'Shattered' - Rebecca Asher

[philbee]

Has anyone read this? I am halfway through and find it alternately inspiring and enraging. I find the stuff about sharing work and childcare very interesting. But am feeling frustrated by the emphasis on working, and returning to work in a career, as somehow more valid than childcare. I can't work out whether it's worse to have submitted to patriarchal gender roles by being the main career and taking a much more junior part time job, or whether it would have been worse to return to a job I hated and in which I was very stressed and unhappy. It seems like Asher is advocating work for work's sake, almost. Any other opinions? As I said, I'm only halfway through.

Sounds interesting ....

I read 'Shattered' several months ago, think it was my first 'feminist motherhood' read.

I don't remember feeling enraged by it, found it interesting as I recall. I'm currently on holiday but will check back on this thread in about a week once back - will try and track down the book and refresh my memory, especially now I have been reading with a more feminist eye for a few months.

Blimey. That's a bit harsh.

When I had my kids the midwives on the post natal ward did breast feeding advice and showed you how to do the first bath. Plus the HV came round afterwards for a fair amount of hand holding, checking we were bonding and I was feeling alright and gave advice on sleeping, feeding and suchlike. Should they just have just told me if I wasn't ready to be a mum without any support or advicet I shouldn't have had been having vaginal sex?!

I haven't read the book yet, so may be barking up the wrong tree, but 'that's their job' is kinda my point. HVs (and MWs to a lesser extent) do give post natal emotional support and practical advice to new parents, mainly mums (at least they did when I had mine... I hope it's not all been lost to the cuts).

I didn't think HVs are there because people assume you 'can't be a mum' without a special woman to hold your hand, but some support can be helpful. I don't think that's pathetic.

Ah, fair enough. I better go read the book

I didn't read it like that. I thought she was saying that the whole focus of antenatal support and information, including stuff you buy, websites, statutory support etc., is on the mother, and that sets a precedent for the mother being the primary carer which is then continued after the birth because of the emphasis on breastfeeding, parental leave conditions, childcare etc. I thought she was saying that if fathers were more involved from the beginning then they would have more of a bond with the child and more confidence in caring for it later on. I don't have a problem with all that really. I'm not sure what I was enraged about, but I do feel like she makes no distinction between parents caring for their children and some parents wanting to do that, and children being professionally cared for. It's as if she's talking about a puzzle which could be solved without taking into account parents' own preferences about whether they want to be at home with their children or whether they want them to be in childcare.