is feminism acutally, er, anti-feminism?

[loopyloops]

I would like to consider myself a potential feminist, but have a real issue with the whole thing. A century ago I wouldn't have been pressurised to go out to work and have children, would I? OK, in the lower classes probably you would have to, but in a comfortable middle class family, would I be expected to for ideological reasons?

I love being at home with DD but it is absolutely knackering, and if having more is on the cards I simply cannot bear the thought of going back to work. Do I have to? Is it really anti-feminist to wish this wasn't the assumption?

Hmm, will have to agree to disagree on that one, since I live in a family (and was raised in one) where neither parent is seen to have "the edge". Which is probably why we have been so easily able to switch roles between child-rearing and breadwinner from one to other and back again, throughout DDs life and before. Also I just didn't feel that rush that others describe (in spite of all the trauma we went through to get there) whereas DH most definitely did!

PS - check out the "stoning" thread - posted some links for you about Iran which I thought you might find interesting.

OK, well, my mother was the main breadwinner, hardly ever home, and my father was a SAHD for a few years, so maybe that's where my views have come from

I agree with Sakura.

Sakura, did you feel that your mother was a better parent or your Dad? Or just both good at different things? My mother was fab at some things, but maternal wasn't a great descriptor of her, whereas Dad was Mr cuddles and hugs.

The link between main breadwinner and hardly ever home is an interesting one, isn't it? I mean, I am in thr glorious position of being pretty much able to structure my working day how I want, within reason, so in spite of the seniority of position, I'm able to make sure I'm home and around for DD a lot (for instance, tomorrow am, I'm going to DD's ballet recital and will start work at 11am instead). But corporate culture in general doesn't allow for that, for working parents of either sex.

The "walking womb" point is a very interesting one. I (fortunately) don't have any experience of miscarriage, but I do of stillbirth.

For my husband it was clearly the worst and most distressing time of his life. He had invested a lot of emotional energy in the child, and felt he had to keep himself together for my sake. Because of this he found it hard to grieve and whereas I had a clear 'job' to do, he had to get on with our life. I am not undervaluing this at all, but do think that the emotional investment and sense of loss for me was worse, if it is quantifiable. I say this because:
*He did not carry our babies. He didn't go to all of the antenatal clinics, and therefore doesn't have the amount of distressing memories that I do (eg just before scan showing DTD1 had died, a doppler at the the GPs and midwife where they both heard two heartbeats, however the post mortem showed that there could only have been one). He didn't have the worry and pain of pregnancy that I did (no Spd, inability to sleep, deprivation of going out, drinking, eating certain foods etc).
*His body is not distorted and permanently damaged from carrying twins.
*He didn't go though premature labour and the pain involved.
*Although he was there to support me, he didn't undergo the degradation and fear that comes with emergency surgery.
*He didn't have to stay in hospital, expressing milk, learning to bond with a premature baby whilst trying not to grieve. (having said this, he wasn't given the opportunity, which mean that he found it very difficult to know how to handle the baby when she came home).
*He didn't have to undergo the shame and intrusiveness of all of the tests that come with an unexplained stillbirth.
*He was able to return to work and separate the death from the birth, whereas I had to get on with caring for a premature baby.
*He didn't get PTSD.
*He doesn't now have almost insurmountable fear at the thought of another pregnancy.
*When we looked into a case for clinical negligence, because I was the patient, I had to make all of the investigations and fill out all of the paperwork.

*But most of all, he doesn't feel guilty that it all happened, because he was witness to it and it didn't happen to him. It is clear to everyone that there's nothing he could have done to prevent it.

Sorry to ramble on about my particular case, and I understand that all women, men and children are different, but given the danger, pain and responsibility that comes with pregnancy and childbirth, I fail to see how a man can be as invested in it as a woman.

loopy - I'm so very sorry for your loss.

I guess it just goes to show that we all have different experiences of loss. For me (enormous difficulty conceiving, followed by a few years of repeated miscarriage), my experience was really different. In my situation, my husband was the one paralysed by grief time and time and time again (and I don't think he's ever really recovered from the last time), the one who carried so much of the burden, made even worse for him by many people insisting that I needed looking after and he didn't. Whereas the truth is we had both lost babies, we both were grieving, we both were suffering, but he didn't have anyone to talk to about it.

Actually, this (feminism) is probably the wrong topic to talk about this on, sorry.

Yes, I suppose that it is impossible to strive towards equality unless the balance can be tipped in both directions. Men certainly aren't given the support that they need in order to deal with pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing. The scale is balanced in the favour of the woman in these cases.

.. sorry, following from that, how can we expect me to contribute equally in child care if they are not taught how, don't have the support network that is offered to women, added to the fact that society will accept them as bystanders?

men, not me!

ah but Swallowed, what about the men who are fathers but not allowed to act as such because they are not married, not on the birth certificate and the mother doesn't want them to be involved?

"Also, its not as if working in an office is a right and a privilege...Its work."

Interesting, the immediate thing that occurred to me, was that under the old Soviet system "the right to work" was enshrined in all the constitutions.

I'm not interested in the debates about how bad Stalin was and what a mass murderer and how awful the system was (not arguing that one, it was pretty awful and rights were pretty theoretical). But it's interesting that under capitalism, there is no developed country where there is a right to work. Or is there?

A right to work wouldn't happen under capitalism because there is no way of controlling the masses if they have no fear of losing their jobs.

Wasn't it a right to "contribute to society" rather than a right to work, per se? Right to work was, I think, a bad translation of the Russian. But I may be mis-remembering!

The right to work would not be be enforcable, would it though? What happens in times of unemployment?

Anyway, the right to work DOES exist, outside the USSR. It is part of the ESC and also the UN`s declaration of Human Rights. This is not enforcable though, ie you cannot go to court over it. It has been adopted by most countries as a guideline, as has the ICESC.

read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

HerBeatitude,

A right to work? That is a strange one. Do you mean a right to a job or the work of your choice? I cannot think of anything worse than a right to flip McBurgers on minimum wage. It kind of exists anyway. If you pitch up at a job centre and literally take "anything", there are jobs out there.

Bringing up children varies immensely in hardness depending on numbers and age. I cannot think of anything tougher than babies and toddlers simultaneously. Once they are at school, it becomes immensely easier. I think that anyone who stays at home and looks after their own children should be hugely valued. It is not an easy choice at all. I do not understand the idea of working to pay for childcare. There has to be some economic advantage to the trade.

Sakura,

"In all patriarchies over the world children have traditionally belonged to the father, and do so worldwide today. Patriarchy believes fathers' rights supercede mothers. In some cultures, like Britain, the children's rights are taken into consideration, and in those cases the mother receives custody upon divorce. But that has nothing to do with mother's rights. The fact that she carried and laboured and fed the child from her own body counts for shit under patriarchy".

Is the highlighted part serious?? So, on the occasion the father gets custody, it is his rights which are being considered. But when the mother gets custody, it is the childrens'. Do you not think children are EVER better off with their father?

You take a hard line for someone who has chosen cherry blossom as a name!

SwallowedAfly,

Sakura in Japanese is cherry blossom. Not smart, spent far too much of my career at a Japanese bank and tried (not very successfully) to learn the language. To digress a bit, it is hugely significant in Japanese culture. Traditionally it lasts for three days and there is always a debate over which day is the most beautiful. Most poets say it is the third day because, although it is already fading, it preserves its beauty right through to its death. It symbolises the beauty yet ephemerality of life.

Anyway....

I just think its a very dangerous road to argue that biology in any way determines what we will be good at as a sex. Its a shirt trip from there to arguing that biology also makes men better at other things, an argument used for years and years and years to suppress and oppress. Sakura says that it is impossible to undervalue fatherhood, but if we say to men that childbearing is the deciding factor in who is a better parent from the outset, we can hardly blame them if they extrapolate that into "women's place is in the home". I mean, at what stage does that headstart peter out?

I'm a SAHM and although i like to present myself as having made a proactive, feminist/socialist influenced decision to shun the 'real world' of paid work if i'm truly honest, my experience of paid employment prior to having kids was a big factor in my decision.

My first job, at 16 was being paid about 2 quid an hour for a 10 hour day sweeping up hair, washing hair and making tea in a hairdressers. after that i waitressed and made sandwiches, worked on the tills in burger king (watching piss drip from an upstairs toilet onto the drinks machine on one occasion, as the boss virtually horsewhipped us to carry on serving customers regardless), took abuse from staff and customers alike in city pubs (all for about £3.20 an hour).

After i graduated with a 2;1 degree in 2003 i was able to move up in the world - 3 consecutive jobs in call centres earning about £12,000 p/a if i wasn't sacked for low sales after the 3 month trial period. My last job before i had dd ended in such severe bullying from my line manager after i told her i was pregnant that i was constructively dismissed and only managed to survive financially because i was lucky enough to have union representation.

It wasn't that i didn't strive for more - i had many interviews for much better jobs, (i might even have become a solicitor, had Barclays granted my career development loan so that i could go back to university) i just never got any of them - and this was during the boom years of the early 00's, so strangely enough i'm not exactly champing at the bit to give up the care of my lovely kids to a stranger and head back to the fray. Thats just my story though.

SwallowedAfly,

It clearly changes over time, does it not? For a breast fed newborn, it would be hard for a father to have anything like as powerful bond as the mother. After several years of shared experiences, I imagine things change. Even with our 15 month old, although my wife is still clearly closer to him, there are times when he wants his father.

It is very personal and also depends on the individual people. As a general rule mothers are probably more important to young children, but it is a very general rule, with plenty of exceptions.

I hear that one SweetBeadie.

I know what you mean SAF. Mothers have put more of their physical selves into their parenthood role. It is different.