Motherhood, Feminism, Econony - discuss!

[kneedeepinthedirtylaundry]

Wrote this to a friend today (poor woman!). What do you all think of this issue?

"Also part of this issue is economy. I understand what you said in your text about breastfeeding, mothering, etc, being part of what has traditionally kept women at home, and therefore, away from economic independence ? forced to rely on men to survive, and therefore, motherhood itself can be seen as a misogynistic institution, as deeply anti-feminist, as it denies women the freedom they should have as a right.

But for many years now, long before I became a mother incidentally, I have had a growing feeling that this feminist attitude is immature, because it denies women the freedom to be mothers, which is OUR BILOGICAL DESTINY, so not something we should deny if we don?t want to. It?s like saying a person who has an inborn artistic talent, and really wants to paint, must work at tescos! Most women want to be mothers, are compelled to experience motherhood. I?m not saying that they all should, just that most women do want this. Those that do should be able to fulfill their biological destiny responsibly, but they do not have the freedom to be able to do so without a man (or at least a lesbian money-earning partner!) because of the MALE-BIASED system of economy in which we live.

Women should be able to survive AND raise their children. In an economic system, they cannot do so independently. The system is anti-female, and ?feminists? that devalue NATURAL FEMALE ATTRIBUTES because of these constraints of the system (encourage women to be independent workers rather than dependant mothers), even if they do so in the name of economic independence are, in my humble opinion, misguided, because they are colluding with an inherently anti-female system by trying to work within it. Its like asking black people to work within and accept a system which is set up for whites, and in which their natural state (the colour of their skin) puts them at a disadvantage. We would never expect black people to accept those terms (or think that it would be non-rascist to do so), yet we expect mothers to accept having to work within a system that is stacked up against them. How can you care for a sick child when your boss will think you are shit for not being at the office? How can you breastfeed a 3-year-old if you want to, but your boss wants to know why you can?t go for a week-long business trip once a month. In this situation, no boss would favour a female mother employee over a male, even if she were better at her job, because her role as mother would cost the company some of its profit.

ALL OF THAT is anti-feminist in my thinking.

I don?t think all women want to or should be mothers, just that the ones that don?t generally have it easier in terms of (economic) survival than those that do, and this is wrong. Also, all that immature 1960s feminism, while it made great strides for women, has greatly served to devalue the role of mother IN WOMEN?S EYES AS WELL AS MEN?S, and that, to me, is deeply misogynistic, given our physiology and natural desire in most cases to have children."

"Custado - I don't agree that feminism is minor politics for the female middle class. "

fair enough

"Poverty is heavily gendered. Women are much more likely to be poor than men at all ages and at all stages of life."

prove it

"The surest route to poverty in old age is to be a woman"

they live longer

"...have children"

deoesn't mean you will be poor because you have a child

"Do you think violence against women is 'minor politics'?"

don't be silly -have a proper discussion or don't engage.

is rape only a metter fr women ergo feminism - v. simplistic

"What about rape? While these are issues for all women everywhere I would argue that they are harder for poor women to escape - lack of money reduces your choices. In large parts of the world where girls are denied an education becuase the family can only afford to educate some children and give priority to boys is that something that is only of interest to the female middle class? "

calling those v. serious and rightly pointed out issues a fight for feminism when you really mean equalling the chances for all in society - is misguided.

Just wanted to say that I think this is a very interesting and informed debate with some very valid points and hypothesis. I think this is the most interest thread I have read on MN for a while so watch out for an essay as a post! I do agree that somewhere along the way feminism has be turned into wanting women to be more like men and treated more like men yet at the same time turning us into sex objects. I also agree that capitalism and globalisation has led to there being a much higher value being placed on people who earn the money, the good money, rather than people who fulfil other useful contributions to society. This means that people who stay at home to do the child-rearing or looking after elderly parents, people on low wages and people working part time seem to have a lower value placed on their contribution to society. This isn't nec always women, but unfortunately in the majority of cases it is. One of the consequences of this is in our fight to be "sucessful" we may have actually limited our choices as women.

I am one of the young generation of (dare I say middle class) women who knows that the boat has def now sailed and I can't have it all. If I choose to buy a house (well more likely flat) assuming I could get the mortgage and had enough deposit we would be taking out a mortgage so large that even if the place was big enough to squeeze a kid into there is no way I could afford to loose my salary to have children, we wouldn't even be able to afford to survive on SMP. So if I buy I would have to put back having kids for years and even then I am sure I would financially have to go back to work. So if I want to start my family (whick I am longing too) then I will have to go against the grain and live in rented accomodation, which although is not cheap either, it is cheaper than a mortgage. I'm aware this is not the end of the world, but having grown up living in 5 bed detached house, a father with a good but not specatular job and a mother who was a house wife, I always assumed I would be able to do the same. We earn good money, we went to university to get good jobs so we could have interesting careers, a nice house and a comfortable family. However, with the mortgage on a 2 bed house costing more than many people earn in a month, student loans, having to soley contribute to our own pensions (as neither employers put any in), running 2 cars as we both need them for work, increasing food and utility bills etc etc the dream that I bought into of having it all, or even having what my parents had, really seems impossible. Maybe the dream never really existed at all, it was the lucky few that got on the housing ladder when prices were low, went to uni when it was free, got the final salary pension schemes etc etc that had the financial freedom to really choose. Or maybe they never did, because some where down the line the choices of career vs family time probably had to made, which is a loose loose situation for most. Thats not giving women choice and power thats forcing them to choose between being "sucessful" and delaying/not having a family or have the family but loose out in the wealth and status stakes.

I want to choose whether to stay at home or go back to work, and I want both choices to be seen as equally vaild and to be financially possible. If I go back to work I want to choose whether to work part time or full time and I want the flexibilty in my work to allow it to fit round family life, I also want all work options to be seen as valid and part time work to be as well paid and fulfilling as full time work (pro rata of course).

I don't want to feel forced into staying at home full time becuase any part time job barely covers child care or being forced back to work because despite having a DH that earns good money we can't afford me to be at home. I don't want to be forced to work full time becuase there aren't any interesting well paid part time jobs and I don't want to be forced to work a crappy low paid part time job becuase I can't find a fleixible enough full time job to fit around family life.

So whats the solution? Do we all have to except that we can't have it all and make sacrifices to have a good quality of life? Do we need to encourage our men to play a more active role in the family with regards to childcare, as if they start demanding part time/flexi work then surely it will all eventually change to the benefit of both sexes? Do we rebel against capitalism, give up our cars, TVs and computer and live in a commune? Do we need a revolution? Or is it simply a case of needing more time for the full effects of feminism to be felt? Or is feminism a slightly embarrassing concept that we have all given up on?

All I know is that I have made the decision to sod the house and "keeping up with the Jones" and am working on having the family . As of yet, I haven't got further than that and if I find the solution, than I will let you all know .

Essay over, sorry

What interesting posts!

Tryingtoleave, thanks for the book recommendation. I'll see if I can get it through amazon.

OrmIrian, I understand your point. I'm not idealising motherhood, I just want a SAHM to be considered equally vaulable in our culture to a woman that runs a hedge fund or a high-earning executive.

I also think poor women do have very emotional feelings about their children, despite the hardships they face. I think a new mother back in the fields will obviously feel the hardships of her life, but to paint a picture of an emotional void and doom and gloom is a bit patronising. Women rich or poor feel elation when their children are born, and are excited about them. I don't think that's sentimental.

Laugs you don't sound rude at all but in order to clarify I work 3 days a week, 1 of them from home so I pick up ds 2 days a week and dh does the other day when I am in the office. The point remains that it is me that changed from a full time to a part time job after a period of maternity leave but (and this is the crucial point) I wanted to.

I just don't have the career ambition that I had in my early twenties and I don't want to be away from my ds more than 3 days a week. As it stands I feel like both ds and I have a nice balance and am not completely financially dependent on my dh. I guess this leads us back to biological determinism and Catherine Hakim to a certain degree.

I also have a feeling that even if fathers could have a more flexible, non linear career path allowing them to take on more childcare, many of them wouldn't exactly be in a hurry to take it up. The fact is that whilst children bring joy looking after babies and small children and running a home can be physically hard, mundane and repetitive work. Men get to play the corporate game - in reality how many would willingly trade it in for 3 days a week wiping sweet pot puree off the walls? Many dads may claim to want more flexibility - in reality I'm not sure how many really do.

ptwg great post, you echo my frustration, I too expected at least what my parents had, i'm better educated than them, dh actually in same career as my father, but whereas they at my age had nice 3 bed semi, which they upgraded to 4 bed detached with a mortgage based on just one salary, dh and i can barely afford our one bed flat. Give feminism more time? Can't see it myself, not when so many people think its a dirty word. I think rebellion of some sort is the only way, what puzzles me is so many people must be in this situation, why aren't they more vocal, the family first party anyone?

Custardo why can't those issues be part of the feminist agenda? Surely feminism is about equalling chance for all? And yes women live longer but that souldn't mean they live in poverty, society should be able to look after the elderly, and yes having children doesn't equal poverty, but it does reduce your earning potential

Part of the issue then is the ridiculously inflated housing market.

When we have to work harder than our parents did to live in a smaller house than they had, there is no way this can be called progress. But then we all love it when the value of our own home increases. Why? The only people who win are the investors or old people looking to downsize.

Anyway, if the 30% 'correction' in house prices does occur, at least it'll be good for those not yet on the ladder.

What I'm also finding interesting is the difference a few years on the corporate ladder makes.

DP and I were both 24 when we found out we were expecting DD - young by today's standards. Neither of us had had a chance to make our mark on the corporate world (or public sector in his case). Maybe this is why we felt we had less to lose than other parents ho already have fully-fledged careers before they consider kids.

Wonderstuff - perhaps caring for your own child, your own way is the only rebellion possible. Voting with your feet by opting out of the economy.

Pennypops - I know what you mean. We have had every combination so far (me working 2 days, DP 4; me working 4 days, DP at home full-time; and currently DP working full-time and me at home full-time). The only I couldn't face was me working full-time as I didn't want to miss out on DD's life. Of course, one of us working 4 days a week was lovley but unsustainable (DP had taken voluntary redundancy, so still had an income for the time he was off).

I suppose my issue is that far too often, women are the ones who are made to juggle work, childcare and being at home, whereas men get the relatively easy ride of the FT job. Getting men to puree carrots,change nappies etc might not be their dream job, but it's not mine either. It just comes with the territory.

So I suppose I don't care that much what they want, but I think what is expected of them should change. Calling this 'men's rights' to care, rather than their duty to, is maybe just a more positive way of selling the idea! Like the way it is my right to work, so long as I can fit it in with all my other duties!

PTWG and Wonderstuff - not that I want to play devils advocate but the cost of housing is, IMO, a separate issue altogether. At some point in the last 20 years most people seem to have decided they have a right to own a house whereas in previous generations home ownership was confined the upper and upper middle classes. The growth of the middle class and property owning classes whilst very interesting (well it is to me ) is a separate topic altogether!

Custado: Sorry, was out.
Only got five minutes for a quick search but came up withthis link on women and poverty. It's from the Fawcett Society, and you could say 'well they would say that wouldn't they, but I think their facts are mainly from national statistics reports.

I don't quite get your other point. It was years of feminist campaigning that got domestic violence and rape on the public agenda. Feminists set up women's refuges and rape crisis centres. Feminists worked to change the way the police dealt with violence against women, to change the assumption that these were 'private matters' and to change the law to give women what little protection we have. When you say feminism is minor politics I ask do you mean the issues that feminists campaign on are 'minor politics'.

Feminism is and has been about a lot of things - rights in the workplace, poverty, violence, stereotyping, control over our bodies, freedom to love and live with who we want, political participation and representation, education.... It's not always been brilliant at recognising the complex relationship between gender and poverty, or race, or disability, or sexuality but its tried a lot bloody harder than patriachal capitalism!

We (as feminists) haven't been very good either at communicating what we are about. Too often there is an assumption that feminism means having a high flying career and that a woman wanting to spend time with her children is a sign that feminsim is 'wrong'. I was brought up by a SAHM who was also a feminist - one thing she taught me was that feminism is as much about the revaluing what women do as about enabling women to do what men do. But I think we need something more complex than either Xeina style capitalist feminist triamphalism on the one hand or a biological determinist celebration of motherhood on the other. Surely we need to be aiming for a world which recognises the need for both paid and unpaid work and enables us to do both in different amounts and at different times.

It's how we get there that's difficult!

Excuse spellings, typed in a rush!

Penny it is and it isnt an issue, when my parents brought a house a womens wage wasn't taken into account, even though my mum earnt more than dad his wage was what mattered because she wasn't seen aas reliable, could have kids eh? That was wrong because it made assuptions based on sex and didn't trust her to make decisions, it did however mean that families brought houses based on one wage so when they did have families women could afford to sah. Today we can only afford property if we both work, prices reflect this and so few can afford to sah, I can't.
Laugs i wish it was that simple, but I feel I have to return to work, I would love to stay with her for another 6 months, but just can't afford it, its having to cut back on bf so soon thats upsetting me the most

I'm not sure which age group is being talked about here when people are saying that their parents could afford a house on one wage. My parents definitely couldn't and neither could dh's. So I think it probably needs clarifying which generation is being talked about.

My parents brought in early 70s, dh parents in late 60s

more thoughts on women's poverty in old age:

Women are the majority of the poor in old age, partly because they live longer and are therefore the majority of pensioners (but also becuase women pensioners are poorer than men pensioners). If the majority of pensioners are women why is our pension system based around working patterns that the majority of women don't have? Why don't we have a pension system based on women's life patterns rather than men's since the majority of those needing pensions at any one time are women?

On the OP. The physical facts of motherhood (only women can get pregnant, give birth or breastfeed) are simply a biological reality. The culture we construct around that may or may not be misogynist. But a feminism that called on women to reject motherhood altogether (rather than say challenging what it currently means, or trying to move beyond a culture where that is all women can do) isn't going to last very long!

I don't know how many people have read this book Not brilliantly written but a very good debunking of some mars/venus type gender stereotyping

Sorry a bit of a ramble from idea to idea, this thread has got me thinking!

That was around the era when my parents couldn't afford to buy a house. So I'm not convinced that it was as easy for people buy there homes as seems to be being implied here. Although, I do agree that house prices now are influenced by two salaries, if that makes sense.

their homes.

'Maybe the dream never really existed at all, it was the lucky few that got on the housing ladder when prices were low, went to uni when it was free, got the final salary pension schemes etc etc that had the financial freedom to really choose.'

I am of the generation, described above, but came to realise that actually being superwoman and having it all was just too tiring. The dream was there and was graspable, but what horrible people it made out of some women. I am happy to accept that I am different from men; not inferior, but equal, yet different. I don't want to develop a pair of balls and have to clang them to reach a glass ceiling; nor do I want to spend my time in climbing over other people to shin my way further up a greasy pole. The game just ain't worth the candle, or the stress hernias or the heart attacks.

I think that there are more opportunities available to women than there were when I left sixth form in 1984, but also more guilt about deciding that you don't want to play the corporate game and stay at home with your children. There seems to be more pressure now to go back to paid employment after your dcs are at school so that you are contributing. Having been a teacher, I think that having a parent around and concerned about you is invaluable and a far more real, concrete and longlasting contribution to society than your tax pounds.

I think that what feminism gave us, 'society' is in the process of taking away and setting us against each other whilst it does so. As Millie points out, we need to find a via media that enables us to have our cake and eat it, to achieve the balance that is right for us as individuals rather than fitting into a predetermined mould.

I think it must have changed in 70's, my parents were fairly well off, middle management, not easy, but possible. My grandmother had to leave her job when she married!

Wonderstuff, I see where you're coming from. My parents also bought in the early 70's and are from that cheap oil, property owning, final salary pension, free education generation - classic post war baby boomers I guess. I certainly acknowledge that its depressing to realise that most of us will never live in houses as nice as the ones we grew up in.

I also can imagine how you feel about having to cut back on bf earlier than you would like. There must be a way that you can sah for the next few months - even if you have to make some serious cutbacks (and I speak as someone who has just had leftover cauliflower and half a tin of tomatos for lunch because I am obsessed with finishing leftovers). I know its hard but even a compromise for another 3 months perhaps could be possible?

pennypops, we are already in debt and posponing work any longer will just add to it I'm lucky really, because i teach i should be able to bring in a half decent wage and work part time, could be much worse and at least i have been able to give her 6 months, many are in much more diffucult positions. Just think that there should be a better alternative, maybe onsite childcare and provison to take time out during the day to see dc??