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?

Instead we have people dithering over whether aggregate male behaviour is that bad; people literally blind to the fact that their own goverment has caused a number of wars for spurious reasons in the past few years (most recently LIbya). We're not talking abotu a long time ago, we're talking about the decisions men are making right now. It's cognitive dissonance.

ANy time of peace is a respite from the perpetual state of war that is patriarchy.

I think we should all pin that on our fridge.

[ I include trans women because even though their goals are directly opposed to feminist goals, transsexuals are actually oppressed under the patriarchy. THe problem is they mistakenly believe it is feminists oppressing them )

oh and SGB, if I'm insane why are you listening to me?

what does that make you?

Lucky I'm still wearing my tin hat ...

... Sakura: I am talking about the fact that men are incompetent at running the world. This is a proven fact.

Actually the incompetencies you describe are incompetencies of people running the world. Leaving aside the question of whether we're as incompetent as all that, these people are not all men, nor has the world ever been exclusively run by men.

My feminist issue is: the vast majority of people running the world are men, and that's unfair. There's really no logical reason to assume women would do a better job, but we deserve a fair shot at it.

Before somebody promotes the myth that women are all lovely, caring creatures incapable of making mistakes, I bring you: the many bloody massacres carried out by English Queens; Winnie Mandela, inventor and promoter of death by "necklace"; serial killers Aileen Wuornos and Beverly Allitt; high-profile mistake-maker Sarah Palin. Of those, only Palin could be accused of acting under patriarchal values.

I really do think it's bonkers to assert women are never corrupt, cruel, malicious or wrong. Being a woman and a feminist doesn't make me blind to reality.

I didn't say Palin was a serial killer, I said she was a mistake-maker. Picking out one (incorrectly) perceived error from a sound point ... now that's what I call selective perception

No regime can stay in place without its collaborators garlicbutter. Every oppressed group of people understand this concept well.

But women-identified women know that collaborating with the oppressor in order to get a few crumbs thrown in your direction, although not great (and I wish women wouldn't do it) is understandable

BUt it's a far cry from becoming the oppressor yourself in a system is rigged against women.

30% is what the PRime Minister of Iceland says. Get 30% of the seats in parliament filled by women and you feel a shift of energy. Women no longer have to dance to mens' tune and are more willing to put women-identified opinions forward.

Sakura

• what you said was "men are hell-bent on polluting the planet.It's intentional. THe oil tankers that "accidentally" spill into the sea because they weren't made properly. THe nuclear power plants built in earthquake zones etc.... Men as a group are out to kill all life on the planet. It's written in the script of patriarchy... Men have done a right job on planet earth haven't they? Will they be happy until every last species is dead, every last lake and sea polluted, ever last woman's body polluted with pesticides?"

I interpreted this as saying that men are hell-bent on polluting the planet and it's intentional..... because that was what you said.

Now you say you were really talking about competence and I have missed the point 'as usual'?

Not entirely sure a mediaeval monarch of the world's most powerful empire could be accused of collaborating for crumbs! Can't see how Allit was grovelling for male approval, either - if she was, it didn't work.

I wanted examples of mass cruelty, abuse of power, plain malice and incompetence in public office. I gave the examples that first came to mind.
Maybe I should thoroughly research every post I write, being prepared to defend my presentation and provide a full bibliography ...

... That's a really cheap way to avoid recognising the overall point, by the way.

"Actually the incompetencies you describe are incompetencies of people running the world."

LOL you are in denial aren't you.

Most of those people are men.

And Sakura isn't saying that women are never nasty, that's just silly and missing the point.

HB, straight after that i said My feminist issue is: the vast majority of people running the world are men, and that's unfair. There's really no logical reason to assume women would do a better job, but we deserve a fair shot at it. - which may look like denial to you, but it doesn't to me.

If I'm in denial, obviously I won't be able to see what you mean. But I'm listening, if you're telling.

I don't know whether Sakura was saying women are never "nasty" or somebody else was. Life's too short to keep searching 189 posts. This has definitely been said (or even insisted) more than once, though.

My point is that women and men are people. Since I've even been criticised for saying women are people, I'm on the verge of giving up! But, well, I care about feminism and am aware a lot of women who are interested in feminist issues read these threads. So I keep on plugging away.

I might have to give up for a while and re-engage with daily life in the patriarchy - but am still genuinely open to enlightenment on my denial :)

GB, I'm picking you up on it because you talk about the fact that the vast majority of people running the world being men, is somehow incidental, an inexplicable co-incidence, and that it's mroe important that they are people, rather than men.

No, the very fact that they are men, is the important bit of them being people. If they were female people, they wouldn't run the world.

And no-one has ever said that women are never nasty, or never kill or misbehave or whatever. That is the sort of false argument that anti-feminists always put forward and it's just so obvious that no-one reasonable would ever day such a thing, it's wearing to have to keep refuting it. We shouldn't have to be arguing Aunt Sallys with women who say that they're feminists.

We're talking at cross-purposes, I think, HB. No, I don't think it's a quirk of fate that most of the people running the world are men. That's why I'm a feminist.

I don't think the bad things are done by these men because they're men, I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power.

The fact that most of the people doing this are men is reason enough to be a feminist. It doesn't automatically follow that men = bad, abusive, selfish and women = good, compassionate, sharing. You get abusers in every flavour. Abusers like power. When feminism succeeds, I'm pretty sure we'll find lots of atrocities and incompetencies being committed by powerful women.

I do not need to believe that women are somehow better than men, morally or otherwise, to believe we deserve true equality. We deserve it because we are people; are just as clever and capable as the other half of the people.

If I still haven't got any further towards clarifying where I'm coming from and how that sits with your beliefs, it's probably impossible :(

"I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power"

Yes. More often than not those people tend to be men because that's the way most societies have worked.

"It doesn't automatically follow that men = bad, abusive, selfish and women = good, compassionate, sharing."

But you are still arguing against something no-one is asserting.

Also I think you are wrong to believe that when 50% of the world's population have as much power as the other 50%, that their priorities and values won't influence and change the structures and assumptions which currently drive the patriarchy. One of the reasons why industrial carnage exists, is because it comes from a place of terrible injustice. Where there is justice, there is less psychological (and practical) need to persecute people.

I just don't believe that a society with both halves of humanity having power within it, will be one where one half of humanity is still brainwashed by patriarchal notions. I think to have got to the position of having both halves of humanity in charge, those notions would have been ditched generations ago.

I also think you're being unfair to people with power as well tbh. Good people have also made it to positions of power. When power structures don't encourage bad people to get into power, more good people will have power.

As Ormirian said:
"I think bad people have a tendency to get themselves into positions where they can abuse power"

• Yes. More often than not those people tend to be men because that's the way most societies have worked.

I do believe that, when power is evenly distributed between the sexes, their priorities and values will influence and change the structures and assumptions which currently drive the patriarchy. But I don't believe it will mean an end to the incompetencies & atrocities, because I think the drive to abuse is an ungendered human factor.

I take your point, HB, about unjust systems breeding unjust behaviour. Unfortunately I think people will always be unjust, one way or another - I hope I'm wrong. Again, we won't know until we try and I'm very keen to find out.

Of course there are good people in power! I hope I haven't suggested I thought otherwise.

There has been more 'good' people in power than bad people, like the news or even MN the bad news/people always stand out. The problem is (especially in modern times) is that people don't come into power with their bad intentions known. Look at Gaddaffi he came in as some revolutionary for the people at the time he was celebrated now look what he has become.

Bad people will get into power by deception or they may be changed from who they were whilst in that power. At the moment it is easier for men to get into power (slowly changing rate of change varies from country to country) but that does not mean if everything is all 50/50 that bad people won't get into power and they may also be a woman as well, looking at history women leaders have not exactly been all good either.

Unfortunately I think some people will always be unjust, one way or another - I hope I'm wrong

• should have been obv, but just in case

GB and others I wanted to come back on the question of why society doesn't give financial value to people looking after their own children, who should pay for childcare etc.. (before I got distracted by the other wierdness on this thread).

Society doesn't generally and automatically pay people to look after their own children (or to have children in the first place) because it doesn't have to. People will undergo considerable personal cost to have children because they want to (or maybe less consciously their body wants to). It costs them money - expenses, foregone wages and freedom - but it gives them pleasure and fulfillment and they think it's worth it.

As you say government money isn't free money so it isn't obvious at all that taxpayers - low and high income - should pay to compensate all SAHPs.

What they should pay for is keeping families out of dire poverty, because all children deserve a decent upbringing, and ideally they should do it in a way that doesn't trap people in the 'safety net' forever but enables them to become financially independent again.

GB - you were saying (sorry can't find the post) that employers should take more of the burden, and that if employers weren't patriarchal there wouldn't be such a high cost to being a parent. I think this is true to a certain extent - employers overly penalising people taking years away, not being flexible, overly penalising pt work etc...

But there is no getting away from the fact that any time you are engaged in looking after your children you are not at work creating value for other people (and vice versa) and someone has to pay for that. And it goes on for 18 years - everyone thinks of maternity leave and the baby years, but it gets harder once you have school holidays, multiple social lives, homework help to deal with.

If employers had to give everyone lower hours, term time working etc... at the same take home salary it would cost them money - and everything would get more expensive (including the cost of public services) - it would end up with the same result as charging everyone a higher tax. There is no free money either way.

What I do think should happen is that dads should take more equal role in parenting, and employers be more flexible.

Of course there is always room to change policy and shift the balance of who pays for bringing up the next generation between employers (and therefore consumers) tax payers and parents. But I don't think there is a perfect solution with no trade offs.

'It takes a child to raise a village' sounds nice a fluffy, but subsistence villages where that happens are small minded, controlling places (they have to be to be because it's such a hard life). Villages don't raise children and encourage them to follow their dreams they do it so they can start working in the fields.