"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?

OMG, this is when someone needs to start talking about evolutionary stable strategies and game theory, someone other than me, that is!

Any takers??

Just a general point on 'if women ruled the world there'd be no more wars'.

Is this women as they are today, still bearing children? Or have men taken over that function?

If so women would have evolved as men have, to fight for resourses, such as food, territory and fertility rights and built for combat should posturing not work - to be the physically stronger sex basically, where intimidation is always a short cut to achieving an aim

In other words, things would probably be exactly the same.

Terrible grammer, sorry!

Also encompases kin selection vs group selection.

yeah, yeah monkey trousers, we'd already agreed that.

agree that female bosses have usually made it in an environment run by men with male values so have beeb seected for their willingness to be part of that club...aso i suspect we judge women more harshly as we expect them to be different.

also many women IMO do internalise sexsm and are more comfortable being bossed by a man. This is a generalisation of course - does not apply to all women or all men.

The majority of women like 'masculine' men and the majority of men like 'feminine' women! Each gender shaped the other via sexual selection. The problems in compatiblity begin with parental investment, with each trying to 'exploit'(this isn't meant emotivley) the other and then each evolving counter strategies.

Urrggh!

This is biology, not morality BTW.

Have skimmed through the thread - just like to add a general point - in Europe, it's the countries who provide more state aid for mother who have the highest birth rates. i've just been to Stockholm, and couldn't get over how baby-friendly that city is. Swedish women and men can combine their parental leave so it adds up to about a year - if you fall pregnant again quickly, this can be extended even further, and your jobs will be kept availavble for you.
Women must have more help to go back to work in order not to feel that their professional lives HAVE to come to an end when they have kids, but they should also have generous maternity benefits and leave if we want to see more babies being born to working mums.......

I'd happily pay more taxes for that!

exactly teeavee - that is what we should have here - except of course we won't because our government depends on mothers and grandmothers etc staying at home, giving up their jobs, and being unpaid child rearers. It also depends on those mothers who work making the sacrifice of not seeing their children as much and having them reared by strangers. If all mothers, those that work and those who don't, stood up and demanded better rights and conditions we might have a chance.

And dads!

And not all 70s feminists adhere to equality feminism - most famously Germaine Greer (who else) has always been fighting for 'liberation'.

Yes, but should babies wear sun hats?

I would love to know more about the Swedish system. I know that small and even medium sized businesses find the whole maternity leave thing a major sized pain in the bottom. It adds cost, time and admin.
It is interesting to read people's ideas. It seems to me that we live in a society where we all expect "the government" to do something. We have lost our own little self-regulated communities and live in isolated nuclear units, so "the government" has become our tribal leader to whom we appeal to sort out all our problems. The mums/dads who want to stay at home want their value recongnised, those who go to work want better childcare, more flexible hours etc, we want longer and better paid maternity leave, we want better nurseries for our toddlers, we want better schools. There is nothing wrong with wanting these things, indeed it shows we aspire to more comfortable and better supported lives.
Somehow, I think that even with all these things in place it wouldn't stop people from feeling torn between what they should be doing (childcare/out of home work) and Deborah Jackson would still be suggesting that women were seduced back to work and the marital bed!!
Probably a thread killer!

Another point about Sweden: mothers who bottle-feed are almost unheard of there.

It's not weak or lazy to expect the government to provide for childcare etc - ultimately it would be we who paid for these things, through taxation. Sweden is a rich state, but the Swedes themselves are not rolling in cash, because they pay around 50% of their wages to that state. However, look at all they are given in return.

again agree with teeavee - of course wee expect the govt to do something - we elect them and pay our taxes - rather strange then that one shouldn't look to the government to improve laws that will affect how civilized our society can become. the creation of the NHS and the regeneration of slum areas like the East End of London had to ultimately come from government, be it central or local.

One could argue that only 37% of the adult population voted for this particular government, which perhaps shouldn't give them as much power as they think they should have - but that is more about voting systems than the debate in hand.
We currently don't pay enough tax for the state to maintain its current level of expenditure and increase spending in all the areas I outlined in my last post.
I can't help wondering if we shouldn't be looking at different ways of doing things. Our western societies seem a bit bonkers in many ways, work and home are so strictly compartmentalised. Local extended families and community groups have been broken down - perhaps because of over-reliance on the hopefully benign "government" of the day. I am not sure it is sustainable in the long-term but then I'm not sure what can or should replace it either.
Voicing thoughts aloud here!

i would rephrase 'we currently don't pay enough tax for the state to maintain its current level of expenditure' as the state spends billions of pounds on war and 'defence' which could more usefully be channelled into creating a better society.

Very true Ruty - but apparently they are the government we voted for!!! Hence my wonder about doing things differently.

or did we? I still think we should all be more politically active and stand up for what we believe in - I do believe in petitions and marches and as much pressure on govt as possible - there is a great feeling of 'i can;t change anything' which is just so convenient for governments. I'm a militant SAHM! I can't change the way my family is, but society has been changed by teh industrial revolution, by thatcherism, by many things, but i don't think we can let the government off the hook.

i'm getting too trigger happy with the smiley faces..