Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

[GothAnneGeddes]

Not sure how to word this, but while I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with not wanting children, this whole idea of a movement (with a lot of men in it) that seems to despise mothers and children with a visceral repulsion and also encourage women to remove their reproductive organs is very unsettling.

What do you think?

No madwoman, you are wrong. Teaching used to be a respected profession, because men did it. Estate agents, the same. Now both aren't , because they are dominated by women. As soon as women enter a profession, its status and pay drops. Because of course, women are shit.

Raising the status of parenthood, would merely raise the status of fathers, which is already high enough. It would actually lower the status of mothers in relation to that of fathers, because they would be seen as the better paretns, because men are of course better.

I'm amazed you haven't grasped that basic fact about our society.

The reason Sakura pointed your arguments as having been tinged with MRA influence, is because you focussed on the imbalance where you hold women up as the bad guy.

Whereas the reality, is that men have much more power as fathers, than women have as mothers. The bar to be considered a brilliant father, is set much lower than the bar to be a merely adequate mother.

precisely, men dropped out of teaching, pay dropped, and it became feminised and not respected.

if both men and women still taught, the respect for the profession (and the pay) would have been maintained.

the parenting thing is slightly different because it's chicken and (B)egg -

policies need to change to make sahping an economically equitable/ respectable activity, and then more fathers would sahp. or more fathers need to sahp, so that childcare is more valued, and then policies would change to reflect that. no idea which way round would work, if any tbh.

but that's the problem with dealing in ideologies, i guess.

i don't have any problem recognising that motherhood is devalued and not respected in current society becasue it is a female activity.

interesting that you think that men would be seen as better parents though - really interesting. like chefs being paid more than dinner ladies. it would certainly raise the stayus of childcare though. i guess all the women would be off to the law firms at the 3 month point leaving the bairns to the tender ministrations of the daddies. complete role reversal.

so feminists have given up fighting for equality then, as it's not going to happen. bit pessimistic for my liking, but you gotta have a goal, eh?

i have to say it's a first for the possibility of equality to be dismissed entirely, rather than just couched in terms of likelihood.

not making women out to be the bad guy really tbh (i was aware and a little bit tongue in cheek) just pointing out the imbalance - and that achieving equality might mean that in terms of their children (one of the few places women do have some residual 'power') there might be gains and losses on both sides in the rights and responsibilities argument.

but as i said earlier, i do see that it could be construed as me wanting to hand over even more to fathers.

Feminism isn't about equality for me, it's about liberation.

IMO.

Equality just means being accepted in a man's world on a man's terms.

I want the world to change so that it belongs to both halves of humanity and women don't have to do like men to be valued.

But madwoman, you pointed out "the imbalance" as you call it, by drawing attention the fact taht some powerless women mgiht want men to have responsibilities without rights.

Whereas in the RW, powerful men actually have rights without responsibilities.

As a feminist, I think the issue of the power real men have right now, is far more important than the potential power imaginary women might have in the future when it's "all gorn too far"

There's a difference between men having more rights in the situation society is currently in, where they would get more rights despite not having more responsibilities, and a potential future situation where things other than raising children had improved for women.

In some Scandinavian countries, there is a lot more shared care of children both before and after relationship breakups. That seems to have happened within a society where adequate childcare was in place, adequate career breaks and maternity leave that did not end up with a woman returning to a damaged career, adequate housing, education and a society with less inequality of income. It is easier in such a society for both men and women to have a balance between being a parent and having a job, which means both parents can invest more in their children and make a greater commitment to being a parent.

In the UK a career requires such a commitment that it often makes sense, if you want a roof over your head and to bring up your children, for one parent to commit fully to work (often a lot more than 40 hours) and invest less time in the kids, and one parent to commit fully to being with the kids and have a part time job when the kids are older.

It would be interesting to know how Scandinavian families have experienced this change.

I agree with HerBeggs' point. It is the same with fathers and now grandparents. They want the right to see their grandchildren, but there is no right for the child to see those grandparents or the father if those people don't want to see the child. The same is true with money. Grandparents can now go to court for access to the child, but the child has no right to be financially, emotionally or physically supported by those grandparents.

yes herB, i did, and did say it was a little tongue in cheek. the obvious point is that women lack power, the minor (and slightly facetious) point was that equality might mean that women lose a little bit of that 'the mother is always right' argument.

we're not arguing different things. millyr's point re scandinavia is similar - the policies allow parenting rather than mothering. the rights and responsibilities thing is a red herring, really. equality clearly means equal rights and responsibilities, so i'm unsure where my idea of 'equality' differs.

the access thing re grandparents is interesting, but probably strays off into the rights of minors v adults rather than feminism per se. (another fairly odd imbalance, granted, and sort of linked in the infantilisation of women issue)

i'm still unsure why the desire to be viewed as a person is a bad thing (less the criticism of 'person' being equated with male). which side of the breeding fence i sit on (if i choose to breed at all) is secondary to the fact that i expect equal rights alongside every other person. even if i am a woman (or a man) i don't want every opinion about me to be primarily defined by my sex.

herb, you're quite right wrt priorities of course. and in terms of activism, there are far greater things to be concerned about than whether i identify as a woman, and then a person, or as an (equal) person, and then as a woman.

i was just quite surprised by the reaction to gb, tbh.

if i'm brushing off my cv, for example, i don't specify my gender, or my childbearing status. i want to be judged on my qualifications and competence. my sex should not be relevant. (i don't need to go into the studies using male/female names on identical cvs, or the ones looking at ethnicity - we all know that the playing field isn't equal)

as i said, herb is right, the priority is to work out how to get to equality, rather than ponder about it.

i was just slightly surprised by the reaction. being proud of being a woman is not a bad thing - and i understand the arguments re the wonder of childbearing/ miracle of birth etc - but the 'inextricable' linking of motherhood to womanhood to identity is really interesting in the terms of the child-free debate. interesting to link the child-free aspect to that of pg women wanting to be seen as more than a womb on legs in terms of attitudes to pg/ alcohol/ smoking/ caffeine etc.

i tried to get dh to reverse his vasectomy. he wasn't having any of that nonsense. bit late for him to sign up as child-free though.

"i'm still unsure why the desire to be viewed as a person is a bad thing (less the criticism of 'person' being equated with male)"

In other words, less the whole problem with being viewed as a person! A male is a person, a woman is an- other.

there's the rub, really. back to the ideology of equality. in my head, 'person' doesn't equate to 'man'. or shouldn't, anyway. but context important.

lenin, pg and childbirth doesn't come into the equation for the child-free, though. so why should it define the childless in any way?

rights in pg and childbirth (and bf) are pretty much the sole areas where it's impossible to define yourself in any other way than as a woman even i'm not arguing that.

it should be pointed out that i always end up in a loop on the trans threads as well. it all depends on your view of the binary. i don't care whether you identify as male or female because it shouldn't matter. (and very clearly it does lol)

but i've given up posting on trans threads largely, because that ideological assertion isn't compatible with the prevailing feminist discourse. it doesn't mean i don't identify as a feminist as a fact of necessity, given the (patriarchal) structure of society. but if it didn't matter whether you were a man or woman in terms of your value to society, there wouldn't be a need for feminism.

loosely translated as 'i don't want to be a feminist', i think. because there shouldn't be a need for it.

I don't think the desire to be seen as a person is a bad thing; I simply think it is an incomprehensible thing. I really do not understand the sentiment from someone living in the UK in the 21st century. DS has done a project on slavery recently, and there are many posters from the era (Atlantic slave trade) of slaves with the slogan 'Am I not also a man (in the species sense)/human being?

I can understand why people in that situation would have a desire to be viewed as a person, but I really don't get why people on this thread would. It seems to me to be a more personal version of the justification for racism/homophobia/sexism where people say "I'm not prejudiced; I treat everyone in the same way. Why can't Asians/lesbians/women/disabled people just be like everyone else?" We are clearly not all the same, and people have different identities, and multiple identities. The fact that part of my identity to others is always that I am a woman and is very frequently that I am a mother. That fact that it is part of my identity does not mean that is solely defines me.

I find it impossible to reconcile myself to a viewpoint that does not value diversity, does not recognise and respond to people as individuals, and does not recognise that part of someone's individual identity, experience and personality is their belonging to various subgroups and minorities within society.

So until someone can explain to me what "my identity is that I am a person/human being" is meant to mean, when everyone in the UK is already considered to be a person, I am going to assume that it is a mild way of attempting to erase diversity and the experiences of women and mothers as a political, economic and social minority.

But I'm happy to be corrected if someone can explain what they mean. I also understand that their are many situation where people keep their jobs by keeping quiet about being a parent. But you can't hide the fact that you are a woman, no matter how much you insist on being a person instead.

Of course pregnancy and childbirth come into the equation for the childfree. The ability of the childfree to remain childfree is based on them having the right to not get pregnant and the right to terminate a pregnancy, which are rights many women do not have. Control of reproductive potential - either the right to have children, or the right not to have them, is central to feminism.

millyr - but only when you are discussing those 'rights' in particular. the fact of pg and childbirth is not relevant when you are discussing anything else for a man or woman who wishes to remain childless and intends to.

lenin - then you end up trying to work out how you can make a difference. to eradicate the inequalities. and apparently end up trying to prove you do actually agree on mn fem threads, but no-one believes you...

the race/ disability thing is interesting. clearly diversity exists. fwiw dd2 suffered birth hypoxia and has cerebral palsy as a result, and one of the defining issues for parents of children with disabilities is to get the world to see them as people first, the old 'person with a disability', not a 'disabled person' chestnut. ('child with downs syndrome', not 'downs child' etc etc) sometimes the fact of your humanity has to be pointed out, prior to the sub-text (as in the case of slavery etc). clearly the fact that dd2 is disabled is a pretty major part of her identity, but i really don't want it to completely define her. in the same way that being a woman becomes even more problematic when you additionally fit into any other disempowered sub-group (race/ disability/ sexuality).

it's interesting that you see wanting to be defined as a person primarily as a 'mild' attempt to erase diversity. i don't see it as a way to erase diversity at all - the diversity is still going to exist, in exactly the same way that you argue that the fact that we are 'people' is still going to exist (and is therefore not relevant).

i rather see it as a reminder that despite the diversity, the key issue is the fact of our common humanity.

i just hadn't realised that wasn't the contemporary view.

I don't know what the contemporary view is, but for me personally, our common humanity is not of any more intrinsic value than experiences that I have as part of a minority group.

It isn't a question of us existing as people or as minorities, it is the question of our expression of that the recognition by other people. It is far more common to turn a blind eye to difference than to someone's status as a human being.

I think the issue with disability is that very many people's disabilities are not visible, which gives people the opportunity to ignore the need of the individual with the disability.

oh feck. i just typed a really long reply and then got booted out.

err. it was so important i can't remember a word of it...

oh i know 'It is far more common to turn a blind eye to difference than to someone's status as a human being.' i don't agree. i don't think the slave with the placard would, or the women fighting their way to employment tribunals, or in fact the entire existence of the ECHR.

lenin - yes i agree, she might. but that's her choice, rather than one that should be imposed upon her. i'm proud of how she deals with her disability, but i'm not particularly proud that she has a disability. (or the converse - it's just a part of her). i'm not sure how i would feel if she felt it was the most defining aspect of her, or saw it as her prime identity, rather than one of the things about her, tbh.

interesting that you identify your sexuality first, then being a woman, and then presumably a person/ human (if it even figures). i dragged goffman's 'stigma' out the other day intending to read it (though he is an unremittingly sexist dinosaur), and suspect sexuality is bound to come up.

identity is pretty fluid in terms of which aspects you promote in any given context. on reflection i suppose i oughtn't to be too shocked that most feminists identify as women first, (particularly on a feminism board) and believe it to be strictly relevant in all aspects of life, because the sad fact is it is. it just shouldn't be. (re-enters the loop)

i am glad y'all care enough to argue with me, though

I feel the need to point out the blindingly obvious. Parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not apply to everyone - they are not just about our common humanity. They are often about minorities, and in particular relevance to this thread is part of article 25:

Motherhood is entitled to special assistance.

So many people will go to the ECHR because they are specifically protected as mothers, not as generic human beings.

Have only skim-read the past few hours' worth of posts. HerBeggs, you gave me an "AHA!" moment with this:
Equality just means being accepted in a man's world on a man's terms.

So that's what this is about, huh??!!

No, equality to me means equality of value. I am a female person. I am just as worthwhile, just as important, and should be just as equal as a male person and, also, a trans or intersex person. Gender does not define personhood, we're all humans. And we should all be equal in terms of rights, opportunites, freedoms and perceived worth. With all our differences.

If you've been thinking of 'equal' as meaning 'like a man' - well, that explains why so many feminists' stements on this thread have struck me as coming from a patriarchal pov! Phew

No GB I haven't been thinking of equal as being like a man.

But when non-feminists (or IMO even some liberal feminists) talk about equality, that is what they mean.

They do not challenge the way the world is constructed and the way it works. They just want to be accepted on equal terms with men in that world. But they can never be equal, because it is a world that has been designed to advantage men.