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.

Well, that's the point, isn't it, outs.

If a man calls himself the 'mother' he lays claim to that romanticised view (though I bet he also opens himself up for homophobic bullshit), but he cannot possibly change the structure of society such that he risks the economic/social disadvantage.

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

I don't understand this either.

If it's not okay to say that a child needs a mother and a father (i.e. a male parent and a female parent), why is it okay to say that they need two parents? As opposed to one, or three?

This is a genuine question. I don't get why the same people who are happy for a child to have two mothers or two fathers will say things like, 'Oh, as long as they have two parents who love them'. If the two parents don't represent each of the two genders, why do they need two at all?

Quite.

And I'll say again that AFAIK, the reasoning is purely financial.

I can believe having lots of loving people in your life is good, but one of the most well-adjusted women I know is someone whose father died before she was born, and her mother only remarried when she was well into adulthood.

Mothers aren't held in higher regard, it's true.

But I don't see rich men clamouring to call themselves 'bunny boilers' or 'whores' either.

They want the perceived privileges of motherhood/womanhood without being subjected to the oppression that real women and mothers face.

It's yet another form of misogyny.

They want the perceived privileges of motherhood/womanhood

What do you think those perceived privileges are?

I think a lot of this is being framed about the wellbeing of the social parents and the knowledge that the child has about its genetics.

There is a long history of human rights violations that are carried out against birth mothers - trafficking, slavery, forms of physical and psychological torture. After the Second World War, we had inadequate laws for trying crimes committed against mothers because CEDAW did not exist. Some of those mothers were revictimised due to being viewed as agitators for wanting to know what had happened to their babies.

When similar situations have happened, in Peru, for example, and mothers in prisons have experienced psychological and physical torture connected to birth, breastfeeding and care of a newborn, it has been possible to deal with those crimes under CEDAW because of human rights recognition of the importance of maternity as a social role.

Certain groups of mothers are the ones at greatest risk of human rights violations time and time again - mothers in mental health facilities, in the care of social services, in prison, in detention centres, young mothers, poor mothers, surrogate mothers, mothers in trafficking situations, mothers whose children are to be adopted.

It matters very much that maternity and motherhood mean something. It isn't about who is seen as the nurturing parent. It is about recognising the long global history of violating the rights of birth mothers in ways possible only because they are birth mothers. Surrogacy and adoption can be wonderful, but they can also be part of a global system of trafficking, slavery and the violation of human rights.

A high profile celebrity couple where everything is done by the book doesn't change the situation for many other women whose maternity is a target for human rights abuses. And this is not a problem existing outside our society - abuse has happened in our prisons, our mental health facilities, and children of trafficking end up in our country.

Information about birth mothers is important in the prevention of trafficking, abuse and slavery. Birth certificates are an international legal document that the UN maintains are needed to prevent trafficking (and to provide nationality). This is far more important than issues of changing social roles in parenting, which can be promoted by society in plenty of other ways.

I think the perceived privileges are the romanticisation of motherhood, the sentimentalisation of mothers as uniquely loving and wise. We all know that this romanticisation goes hand in hand with low status, lack of support, limitation, poverty and belittling, but I can see that men would quite like to get some of that cultural approbation (especially if they can get it without having to give up status, resources etc).

Is there any real dissent here about birth certificates, almondcakes? Seems to me that children need legal paperwork that (a) provides factual information about their bio/genetic origins, and (b) allows them to conceal that information as appropriate and necessary. My daughter has a long birth certificate that names her biological parents, with her name of origin. She has a shorter birth certificate that has her current name, and doesn't mention those parents, that allows her to identify herself (to schools etc) in safety and without having to explain her life history to any and every nosey parker.

I think we're all agreed on that. What we don't know is whether Germaine Greer is talking a pile of rubbish about David Furnish...

In terms of being a parent being a privilege not a right, courts have ruled otherwise when it comes to maternity. Using CEDAW, actions which prevent women becoming mothers have been treated as a human rights violation because the intention to become a mother through pregnancy is deemed part of a reasonable life plan.

And the argument that recognising the unique situation of birth mothers regarding their newborns is sec stereotyping has been used time and time again to attempt to deny violation of mothers rights in court. The requirement for countries to end stereotyping based on sex was never intended to deny the specific relationship between birth mother and child. It has been made clear in legal cases that governments are supposed to recognise the social function of maternity and end sex stereotyping of mothers (for example in the workplace) at the same time.

Women are not required to deny or downgrade further the status of motherhood in order to engage in work, politics or community life free from stereotyping. We have a right to both, and the frequent threat that if we demand the latter we will not be guaranteed the former is simply intended to scare women. This prevents women actively pursuing their rights, or encourages them to actively take on forms of feminine expression totally irrelevant to motherhood to somehow prove they are 'good mothers' to protect motherhood, something which should be protected for all mothers anyway.

Are DF's children going to call him Mum? I very much doubt it.
It's absurd for him to call himself mother (if indeed the reports are accurate). Equally absurd if one of two lesbians called herself father.

These are the sorts of problems that were bound to arise once society accepts surrogacy, donor eggs/sperm, mitochondrial DNA removal, enucleated eggs, same sex partnerships etc.

(That's not an indication of my personal views on these issues by the way - just on the practical aspects of a fast-changing society that does not always think through the profound implications of its advances before it barrels ahead).

"“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’" - Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Talk about the law (or perhaps problems) of unintended consequences.

As a side note..the genetics of conception can be incredibly important when it comes to inherited conditions, risks etc. Think even of something as common as rocking up at the doctors in your 40s with symptoms that could be as simple as an early menopause or as complex as cancer and the doctor says "when did your mother have her menopause?" and you have to say "buggered if I know - I know nothing about her".

OK, so I'm an oldie and a bit bewildered by modern life on occasions, but sometimes I do think we live in an Alice in Wonderland world.

Think, people, think.

Devora, yes, I think there is dissent. I'm not sure why you've responded to my post about the needs of mothers by telling me about the needs of children.

Also, I have just had to send off to get my long birth certificate as proof of ID so that I could get paid. They would not accept the short version.

What baffles me is that (if one goes to a licenced clinic) you have to use donor-ID sperm and eggs - but there is no obligation on you to tell the child that you have done this.

I personally would never have considered not doing this (and it's one of the reasons I went through all the legal hoops in this country even though going to Denmark or buying sperm off the internet would have been cheaper) - it's important to give my son the right to trace his biological father at age 18.

My gay friends have used family friends as donors, and their children know this (age appropriate terms at the moment are "XYZ helped to make you".)

But I have friends who have used donor sperm due to male infertility and have no intention of ever telling their daughter that she is the result of donor insemination - and that to me seems wrong.

I think people should watch this video about the Indian surrogate mothers. It is very short.

972mag.com/israelis-surrogate-mothers-in-nepal-are-no-laughing-matter/106114/

I think watching men laughing about them on TV is something people should see and remember.

athena

Regarding language. I probably put more weight into how the words come across than the actual word.

For example a (female) friend does often greet me by saying "hiya chick"
Another (male) friend typical says hello by calling me "sweets"
I don't take any offence at this as they are just being friendly and affectionate and I don't feel belittled by it.

However on another occasion a client started referring to me as "mrs" This was sort of meant to look friendly but he was doing it to try and diminish the point I was making. That I had an massive issue with.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this. My gut feeling is it doesn't bother me but I am reading everyone's posts with interest.

Why do two fathers have to be pigeon-holed into the traditional categories, it makes no sense. Why would David Furnish be a mother if he's not female, he should be father as should Elton. It's not reflective of the parental role they've been assigned to surely? What's wrong with Parent 1, Parent 2; gets round all the constraints of making modern families fit around traditional labels.

I suspect that David and Elton would describe themselves as parents or / and fathers.

I also suspect their children would call them Dad (or variation thereof). Kids refer to a male parent as Dad. People do get protective over these terms when a step parent arrives on the scene. If the new man in your mum's life expects to be called Dad (or if the new woman wants to be called mum), that can cause an issue both for the children and also for the "real" mum or Dad. (watching vocabulary here).

Mother isn't linked to gender roles, it's linked to sex. Mother = female parent. It's a title, not a role. Mothers can be nurturing, tough, whatever, their biology makes them mothers. Suggesting that men can't fulfill the gender based idea of "mothering" is while still calling themselves the sex based title of Father is what's wrong here. The difference in the way society regards mothers and fathers and their roles in the lives of children is the problem, destroying gender roles like this is part of the struggle.

Furnish cannot be a mother, because he's not female, nor, at a push, does he 'identify' as female, however he can be a father who fulfills the traditionally 'maternal' role within his children's lives. Like SAHDs. Not sure how many SAHDs call themselves Mother, or would want that on their child's official paperwork. It is regressive for Furnish if true to wish to continue the lie that people who behave 'X' way are mothers. Mothers come in all shapes and variants, but share the common experience of having that role viewed as being all consuming by society, whereas fathers are seen to be able to slip their role on and off like a coat. NAFALT

"If it's not okay to say that a child needs a mother and a father (i.e. a male parent and a female parent), why is it okay to say that they need two parents? As opposed to one, or three?"

Er, it isn't.

Children don't need two parents. They never have done.

I don't see why we can't just have spaces for Parent 1, Parent 2 (and 3 if applicable) without regard to gender specific labels at all.

I agree that maybe the birth cert should say parent 1 and 2 (3 whatever)

To the people saying about mothers being eroded because of scientific advances is this not for the case for both sexes? Pretty soon ( if not already) I'm sure you'll only need 1 persons genetic make up.

Mide7 are you referring to cloning? It's been 20 years? since dolly the sheep so it wouldn't surprise me if human clones now exist.

Then all this would be moot because women could just be eradicated altogether.

orlando I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'mother privilege' but I know that some people do.

Imo what will happen re: the law over donor genetic 'material' is that a DC will be born with a genetic condition and will as a child or adult die or suffer a disability because they didn't have the right to identify who their genetic donor was. They will sue their 'parents' or a clinic or NHS who facilitated this which will be a case with so much publicity that there will be calls for a change to the law so that no one else suffers or dies again due to having this information concealed from them.

It's already illegal for sperm donation to be anonymous in the UK though. More laws to follow.

No Mide, it is not the case for both sexes. Men don't generally get trafficked and sold into slavery to carry children that will be taken from them. We are nowhere remotely near a situation of creating children without needing a mother to carry them.

I know very little about this subject so I apologise if I'm talking rubbish. It happens a lot.

I was referring to cloning as such but wasn't there news recently about a baby being created from 3 people's DNA. It's not a stretch to imagine it therefore going the other way.

I understand that almond but as far as I've read on this thread that wasn't the point being made. It was, this naming a male as a mother is the start of eroding females/ mothers/ motherhood

Winter - there's a loophole for "fresh" sperm, it's only frozen sperm via a registered clinic. Also (see my post upthread) if you go through a clinic you have to use identifiable donor sperm, but you don't have to tell your child about the facts of their conception (e.g. if you're married you could pretend your husband was the bio father as my friends are doing, or if unmarried could pretend the child was the result of a ONS). And there is nothing to stop people hopping on a ferry to Denmark.