'Pushing presents'

[MarionCole]

Sorry, a thread caused by another thread. I just didn't want to spoil their party with my negativity.

So - presents from DH/DP for giving birth - am I the only one who feels uncomfortable about them? They strike me as deeply patronising.

DH got me a beautiful necklace a couple of weeks after DD was born - he'd had to go into town for supplies anyway and it wasn't something he gave me immediately following the birth, I don't think he'd planned it. I certainly didn't expect something.

We hardly ever spend money on jewellery etc, he just wanted to spoil me a bit, I don't get how that's patronising - DH was just doing something nice for the woman he loved.

WTF.

In both DH's and my family women have traditionally received a gift for giving birth which is then passed down to the child whose birth it commemorated on their mother's death. I think it's a lovely tradition, especially as DMIL absolutely treasures the ring she received when her DS1 was born (he died at 11mo) and my grandmother was buried wearing the cross my grandfather got her when they had a stillborn baby.

I don't see it as a push present, a reward, payment, or a 'look at me dripping with diamonds, aren't I a model of fecundity?' however this pregnancy is bloody awful, I'm terrified at the probability of a CS, and therefore I want my damn eternity ring if I give DH his son and heir! It's not the reason I'm having the baby.... And anyway I've wanted my eternity ring ever since we saw it wedding ring shopping and he told me I could have the diamonds when I gave him his son and heir I'm not sure what I get for a girl but I've been hinting at pink sapphires.

It is worth exploring. The other thing I am not crazy about is the idea the woman gives birth to an heir to carry the father's family line. This is the thanks for producing a child for that family.

I am having children for me and my family too. I don't wish to further incite more FFSing, but it is interesting.

(Although perhaps my non-relationship with dh's family and their early insistence on suffocating pretty much everything has coloured my view.)

If we put personal situations aside, and see if these traditions do arise from ideas of ownership and wealth.

I don't think the idea of a present for the birth of a child arose from ownership. If you own your wife anyway then why give her something? Unless one saw it as buying her off in return for taking the baby. It might have at first been a patronising 'well done, thanks for the son, here's a trinket' but in the same way that a wedding ring has transmuted to mean something different these traditions have too.

Interesting what you say about which family you're producing the baby for though. I think first and foremost it's mine and DH's but there is a great deal of interest from his family about the first grandchild/great-grandchild on the paternal side and less interest about the great-grandchild from the maternal side, particularly in terms of predicting a boy which might be a son/heir thing but also that side of the family are rather boy heavy and the firstborn in every generation for squillions of years has been a boy. Maternal grandparents are thrilled about a grandchild, haven't mentioned anything about the sex, but I will be watching closely when it's my brother's turn to produce another X to carry on the family name. Maybe this idea of producing a child/son/heir for the extended family has some merit, particularly given that boys seem (on both sides of our families at least) to attract a higher value present, namely diamonds.

But that's the root of it and not necessarily what it means to people today. One could wonder is the historical basis important to feminism?

"don't "exist in a much larger system of economic inequality" "

Nothing exists outside of that. There isn't a system of inequality over there, and then we get on with our lives over here. That's why there aren't things that don't warrant a feminist analysis. Everything can be looked at in that way, because everything is affected by those structures.

For some people that is a tedious seemingly pointless discussion. Each to their own. But through a feminist lens, that's what discussions are.

It's not to do with what individuals do, or notions of choice. It's not about a list of acceptable and unacceptable gifts, in acceptable and unacceptable situations. It's not about feminists saying thou shalt do this or that. It's applying a particular lens to examples that illustrate the wider situation, and trying to make sense of that.

How do we then reconcile the fact that at the time of the gift giving (certainly in relation to first, if not subsequent children) the vast majority of woman have not lost their wealth?

If they have been working, many woman work until very near their due date and so at birth are still reciving maternity pay etc. Can we really take a quite considerable step that a gift is advance compensation for possible future loss. It seems a bold leap to make.

There is also an argument that the birth of a child can cement financial security for a woman, particularly one that is not married to the father. The law protects mother cohabitees to a greater extent than those that are childless and whilst the system of spousal and child maintenance is far from ideal the theoretical legistlative framework suggests that parents ought to be better off.

If we really wish to take this back to basics then surely any gift between partners exist within a much larger system of economic inequality? Why the contempt reserved for "birth gifts"? How do we differentiate between a gift given at birth and a gift given at Christmas? And if a gift is more appropriate when it is "£10k in the pension pot" are we not edging ever closer to men paying their wives for their partnership?

well it certainly doesn't matter to the ruling class, who hold the majority of economic power. I'm certain they aren't as preoccupied with worrying and analysing about its unfair distribution. They are in the priveleged position of not having to give it a second thought.
That's a job for feminists.

One example, women own less than 10% of the world's land, and produce over 90% of the world's food (for a pittance)

Sakura do you know what those stats are for the UK?

It's irrelevant. It's third world women who grow all the food you see on the shelves in the UK. Tesco is the worst. It sacked an African woman a couple of years ago because she complained at being paid 38p and hour to pick fruit.

The feminization of poverty has been globalized, just like the sex industry

The latter half of the statistic may not be relevent but I certainly think stats for female land ownership in the UK is relevant when we are talking about western woman being patronised by the receipt of gifts on the birth of their children.

I can't accept that stats relating to UK distribution of wealth are not relevant when the thrust of the anti gift argument is that their is an unequal distribution of wealth that is exacerbated by childbirth.

My land ownership post was a retort to HopefortheBest's comment that:

"there is a tendency to measure everything in terms of economic or financial wealth when surely that can't always matter?"

as though feminists keep banging on about economics for some bizzare reason, when there's more to life than that.

So I'm not sure how land figures break down in the UK, but there is a lot of information out there about the gender pay gap, loss of earnings and pensions. It's a culmulative effect.

WHy the contempt for birth gifts? Feminists have contempt for engagement rings as well.. showing of the size of the rock as though you've been bought. It's just that most of us (well, me at least) had never heard of a push present before this thread, and that's why I'm discussing what it could represent.

I'd never heard of push presents before coming on MN. I didn't get so much as a bunch of flowers! I agree it's a strange concept.

Thanks sakura.

To me the strangeness is demeaning it by calling it a push present. I'd love to know who came up with the term.

hope I'm interested in the answer to that as well. Although TBH you probably wont get an answer. If you don't "get it" the attitude is often that you are thick or blind to it. Or both.

My feeling of "feminism" as a whole is that there is a tendancy to work everything back to the lowest common denominator which is "the system" is not equal therefore any situation within the system i.e. everything is affected by this inequality.