Feeling conflicted about (childless) man's feminist views on mothering

[NomNomNom]

Hi,

I think this is one of my first forays into the feminist section, although I've been lurking. I was hoping to get your balanced and reasonable views on this.

Basically, I don't know what to think about this - my personal pissed-offness is clashing with my political views, I think.

I have this colleague who is in his mid-20s (I'm slightly older), childless, very well-educated, very right-on, yet he seems inexperienced in real-life matters. I don't like him for various reasons that are not really relevant. Mostly that he expresses vaguely political views when it helps him impress people in positions of power at work, but doesn't really know a lot about the actual issues and seems to put it on a bit.

Today he posted a video on Facebook of a kind of spoken-word performance by a young female poet/stand-up that was all about the physical changes motherhood brings and how women are great, strong etc for what they go through during pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding. It was a great poem, I really like it, and it expresses many things I think as well.

But somehow I'm really pissed off that this guy has posted it. He has nothing to do with children. He'll never go through those experiences himself. I often think he jumps on political bandwagons, so I don't know if my discomfort is to do with that.

I think if a dad had posted the video, I would have thought how lucky his partner is.

But somehow, a childless (privileged) guy doing it makes me angry. I've always been a feminist, but only found feminist approaches to mothering and the whole mothering/motherhood distinction a little while after my daughter was born. Reading blogs about feminist mothering, Adrienne Rich etc. really helped me to make sense of my situation and feelings, some of it was so eye-opening and just amazing. I really like how other mothers seem to experience the same issues as me and then write about it in a thoughtful and concise way, taking apart the challenges - it seems like a kind of almost intimate community of mothers (that sounds completely wanky and essentialist, I know!). I don't know how to explain it. So somehow, I just get the sense that this guy I know is 'doing' feminism in an almost consumerist way, putting it on - because feminist views on mothering have nothing to do with his life, so why is he posting about that?

I have to admit that I occasionally feel slightly conflicted about aspects of my feminism - e.g. the whole question of whether men can be feminists (though I read a great explanation regarding how one can perceive feminism as either shared political aims or shared experience). I'm still on the fence when it comes to those 2 views, but I suppose for me feminist approaches to motherhood are rooted in shared experience, and this guy does not share it, so he should butt out.

But on the other hand, more men should admire women for the strength involved in making a person and nurturing them, so… I just don't know!!

But you responses aren't all about feelings. You have advocated a position about how allies should not behave (thus you've taken a moral stance). You haven't just discussed the fact that you are annoyed.

"If I had anal incontinence after having children, I would not want to see a male childless fit young man re-posting, like an approving authority, a poem about bodily changes after having children. Maybe someone on his feed does have anal incontinence. Maybe several have poor body image or in fact are suffering material disadvantages because their "poor" appearance has reduced the salary they can command. Or perhaps they "just" feel humiliated. Anyway it is tactless and inappropriate, and it is fine to feel it so, and it is absolutely fine to reflect upon it and express it, and every mealy mouthed approach towards the "even handed" is just discrediting these valid feelings as less important than this little squirt's "right" to take up other people's headspace"
This is the heart of it for me. If I had cancer and was feeling shit, I may not want to read an inspiring tale of a stranger who had beaten cancer, posted by a FB friend of mine. But should my FB friend forbear from posting? Is it annoying or tactless of them to post? My answers remain no and no. Indeed lots of the internet is explicitly constructed around this kind of sharing, eg BuzzFeed. I just don't see how they are annoying or tactless or inappropriate. Humans like to tell stories and listen to stories, both their own and those of others. I find the world a richer place for it

I find the implicit censorship worrying. Men can't post information by women, for women. Non-parents can't post information for parents.

Society is meant to be getting more open & accepting, except here it would appear.

Like an approving authority - that's a pedestal you put him on BTW...

I really do think this is a classic "non issue", OP doesn't like the man, fair enough. Does that mean everything he does is wrong by default?

Real Life - No

MN - Apparently so.

I really don't like the idea that the validity of one's opinion should be governed by their gonads - that's pretty much the opposite of what I think feminism aims for.

If only a woman should have a valid opinion on issues affecting women, that would mean that the opinion of a woman who is fiercely anti-choice should be regarded higher than that of a man who is in support of women's right to choose what happens to their body. Surely that's bonkers?

Buffy - by "anti-choice" I mean those who seek to restrict the right to choose for everyone. You know the people who harass women going to abortion clinics, campaign for the restriction of abortion rights etc.

I do not mean those who have chosen for themselves not to abort as a personal decision without wishing to force everyone else to make the same choice.

I've never heard of pro-choicers wishing to impose a choice onto a women, "choice" being the key word here.

So would a woman who strongly believes no woman should have the right to abort a pregnancy have a more valid opinion than a man who believes every woman should have the right to do whatever the fuck she wants with her body?

I don't see a dilemma, because I don't think that you need to be a woman to have a valid opinion.

Buffy - do you think the man, in the OP, sharing the video is giving an opinion?

Buffy - sorry, but I don't follow that argument. Of course nobody is that nobody has more of a right to decide what happens to a woman's body than that woman herself.

It doesn't matter whether that anybody else is a woman, a man, or velociraptor (male or female). No man should tell that woman what to do, but likewise no woman should tell her what to do, and she shouldn't butt out any less than a male. Why should she? It doesn't hinge on sex or gender, but on the fact that they're not the person who has to make the decision and live with the consequences. Are infertile women's opinions less valid too?

I do get that opinions are often informed by (lack of) experience, and this could and should be explored in an argument, but it doesn't follow that they should be dismissed outright. Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are able to empathise/think abstractly/be able to explore various positions and their consequences?

I'd be rightly fucked off if someone dismissed my opinion on any topic based on the fact that I'm a woman. So it'd be hypocritical if I'd dismissed someone's opinion on any topic based on the fact that they're not a woman.

With the abortion debate, I think perhaps women opposed to choice about abortion (or pregnancy more widely) should be engaged with differently to men. There have been links on this board in the past showing that women who are opposed to abortion are more likely to have an abortion. There is an issue there that they may have abortions because they are lacking the social, emotional or economic support to continue with the pregnancy due to the conservative views of friend and families. As a consequence I feel other women have to engage with them in a way where they don't feel we are the enemy, so they are more likely to approach services and reach out for support rather than make a clandestine decision in a situation of isolation.

And I think that the views of men differ in reception based on who they are. I am going to feel differently about a man whose wife died when she was denied an abortion, a male doctor who carries out abortions when he puts his own well being at risk from protestors and a man who is pro choice about abortion but not about pregnant women in a wider sphere. And perhaps that is the view of the OP - that her willingness to listen to the opinions of the man in question are skewed by his prior behaviour, and that even when he posts something she agrees with, his reasons for posting that and his interpretation of it may be wildly different to hers.

On a different topic, Robert Jensen has said, when confronted with the views of 'sex positive' women on porn, that he cannot tell a woman what is an authentic sexuality for her as an individual, and while it may be an authentic representation of female sexuality for some women, it is not authentic to most women but is viewed as being so (or words to that effect). I can't see an issue with that. If a man like Jensen has spent a good proportion of his career listening to women (and POC) and researching the issues, it shouldn't be that his opinion is invalidated by some women who disagree, or that he should stop speaking about the issue.

"I'd be rightly fucked off if someone dismissed my opinion on any topic based on the fact that I'm a woman. So it'd be hypocritical if I'd dismissed someone's opinion on any topic based on the fact that they're not a woman."

No no no, this is exactly the sort of faux-"equality", faux-"logical" thinking we have to get away from. If we internalise this nonsense we are fighting handicapped.

Men dismissing women's opinions because they are women - a state of affairs with a long, dishonourable history directly related to men controlling all important decisions, including those directly concerned with the bodies of women. Usually backed up with spurious self-seeking "logic" and "scientific facts" about "weak female brains", hysteria, irrationality, emotional dispositions etc

Women dismissing men's opinions because they are men - usually seen where a woman is attempting to preserve her own, and other women's, autonomy with respect to their own bodies. Often related to direct physical experience of the matter at hand, eg "when you have to get up 6 times a night, then you can have an opinion on breastfeeding"; "When you have to carry a baby inside you for 9 months, and then risk injury or death bearing it, then you can have an opinion on abortion".

These two cases are not remotely equivalent and we have to get out of this "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" trap because it is inhibiting our ability to see things clearly, and more importantly, fight for justice.

It's like this - suppose your parents gave you and your brother equal sized bedrooms (and then went on a long holiday and were totally unavailable for appeals to justice). Then your brother decided to annex part of yours for his massive scalextric. You are much smaller than him and afraid he will hit you if you oppose, so you put up with it, having no choice. Then you have a massive growth spurt and get some confidence and decide you want this space back, or at least some of it, because you want to take up painting and have nowhere to put a painting table or an easel. Conscious that the balance of power has shifted slightly, but not sure to what extent, he feels he should look as if he is negotiating with you, but doesn't actually want to give anything up. He says "I will give you 4 square feet for painting, but in return you have to take all your books off the shelves by your bed and I am going to put my stuff on them. This is a fair swap."
If you have any sense you can see perfectly well that this is not a fair swap. So please can we stop talking in terms of these awful bullshit equivalence arguments they keep using on us!

Your simile doesn't remotely make sense, and I really don't see the point in a separatist approach, which does nothing but alienate those who are actually on the side of women.

I think you are confused about what separitist means in this context. What do you think it means?
Why does my simile not make sense? What are the key points of difference?
You don't think we should alienate men. How is politely waiting fir them to be fair working out for us?

So within your sibling allegory, Dusk, what does she do next? Continue to negotiate? Take the offer, then go back for more? Or twat him on the nose? What is your strategy for her gaining what she is entitled to?

To go back to the sibling allegory, wouldn't be a feminist man represented by the brother say "I hear what you're saying, sister, and fully support your claim?" I've not come across a man calling himself a feminist who wouldn't fully support total equality/would look to maintain privilege.

As for "You don't think we should alienate men. How is politely waiting fir them to be fair working out for us?" - that's a false dichotomy. The third (and in my opinion most likely to succeed) way is to collaborate. Neither alienate, nor wait for them to sort it out. But work together, and for that you need to acknowledge their input, too.

If you want to manage change you need to get your stakeholders on your side. You can't do that by telling them to shut up, because they've had their say for too long. That way a) you never get the necessary buy in to generate the momentum to successfully effect lasting change and b) you might miss out on some valuable input which may help driving your aims forward.

Sorry, to be clear on what I meant by the sibling analogy - I was looking at the generality of men and women; not at this particular chap or any particular (real or soi disant) pro feminist man.

the reason why I was looking at the generality is because that is how Widow expressed it, as a general rule, in

"I'd be rightly fucked off if someone dismissed my opinion on any topic based on the fact that I'm a woman. So it'd be hypocritical if I'd dismissed someone's opinion on any topic based on the fact that they're not a woman."

Obviously, in any given case with individuals, there are many reasons why they should be having heard as having a point or not.

As general principles, as expressed by Widow, she is assuming an equivalence, a symmetry, between men in general, and women in general, which is false, which does not exist, and the bedroom analogy was supposed to illustrate why.

there is actually a crashing assumption as one of the premises, as expressed in the analogy, which is that there is some sort of "state of natural fairness" (which has been lost) - that girl and the boy were given equality to start with. I am ok with that. I know that some anti-feminists, certain sort of right wingers or evo relgious types maybe, would counter that and say things like "but women naturally need less space then men" or "women's role is to support men in their enveavours, so they don't need space for their own endeavours". I think that is rubbish, on a deep level of natural law or natural justice, and I am happy to state that clearly.

anyway in response to this chap, or young men like him, and how they should be pro-feminist, my personal - very personal and not a prescription - views are:

as stated above they should be non-sexist in their own family and work dealings
eg - if they work they should actively work against women being treated as assistants (not enough not to go with the flow)
and argue against knee-jerk sentiments expressed by others about the roles of parents (women and men) while working (eg not let it go by when someone says about a person coming back from mat leave "she won't want that big project, she's a mum now" or tutting about women leaving on time)

actively challenge misogyny expressed socially amongst men (including or especially "jokes", especially rape "jokes")

actively work towards taking a genuinely equal part in all domestic work (with sisters, friends, housemates etc) - which means not sitting back and accepting that left to its own devices the women around you will will probably do more if you are man*

Shutting up when women want to talk about women's stuff and listening

With the really heavy stuff like FGM - financially support agencies working against this

*this one looks trivial but I think it is the one that most well meaning men are worst at and the area in which they can be most angrily reluctant to give up their privilege. They should not allow themselves to accept the status quo under which they materially benefit from women's labour.
and this is an example which illustrates that to draw an equivalence between men and women is wrong. A woman doing housework is not a feminist act. Even when done to prevent some other woman from having to do it, it is kind, but not feminist (not anti-feminist - I am just saying not actively feminist). Because it is still women-doing-housework, which is the patriarchy-approved status quo. A man doing housework - especially when specifically to stop some woman from having to do it - can be a pro-feminist act if done in the understanding of how women's labour is traditionally taken for granted and contributing his own labour in an attempt to redress the balance.

this is just one example of why men and women are so differently politically placed that "if right for x, then right for y" just doesn't apply when you try to do this for men and women

"she is assuming an equivalence, a symmetry, between men in general, and women in general, which is false, which does not exist, and the bedroom analogy was supposed to illustrate why."

Nope, I assume that opinions should be scrutinised on their own merit and not because of who voiced them.

Compare

"I'm a woman and I think women adhere to traditional gender roles"

and

"I'm a woman and think women should not be restricted by traditional gender roles, but be allowed to make their own choices"

with

"I'm a man and I think women adhere to traditional gender roles"

and

"I'm a man and think women should not be restricted by traditional gender roles, but be allowed to make their own choices"

By your argument, both opinions are equally valid if argued by a woman, and equally invalid if argued by a man. I really can't see how that makes sense.

Duskandshiver, as me and in my experience most people on mn are white British, we shouldn't' be linking to your post or discussing fgm, just listening to women from other ethnic groups talk about it. So how are we meant to tell men they should be doing this? As men are not allowed to talk about it either, they won't be able to tell each other.

Freya: I didn't say talk about FGM, I said financially support agencies who are combatting it.

I would think those who don't have personal experience of it would have the sense to shut up about it in the presence of those who are closer to it. Please tell me this is true.

Widow - nonsense. I didn't say anything about what does have equivalence. I talked a lot about what doesn't.

I didn't make any value judgements about the content of what people say, more on who gets to hog the air waves on what topics.

I give up. Surely you are both winding me up with all this? Surely it is not that hard? I feel incredibly guilty now about saying something unacceptably rude to someone on another thread who, it seemed to me at the time, couldn't read, but if you aren't winding me up then.... I guess this is what people are like

Duskandshiver, obviously I don't have the common sense not to talk about fgm; I just mentioned it in a post after you brought the topic up.

Why would I wind you up? I have a feminist piston.g history. I am asking you these question.s because I usually respect your opinion on other issues but think what you ate saying is unethical towards women. Alll your points about systemic inequalities in discussions make sense, but to use that to defend the idea that 'allies' should not link to people talking about their own experiences of discrimination is damaging to feminist, racial equality and gay rights activists. Most activists want their work to be linked to, spread and talked about.

Thanks for saying you usually respect my opinion!

there is a bit of category confusion, I think, in this discussion, in that I think I am being very confusing if people think I am handing down a Legalistic Position on How Allies Should Behave Against Those Primarily Concerned. I am more talking about how not to be an annoying knob (to me), which is not at all the same.

And another confusion in that I think we should distinguish between goal-based activism and like-minded people chewing the fat (not that the latter is not productive, but it is discursive and internal and often about people finding their own way to their own positions, rather than speaking from the pulpit).

For goal-based activism, I would have much more sympathy for some enthusiast being a little callow, slightly misjudging the tone. Whatever. he means well, he is putting his shoulder to the wheel, we all make mistakes.

for the discursive, internal stuff, I think he needs to go through that process among people at a more similar stage to him, experientially. I think he should listen, when with people who know more about having babies; and ramble on about the issues in private. Rambling on facebook is not on when it is about women's bodies. Childbirth changes are painful. and personal. and a person who wrote a poem about them is presumably ok with taking it all out in the open, and I admire that, but I don't think I want to see that with a smirking young man's gloss on it.

In the post yesterday I mentioned day to day stuff like housework. I would absolutely love to know what his girlfriend, sisters, or female housemates think about whether he does his fair share. There is a very strong likelihood that if he is against the oppression of women he should get off facebook and clean the kitchen. I don't know the guy - this may be unfair - it's just a thought. just a possibility

Dusk - do you honestly think the man in the OP was (a) 'rambling' or (b) 'smirking'? Or are you projecting that because of his gender?
How would you feel if the poet asked a man to record her performance, would that make it wrong for you?

Why would the woman do that? what is the point of that counterfactual? A performed poem is a personal thing in which the poet is usually heavily and personally invested in the delivery. Yes it is logically possible that that could happen, but why would it, and what is the need to discuss it until we know who did it, and why?

I think he sounds like a massive arse and I want the (long gone, bored) OP to make some clever enquiries about whether he leaves pots in the sink for other people to wash up.

I am quite old now and one thing that really bugs me is young men patronising me (I am 42, so a fair number of men I meet at work are younger than me). I am small with a high voice and have been patronised all my life. When men who are about 25 do it, I really want to pull some Wodehouse-style-Aunt-Agatha shit on them. This sounds like that kind of guy.