millenia of evolution to need their mothers peawnce to regulate breathing, heart rate, temperature and emotional response.

This is interesting, and I'm not disputing it. Is there evidence to show at what point it's no longer necessary?

Looking at a mother and a newborn baby, it's easy to see the bond, an important bond, developing. Although, I think fathers also have this bond.

The paternity arrangements in Sweden have shown that an initial stage where fathers bond from birth, lasts a lifetime.

But then try asking a mother with three children under four whether she would like 50-50 childcare.

One of the main problems, I far as I can see it is that we are conditioned to think that men can't do this job properly. They can operate on a list basis, or instruction basis, but as to real, full on affinity, that instinctively checks the loo roll situation before they leave for the supermarket, no.

But I disagree. You bet your life they can.