"In western society, we use sophisticated mockery to diminish the too-devoted parent.

[emkana]

We characterise women as fettishly connected to their babies if they breastfeed openly and for as long as nature intended. We seduce them back to work and the marital bed and proclaim them weak if they put their own needs on hold while attending to those of small children."

(From Deborah Jackson, Baby Wisdom.)

What do you think? Is she right or not?

can you substitute the words, 'something that would work quite well and less people both men and women would be pissed off' and feel more comfortable MI?

No, I don't really like matriachy stuff personally - spent too much time in the 1980s around the Greenham idea of it.

yueuh ick. not surprised it's a turn off for you then.

Surely the best way to move forward is a respectful balance of maternal and paternal power. Both play different roles in the furthering of the species. Equal, but different.

Women have lost touch with a great deal of intuitive power over time (being burnt as witches didn't help) and we're now trying to wrest it back. There's confusion, though, about where it should come from and what it should be used for.

With the benefit of hindsight, the feminists of the 70s were simplistic in the assumption that we all want what men have got. We need to work out exactly what it is we want and what we have to offer society and I don't believe we're clear on this yet.

I was brought up to believe I'm a lucky woman and should be grateful to older women because thanks to them we women now have it all.
I found, when I was working, it was more a case of DOING it all!

Whoever said on this thread that 'we women are our own worst enemies' was right. By far the most judgement and critisism I get comes from other women.

the argument seems to have diminished into that of womens subjugation in society. women arn't the only section of society - so i think that argument is weak. also there seems (although no bra burning perse,) an over arching tone of men being the persecuters.

SP too right. The use of the term "natural" is a very dubious. A great many things have been labelled "not natural" or "natural" as a way of refusing to argue on a level playing field.

Am I unnatural in not feeling fantastically fulfilled primarily as a mother? Well, as far as I am concerned, it is my nature to get my pleasure from a sense of achievement in other spheres.

I am very uncomfortable with any view that says that one group is innately better than another, as I believe it results in the denial of opportunities. I have certainly heard it said that women are innately better parents, and I think this is largely used as a way of putting down fathers. Surely we should be encouraging all parents to parent well?

havent read this thread but found the title curiously appropriate

Message withdrawn

sorry, lots of missing the points there: i'm not saying men are persecutors, nor am i saying that we are the only subjugated subgroup.

that doesn't change the fact that we are persecuted or rather subjugated (by each other as much as by men).

neither am i saying that if you're not fulfilled solely by motherhood (i certainly am not) you're not natural.

i'm saying we don't recognise the power intrinsic in womanhood. it is powerful. and that doesn't mean that men aren't powerful in their way either. but imo they are not as intrinsically powerful. so the great irony is that all that power has been stomped on.

we all know that little boys are far more delicate than little girls (there is research and anecdotal evidence to support this).

I love my v powerful and lovely dh. this isn't about man bashing. it's about looking at why we attack ourselves near constantly. and actually i think that the current world order makes as many men feel unhappy and unfulfilled as women.

and this is directly related to the thread title as the mockery is part of the subjugation as is the persecution of working mums as being uncaring etc.

i know it is simplistic, but i do sometimes wonder how the world would be if the world governments were run in the majority by women -for example, it would be interesting if 8 women had met at the G8 summit. Obviously power can corrupt women as easily as men, and thatcher wasn't the greatest advert for female wisdom and intuition, but i just wonder if there would be some subtle differences in the way the world was run [environment, the decision to go to war] if there were more women in political power.

i understand and agree mostly with sophables post - why are we intrinsivally powerful?

cause we carry and give birth to the progeny that perpetuate the spcecies. cause we can multitask easily. cause we feel things and can communicate them naturally.

cause only we know who the father is.

cause we're really good a generalising?

Ruty I'm sorry to have to say this but to date every experience I have had of women being in power in the workplace has been a negative one (for me as an underling and also for the other underlings). I'm quite willing to admit that my experiences may have been different from the norm but I am still waiting to meet this caring sharing female boss who uses her womanhood to make life fairer and more equable for all her employees, especially women. Every female boss I have ever had or known (and some of them are now my best friends in a social, rather than professional relationship) has been a total ballbreaker to work for and more concerned with demonstrating and celebrating her own power than with being an effective leader. If they ran the world we would have more wars, not less!

lmfao soph!!

precisely what i'm talking about in that we are our own worst enemy and that this is massively typical in a subjugated group wordsmith.

the problem is, wordsmith, that many of the women currently in power have got there because of their "masculine" qualities, and seem to think that they have to be more ruthless than necessary in order to justify themselves. It's another symptom of the same problem IMO.

My ambition has always been to be the UK's first female prime minister.

yes, i've know so pretty awful women in power so i know what you mean wordsmith. I guess i got carried away with the matriarchal beauty of Sophable's posts! But agree with Senora its the type of women that get into power.

Perhaps because we get so far up the greasy pole and then see what's up ahead of ourselves and can't be arsed.

All the women bosses I have known have worked incredibly hard at their jobs, sacrificing a lot in terms of family life and relationships on the way. It's not something I'm prepared to do (otherwise, obviously I would have been chairwoman of Shell and Prime Minister by now. Just don't want to. That's my excuse.) They have all had the attitude of "I've suffered to get here, now you are damn well going to suffer too."

that attitude is so familiar to me wordsmith.

in my experience women in authority are much harsher towards other women than men, presumably because there is usually no flirtation going on. And in the same way it is sometimes easier to work for men because even if it is harmless flirtation, it inevitably goes on at some level [i'll probably get jumped on for saying that].

otoh I am a female boss (to two male employees and several casual now and again employees) and my attitude is "it's rather scarey here. would you like a cup of tea?"

Ooh Ruty doesn't it sound as though we are betraying the siterhood by speaking like this. But it's true. My coterie of female bosses were the biggest flirts you could imagine (bit like the character in The Fast Show.)

Senora can I come and work for you. I like tea.

tbh, i've only ever come across 3 bosses that were good managers and decent human beings (the two generally go together) 2 men and 1 woman. and all extraordianary human beings.

IME female bosses (3 so far) have been very understanding and nice but much more controlling than my male bosses (4 so far), who were also very nice and more relaxed.