Germaine Greer doesn't agree with David Furnish being named as 'mother' on birth certificate

[Athenaviolet]

And neither do I!

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/germaine-greer-slams-elton-john-5758530?ICID=FB_mirror_main

Is the word 'mother' just meaningless now?

I didn't even realise this was legally possible.

thumb exactly that's why I posted here.

at least Elton and David's kids have two I object to the insinuation here that 2 parents are better than one.

Lass c sections are more dangerous for mothers in the UK (would have to check up on stats for other developed countries but imagine it's the same) than vaginal births. C sections are usually done for the foetus's benefit not the mother's.

As others have said language is important. A rich white powerful privileged man co opting the use of a word until now the sole preserve of biological females is a significant political act which minimises the role of the actual mother (s) of these children and has a role in pushing society to a place where mothers are even more undervalued than they already are.

I had an "enforcer" mother and a nurturing Dad. They both worked but Dad got me up and made my breakfast every day.

Dad/father should be what you make it. No one should be hidebound by gender stereotyping.

Was my mum my father?

He isn't claiming to be a mother though, so I don't really understand a lot of the grievances with this.

There are only two slots for the parents names on a birth certificate and unfortunately in this country one of those slots is titled 'mother'.

I strongly believe this should be changed, as it has in other contries, to say 'parent 1' 'parent 2' and then maybe an option for 'relationship to the child' ie, mother/father/surrogate/other.

I imagine fathers in DG & EJ's situation aren't exactly thrilled about the fact that they have to be listed as 'mother' on their DCs BC as they aren't a mother.

I also don't understand why so many are getting offended by the suggestion that a man may want to be referred to as a mother, it's only a word, a title, a term of endearment.

lass here's some evidence from Canada re risks to mothers of elcs xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23009980/1656081415/name/ARPH+morbidity+cesarean+Canada+2007.pdf

Imo there should be a record of the genetic patents, a record of the gestating mother and a record of the people after the birth who are committing to raising the child.

I agree with Athenaviolet - the birth certificate needs to be updated and dragged into the 21st century, otherwise it's just a piece of paper where anyone can fill in any of the blanks....

Plus, while there are probably not many health effects from any inadvertent incest, and the chances are tiny, the mental effects could be quite devastating.

Dione, if you read my post again you'll see that I wasn't accusing anyone here of fetishising anything; I was criticising the fertility industry and questioning the lengths people will go to to ensure a genetic connection.

Orlando why don't you ask one of your friends? Or one of us on here?

If someone is filling a role that normally has a gender attached we are just being heteronormative if we dislike the concept.

No, we're not. You have inverted the situation.

It's not about 'filling a role'. The role is 'parenting'. It has gender attached because our society is sexist (as well as heteronormative), so idiots thinking mothering requires different skills from fathering. And then they slap on some nice gendered discrimination against those associated with 'mothering'.

Please tell me what it is you think men lack to such an extreme degree, that they cannot provide the same nurture or emotion women can, for their children?

They can't breastfeed. Nor can some women. That's pretty much it, post-birth. So to say that they are 'mothers' if they act a certain way is absurdly sexist.

it does kind of seem that words mean what you want them to mean

I wonder why a man would want to identify himself as mother?

I know several lesbian mothers, none call themselves the dad

The idea that motherhood is only attached to a set of behaviours rather than an identity attached to a female parent is a bit weird and heteronormative

Is it terrible that David Furnish naming himself 'mother' reminds me of immortal Monty Python moment? s

Link fail!

"The idea that motherhood is only attached to a set of behaviours rather than an identity attached to a female parent is a bit weird and heteronormative"

yy this- and other posters who said it too, but easier to c/p this one on my phone!

That said, the specific Furnish example doesn't bother me. Whether it's to do with forms or because he personally wants to be called 'Mother' I see it as a personal quirk and not really any of my business. There are rich white men making far more damaging claims and decisions about parenting and motherhood all the time and in this case because it's a celebrity AND because it's 'weird' (and let's look at why it's newsworthy, and consider whether perhaps the people who consider it so are more at fault here- 'oooER he wants to be a mother how bizarre') it's being covered.

Not to say there aren't valid points about sharing traditional 'motherhood' roles leading, in a lot of cases, to women getting more and more of the shit end. I think that's absolutely the case, the way it is/was with employment stuff. But I really don't think that's the fault of or even related to whether David Furnish put a name in a box labelled 'mother'.

If you are a mother, society views you differently and more barriers appear. Work and the way mothers are perceived by employees being one. Fathers don't have those barriers.

The roles should be the same. To be a parent to your child. The status in society of mothers and fathers is different.

For posters who don't see the (mis) use of language by a rich white privileged man (ie the most powerful group in society) as an issue how do you feel about all the negative words that women used to be routinely referred to (bird, chick, spinster, dame, to name a few) that feminists have fought against?

If language isn't important then why don't we go back to calling illegitimate DCs 'bastards'?

Of course language is important. And the way those at the top like DF & EJ use it filters down through society. For them to be saying that anyone can use the word 'mother' the words ceases to have any meaning as a descriptor of a female who has donated an egg, gestated or raised a DC. Which paves the way for a society of no mothers at all. If we get to the point of artificial wombs and powerful men like these start using these technologies, as it seems they would, then at what point does the ruling elite decide that society no longer needs women/mothers at all?

Very scary stuff.

Yes, orlando, I said that upthread.

But sausage suggested that if the role is gendered, it is heteronormative to object to gender-flipping. Which it isn't: it merely reifies the gendered nature of the role we call 'mother'. It does nothing to address the social status issue at all.

Oh I definitely do see language as important. But this one case of someone's private life, possibly necessitated by documents, doesn't bother me. That really is just me though, I'm not saying anyone who does mind is wrong.

However - I don't see 'mother' as a belittling term like your other examples- this is sort of a reverse on that, and I'm not really sure where I stand on the use of positive female terms for men tbh, I guess I need to have a think about it. I don't think I feel it will lead to the extermination of women though!

As a woman who likely won't have a child, I am very keen on 'woman' having a worth and meaning outside motherhood, so that might be colouring my views too.

Why not do away with the terms mother and father completely and just use "parent"?

The status of mothers and fathers in society is different. I think mothers are held in higher regard, generally atm, but I think it's soon to be a thing of the past, and parents will be held in equal regard.

I wish I could feel that optimistic, lynette, but I don't.

I think Greer has a point that women's reproductive capacity is being exploited quite badly at the moment.

This is the feminism board, yes? The issue is not about the child having parents, adopted, biological or whatever - the issue as I see it is that a man (DF) is trying to take a title that technically can only belong to a woman. I'm pretty sure that's why it's been posted in here and not in AIBU.

It's happened already. The battle was over before it was even held.

Even if birth certificates are redesigned, mothers are now optional, wombs are commodities. It's done.

I should say regardless of whether birth certificates are redesigned...

I see no problem in having "parent 1" and "parent 2" on the form; and possibly even "biological mother" for the sake of those who want to know their genetic lineage (or at least half of it). It seems very old-fashioned to still stick with "mother" and "father" when other options are quite common now.

Mothers are not held in higher regard (in our society) at all. They are vilified by large sections of the press for any and all decisions / family set-ups they are involved in. Fathers do not face this. And if they are a good parent they get praise heaped upon them, it is expected of women to be a certain way, and there is little help for those who struggle with it.

In our society mothers used to not have any "rights" to their children, then women and the children belonged to the man. This is still the case in some societies.

The thing is that for centuries men have sought to control women, through a variety of means detrimental to women, in order to control procreation. If men can procreate with no link to women at all, then for ones of that mindset it will be a right result. Use the women as brood mares and then have the children for themselves.

The disconnect of the word "mother" from anything to do with the female biological process that produces children is problematical. In a similar way that the removal of the word "woman" from anything to do with the female biological systems is problematical. In sexist societies how can it be otherwise. Women often don't have much, and are kept around for the things they are deemed to be useful for - sex with heterosexual men and having children. Start to cut pieces of that out and why are they needed? And yes I know it sounds extreme but in the Nepal situation we have newborn babies being airlifted out with their male parents and the women who just gave birth to them left in god only knows what situation. Disposable, I guess, which is poverty for you, but when that person's just grown a whole life inside them to be left by the people you grew it for just feels quite wrong. Because women have always been disposable haven't they, only important for breeding, historically and in many cultures. There are problems here, I think.

I think Greer has a point that women's reproductive capacity is being exploited quite badly at the moment.

I completely agree.

I also think that many of the public discussions around reproduction and parenthood have swung too far towards prioritising the rights of adults over the rights of children.

I don't give a toss whether people have sex with other people of the same gender or the opposite gender. I 100%support gay marriage. But I do not agree that everyone has an equal right to parent a child. Being a parent to a child you did not genetically create is a privilege, not a right.

I think the current focus on the rights of wealthy white males is at the expense of the a child's right to know who their genetic parents are, and also at the expense of less wealthy women.

Calling yourself a mother when you are a man is insulting. It denies and obscures the woman who contributed the genetic material without which no new life can exist. A child can have a biological mother and/or a surrogate mother, but not a mother who is a man. That would be a father.

The problem is that the consequences and meaning for women globally of having their maternity demoted are far more profound than similar sidelining would be for men.

Agree with that, koala, though I would say being a parent at all is a privilege, and not a right.

Some people can't have children - and that's sad, but doesn't give them the right to have children.
Others can reproduce biologically, but aren't fit parents, and we don't have a legal system that insists you get to parent your children even if you're appalling at it. There's a point at which you don't have that right.

I see what you mean by mothers being sort of high status Lynette - we have a sort of romantic view of the mother-child relationship etc. But to me that translates in real terms to social and economic disadvantage - I'm assumed to be too beholden to my motherhood to be able to attract renumeration or promotion at the rate of my male peers, I'm held extraordinarily responsible for the moral state of the nation, etc - think about people complaining about how mothers should have/ shouldn't did or did not do x,y,z so now we've got delinquency or poor personal morality, poor diets or whatthefuckever it is I've seemingly fine wrong this week. So I'm not sure they have more status, it actually feels like I am charged with more responsibility, socially, and assumed to be less available to any other social role.