Can you be a feminist but be anti maternity leave etc

[BaresarkBunny]

Although I have children I often take a peek at the #childfree on Twitter.

One of the popular discussions at the moment is that maternity leave should be abolished as it is unfair to those without children and mothers should use holiday time.

One of the most prominent posters who believes this says on her bio that she is a feminist but is also anti breastfeeding in public and how mothers are a drain when working, as well as other anti-mother sentiments.

Can somebody with views like this count herself as a feminist?

That would require Xenia remembering that oft-mislead human characteristic of empathy.

I've been a SAHM for 6 years, in fact for about 18 months before that as I had such a tough time with pregnancy and losing my first baby. I now have three children and one of the way, I love it! I've never had PND.

I'd love to see this research that all SAHMs have PND!

Very well said about maternity leave being in the best interest of the baby summerflower. Yes confuddled I'd like to see the research too, because frankly I woudl have been a gibbering fucking wreck if for financial reasons I had been separated from my babies before I was ready.

I did a quick search and there seem to be masses of links to studies that housewives are more depressed than working mothers
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9381449/Stay-at-home-mothers-more-unhappy-than-those-who-work.html

Also the 7% of children at private schools get 50%+ of the best university places so as a mother if you work and pay school fees you confer absolutely massive life long advantage on your child. Throw those aprons down today and get back to work for the sake of your children never mind your own mental health.

Xenia you are clearly an educated person - that link is not great "research" is it?

I've heard it a lot that children with working mothers do better educationally. I've also heard that they do worse emotionally. So we can't win.

The woman the OP was quoting sounds like a total shit either way.

Xenia Sun 02-Dec-12 09:52:32

Why do posters usually housewives take a post of mine saying something like - on the whole more children of working mothers do better as there is more money around or on the whole working mothers are better educated and then pretend I have said "all" housewives are XYZ? Can't they read? Working mothers don't seem to make those mistakes.

Ermm, exact equivalent to how you misread my post. Please don't make the same mistakes you criticise others of making.

I don't know (or particularly care) about whether SAHMs are more depressed/have less well educated offspring. These are just statistical associations not inevitabilities (common mistake made when interpreting these sorts of figures).

Mums can inspire daughters in ways other than not being there and working. Working means compromising your time to a degree, it isn't possible to do it all. I personally find working mums don't have time to read and reflect - debates are not so rich and fulfilling. There are plenty of positives to being engaged but not at the work place and I'm sure children are enriched by this.

I don't see an "on the whole" anywhere in your posts on this thread, Xenia. For example, "The ones at home have the PND."

Ah, shit. You know what I forgot to do recently? I forgot to boast about my three degrees (in English, or 'reading', if you're Xenia or like nice simple words) and make myself look like an arrogant twit.

Oh well, all in the service of humanity.

xenia, loads of people who're perfectly well educated and not housewives disagree with you. Loads of people who are housewives also disagree, and they have just as much right to speak as you do. Trying to make people feel inferior by commenting on their education is low - if you were really that eloquent, or had any sort of good point, you wouldn't need to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is badly educated.

You know what I notice about MN? I have absolutely no clue how 'well' or 'badly' educated most posters are, and whether they're housewives or SAHMs or work in all sorts of exciting or intelligent jobs. I only find out when it comes up in conversation, because there are hundreds of posters on MN who post as if they had several higher degrees ... they don't, they're just intelligent women who've educated themselves, know what they're talking about, and know how to express themselves.

Sadly, you're not one of them. You're turning into a caricature with all this repetitive sniping at 'housewives'. It is very obvious you are doing it simply to hurt people, and to make yourself feel better.

As doctrine points out, you lied about your own post - or 'misrepresented' if you prefer that - and then accused others of not being educated enough to read correctly. Please, go back to your child's primary school teacher and ask for a basic lesson in reading comprehension, since you obviously value formal education and obviously need it.

It seems to me that the SAHM and depression argument misses the point.

Someone on maternity leave, for however long, is not a SAHM, they are a member of the (paid) working population exercising their statutory right to leave after the birth of their child. This is a different proposition to someone who is no longer in the workplace, and has different social implications.

There is evidence (Journal of Mental Health policy and Economics, 15 (2), 61 - 76, 2012 June) to suggest that 'for mothers who worked prior to childbirth and who return to work in the first year, having less than 12 weeks maternal leave and having less than 8 weeks of paid leave is associated with a reduction in overall health status' - the paper discussed mental and physical health. I also found a couple of other papers, which had similar findings, but this is the most recent.

Interestingly, this article still couches the findings in terms of the health of the child, because it starts and finishes by saying that full-time maternal employment in the first year of life is detrimental to children's health, cognitive development and behavioural development, and it also says in the policy implications bit that the mother's health and well-being is an important route through which children are affected. So, the feminist argument would be why on earth is it not enough to make an argument about women's health for there to be policy implications? It's still because it affects children.

And this is where I think you might find an explanation for the depression in SAHMs, namely the lack of value accorded to women as mothers in and of themselves. The link which Xenia posted was all about the stress which women feel to be 'perfect parents', that mothering should be child-centred and the children seen as sacred and fulfilling. Where's the woman in this?

I personally find working mums don't have time to read and reflect - debates are not so rich and fulfilling.

That's really interesting summer, and it sounds logical, doesn't it, that PND might be related to how people treat you as much as what you see as your 'job title'.

I suppose also, frankly, if you have severe PND, how likely is it that you're fit to work and merrily getting down to it?! Surely a lot of the women xenia claims to know about, who're working mothers and don't have PND, are simply those lucky enough not to have got it and who're therefore able to work?

Quick post because I'm not used to my new phone yet apologies in advance

a. before havingchildren I havesuffered with my mental health all my life, so for about a quarter of my life (including the loss of my first daughter) I have been a SAHM and my mental health has been stable.

b. even if I worked we wouldn't. afford to pay for private school without finishing education first which would take until it was too late for most of my children anyway!

Summerflower - I can see how my pov is probably a bit hurtful (though this is my truthful opinion, I did mainly say it to counteract Xenia's pov that SAHM are impoverished). My greater point from this is that it isn't a simple choice between working and staying at home - both ways of life bring advantages and disadvantages to the family.

Until I started writing the post I hadn't even formed the idea but now it seems obvious to me: working mums can't do it all. For example, I have a dear friend who has a very charged work life - she's very much into attachment parenting etc and declares she is doing it all. But I know that isn't true - she's a great naturalist but never goes out birdwatching for pleasure anymore and grows very little in the garden. I know if she was a SAHM she would do these things a lot more and include her children. It's no criticism of her approach - perhaps it's true she's inspiring her children to work and earn more...but surely at the cost of enthusing them less about nature.

So what does it all come down to? What you value more as a parent and who you are as an individual. I'm sure some people are a whole lot more interesting after getting out and working in a mixed workplace all day - more relaxed and mentally stimulated. I'm equally sure some people find a whole lot to stimulate them if they stay at home and find the slower pace/less hassle/no politics of the home extremely restful.

I think it's becoming obvious Xenia is a real person only in the way that Liz Jones in the Daily Mail is a real person. She's presenting an exaggerated caricature of herself to provide 'entertainment' for the rest of us. None of her arguments hold water, or indeed are even vaguely relevant to the vast majority of the population. To say that mothers need to work so that their children can benefit from private schooling is denying the reality of life in this country. Less than 10% of jobs pay over £50,000 a year which would be the minimum you would need after tax to privately educate 2 kids and pay for childcare. It's not open to everyone, regardless of whether 2 parents are working or not.

LeBFG, I was reacting to your comment about the way working mums posted - without having time to read and reflect, that is all. I'd like to think that most people do read and reflect on the threads they comment on, they might just comment on fewer. I tend to spend quite a bit of time reflecting on issues I comment on, I just don't comment that much! So, yes, I find it a bit hurtful to say that working mums don't contribute to a rich debate. I can see where that comment comes from, but surely meeting someone on their own level is not enriching things either.

To the rest of your clarification, I don't think that working mums can have it all, and definitely they can't do it all. I see on a day to day basis how having a job and looking after the DCs (80% of the time myself as Dh is away) affects my mental and physical health. It also affects my children, but the choice is really whether it would affect DD more to remove her from her school, her friends and her father (not DH, her dad left when she was a baby) to go and live with DH, to be financially dependent on him, when I have had the experience of being left to bring up a child myself, or whether to stay where we are and try and make it work, in the hope that DH might move here at some point. Hobson's choice.

But to get back to the point of the thread, one of the articles I looked at suggested that the risk of depression depended on the gap between your ideal situation (work/parenting balance) and what you had. The bigger the gap, the higher the risk of depression. That makes sense to me.

Summer - I'm not talking about working mums posting on MN - I'm talking about RL conversations/debates! It's clear to me that if you work you have less time to read about current affairs, read less books, watch less documentaries etc. OTOH I would expect them to have more of a working knowledge in specific areas eg. teachers will know more about Gove's policies, but have less breadth. If that offends, well, it's just my opinion.

I suppose I also wanted to emphasis that whilst working mums don't/can't have it all, neither can SAHM. Both choices have costs/benefits so ultimately what's right for some one person is just personal preference. I prefer to have less money but spend more time with my DS, whereas Xenia wants security from money at the expense of spending less time with her kids. That's all fine. And as you say in your last paragraph, makes sense.

I think I misunderstood your comment about reading and reflecting then, as I read it in the context of the thread. No worries. I don't think we really disagree that much!

'well, if breeding is optional and we all decide not to do it she'll have problems collecting her pension in a few years time, won't she ?'

Breeding IS optional- surely that's the whole point of feminism??? Women should not be penalised for having children- or for not having children.
It's very unlikely- and shows an incredibly jaundiced view of parenthood- that people only have children because they have no choice, or want to pay their pensions

Breeding is optional at the individual level, but if everyone in society decided not to have children there'd be very little point to the feminist utopia we might thereby create.

I don't think that's the whole point of feminism, btw, but if you do fair enough.

How likely is it really that EVERYONE would stop breeding ??????? I have never understood this idea that give women choice- they will all stop. There will always be women who want children, and they should be supported.
But choice over fertility and control over one's bits is a vital part of feminism