Motherhood and equality, what does Eutopia look like?

[Bumpitybumper]

I accept that I'm incredibly slow to the party, but a few threads and specific posts that I've read have really highlighted to me that motherhood lies at the heart of feminism. Whilst I wouldn't say the battle has been completely won for women prechildren, statistics around earnings and education do look promising, however it seems all of this drops off a cliff once kids arrive. I think this is related to lots of factors, some of which are within women's control (eg choosing to be a SAHM) and some not (eg not being able to afford the childcare required to work).

In this context I have been pondering what equality looks like in a post children world. Personally I think it would involve society viewing an individual's career as a lifespan with expected peaks and troughs. It is madness that the peak decades for building your career are also the decades when women are fertile. I think there should be a greater acceptance that when someone has kids it is natural and normal to want to spend time with them and this probably will not be compatible with working long hours and doing lots of travel for work. This should all be a standard expectation of men and women with young families so things like flexible working should be encouraged and time spent at home should be viewed as a pause on a career, not a termination of a career. The big pay off for such an approach would be that as kids grow and parents are able to refocus on their careers, nobody would be too heavily penalised for gaps in CVs or a few years on the career slow track. This would make it much easier for women and men to close any gaps that may have opened up. It also doesn't ignore the reality that parents with young kids simply do not have the flexibility and time that childfree employees have to devote to their career without effectively never seeing their children which is unacceptable to many.

Is my view of equality post children Eutopia in line with what others think? I can see a shed load of challenges to making mine work, but it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility.

Offred you sound amazing. Being a mum is the hardest I've ever worked, with very little time off. I've managed two international family moves, navigated a country where English wasn't the language - included learning a new language - done loads of voluntary work (PTA and other stuff)). I do all the paperwork for the household. I've done a lot more than a nanny would while doing the job a nanny does (and in the early years getting not much sleep). I'm not complaining - because I suffered from infertility and children are a blessing - but I do wonder why it's not really recognised in any way how much WORK children are, if you want to raise them well.

Why are bankers paid more than nurses? Caring of any kind is just not valued by our society. Arguably cracks are beginning to show. Fewer people want to do caring professions. There are more people (older population) needing care and we're discouraging those immigrants who used to pick up the slack (largely because their pay in ££s was a lot in their national currencies). The NHS is beginning to creak at the seams. Nursing homes are closing. Nurseries can't afford to look after kids at the amount the state pays. This will only get worse as younger generations have to pay extortionate housing costs and caring work just doesn't pay enough.

One thing I think should be done is that if a parent gives up paid work to care for children, their tax free allowance should be transferrable to their spouse and it should be a requirement that a pension is paid into for them out of that tax free allowance. In the long term I bet it would help the state because women who gave up work to care for children may well end up a burden on the state if they divorce and have no pension.

Also, more job shares so both parents can work part time.

How many years of drastically reduced birth rates would it take, before the ability to have children became highly prized and generously rewarded ?

In an ideal world when the replacement rate falls below the level to keep the pensions pyramid scheme up and running.

In reality? Well I assume you’ve read the Hamdmaids Tale? :(

Ha ha! Thanks!

Being a mum is also the most comprehensively difficult thing I’ve ever done.

I can’t imagine how difficult international moves and learning new languages is! A LOT of the things I have been able to do which I have felt added value to me (and others) have been predicated on operating within systems I understand and using a language I speak.

I’m not complaining about my children either. I never wanted children but having them has enriched my life in many ways that I would not have considered. I learn things every day from having children and they have taught me that thinking about things, learning things and using knowledge to improve things is something I get really excited about. I may not ever have discovered that without them.

The stuff about status and judgements and stigma and the circumstances through which they came into being are all separate from the things having them has given me.

Nurses/bankers is exactly it. It’s the cultural value of intrinsically important ‘shitwork’ (women’s) vs materialistic capitalism (men’s). Bloody idea of ‘wealth creators’... wealth may be a means by which things can be achieved in capitalism but why do we never look at how the wealth is used. Why is stockpiling tokens for resources considered a good thing?

The pensions and tax free allowances thing is interesting. I do think though that the main problem with ‘becoming dependent on the state’ is that benefits are administered in a patriarchal manner. No-one thinks money paid to charities (I have issues with charities though) is ‘pathological state dependence’ because people think charities ‘do good’ (very simplistic analysis but common). People see value by and large in state funding for lots of things but almost NEVER for raising children, this is entirely seen to be an individual responsibility and ‘failures’ are always the mother’s.

Isn’t the birth rate already below replacement and has been so a significant amount of time? As I understand it it is one of the potential problems with the ageing population and one of the reasons our economy is so dependent on immigration (never acknowledged publicly by politicians).

The stuff with welfare dependency also applies to the sick and disabled too. So many ways people are punished for not being valuable within very strange standards of what is valuable...

Would I have been adding more value to the world working in a sports shop (as before I was pregnant) or have the things I’ve done while being ‘just a SAHM’ actually contributed more?

Yes it’s about 1.8 and it should be just a bit above 2.1.
Our economy is dependent on immigration to maintain population growth.

Of course unlimited growth in a finite system is not sustainable

It’s dependent on immigration because immigrants pay tax and use fewer services and people are living longer/surviving more often and having longer periods of ill health needing care which drains resources.

We are dependent on immigration now, the low birth rate and ageing/surviving population means there is a time bomb.

Also because low wages mean only the top ten percent of earners pay more than they use. This is another problem.

Dependence on income tax is ridiculous when the majority of the wealth does not flow through wages.

There would be generous state pay for both parents of under 3s. Enough to have a decent quality of life. The treatment of parents of under 3s is scandalous. The norm of one parent, especially the mum spending five days of the week mostly on her own with one or more babies is horrendous. Often isolated and largely unsupported doing an extremely important 24/7 job of caring for a tiny child while often iron-deficient, depressed and usually very sleep-deprived , yet unpaid and under valued; what sort of a way is that to treat parents?

Child-birth and caring should be paid in accordance with its value. Though I don't know how you would legislate for large families. There would be problems if payment was restricted to say, 2 children. If this generous pay was state funded and didn't cost employers anything maybe women would be penalised less for taking time off work and more parents would actually enjoy the experience and not want to work full time to escape the boredom/drudgery of unsupported life with a baby.

Part time jobs at all levels would be the norm. I really don't see why most senior positions (more likely to be done by men) have to be 5 day a week positions. I suspect it's because most men either don't want to spend time at home doing childcare and housework ( because they have been socialised to expect 'more' for themselves) and their male managers are comfortable being surrounded by other men like themselves who won't be expecting to have flexible working or to ever be the one who stays off with a sick child etc)

It seems so unfair that so many jobs are all or nothing. Very ambitious people with favourable circumstances, high energy levels and a lot of ambition would have more than one job but it would be more normal for both parents to work approx 3 days a week.

Breastfeeding would be normalised and celebrated. Bf skills would be taught well and in great depth and would be part of our mainstream culture.

Women would not feel the need to be more groomed and show more flesh than working men typically do. It would be normal for women to throw on a shirt, trousers and jacket. And high heels would not be allowed in the workplace. The concept of looking professional would include being clean and smart. End off.

Domestic task and the running of the household would be shared equally by men and women. Men would take pride in doing a good job of sharing the running of the household and taking responsibility for thinking about it. The terms husband and wife would drop out of use. Spouse or partner would be the norm. There would be no 'wife-work' anymore if there was spouse-- work.

There would be equal representation of women and men in films, music and literature. The norm of male-dominated entertainment would be overturned. It would become unacceptable to revel in a diet of violent films and tv where most of the women have subsidiary roles, unless they are very attractive, and even then. People who watched mostly media like this would be seen as dinosaurs with dodgy preferences.

The problem of male violence would be recognised, researched and dealt with.

rogue yes to all that.

Yes, rogue yes please to all of that.

Especially the parts around women's clothing, which in my experienced tends to be policed / rewarded much more by women amongst themselves, than by anyone else.

Sounds fantastic Rogue

@Offred "I’m clumsily trying to make the point that women shouldn’t be dependent on agreements made with men prior to PG. "

Sorry I'm a bit behind on the thread. But yes - and the only way not to be (it seems, in the current setup of society) is that it's not enough to have equal careers / earning potential- you have to have significantly MORE of this than the man in order to offset the structural disadvantage of being female in this situation. All of our friends who have had the same jobs pre kids (eg both lawyers or both accountants) have had the woman step back post kids, not the man (maybe due to employer / relationship / both / other reasons, but not coincidence) .
I've agreed with my DH that he will take half the leave (ie 6 months SPL after my 6) but I'm only able to "enforce" (obviously he's on board but YKWIM!) that this happens because I make 3x his income. He could quit or get made redundant and it would still be okay. Not many couples are this way around (why?).

Obviously in a better setup of society you'd have regulation or other incentives to make men do their fair share (rather than requiring all women that be senior company executives or similar, and married to a man earning less, before they stand a chance of equality post kids!)

My point is that in my personal situation which is a rather privileged one I've still been shocked at how much I have to OVERcompensate to get "equality". And my DH is very much on board so it's not that he is an arse. There is SO much external pressure to confirm to rigid gender roles. I think it's just easier/ more comfortable for people / companies - doesn't make it right.

Yes the inequality in distribution of who has the "lead career" I consider a problem for women and feminist progress. I also agree that SAHM / WOHM isn't a "free choice" for women in current setup of society.

Yy squirrel that is the couple I know who both work 3 days per week and don’t use childcare; woman is a registrar level psychiatrist in the nhs and man is an actor/comedian/nursery staff.

IMO it would be virtually unheard of for a man to reduce his hours from full time to part time in psychiatry (which is not easy to do even with sexist stereotypes re womanning when you have children) in order to enable a man to pursue work he enjoys but which is sporadic and very poorly paid and share childcare.

Exactly! It drives me crazy, the double standards. And your earlier posts about external pressures are spot on. Even with the best intentions in the world and a DH who "gets" feminist analysis of the way that things are structurally set up against women, and is willing to take an equal/greater career hit, I feel like we are wading through mud (with both our employers) trying to do the opposite of the well worn path of least resistance (and baby is not even born yet...). Despite both employers being "progressive" on paper wrt SPL etc.

Great thread.

I realised recently that my own little bit of furthering equality has been about normalising the presence of children in public places, including where there tend to be lots of men, a few women and no children.

To be clear, I don't mean insisting that little Tarquin should be allowed to play aeroplanes around the tables at La Gavroche, more that basically if I need to do something or go somewhere during the day when the DC aren't at school, they come with me. So they come to the sports club and sit quietly in the corner while I practise. They come to the supermarket with me. They came to get the flat tyre on the car changed. They came to the PTA meeting I had to attend at short notice.

Social expectations that children should be hidden away means that women are de facto hidden away. Bugger that.

It's Utopia, BTW

My mum says women used to be able to bring children to things much more often in the 80’s/90’s than they are ‘allowed to’ now but she also said sexism doesn’t exist anymore. I have been told I can’t have a depo shot or a dental check with my children and that is should ‘get childcare’ and she said she used breastfeed my brother while my sister was sitting on her lap and the Dentist was doing a filling. I don’t know how reliable she is though!

I remember thinking (when mine were small) an important part of socialising young children was to push myself to overcome feelings of discomfort about judgey people who thought children should not be at political meetings/restaurants/anywhere public and that whilst I’d take them out if badly behaved I must always go back in again to reinforce that bad behaviour wasn’t going to stop the boring thing (for them) that I was interested in. I’ve always balanced doing ‘mummy things’ with things they want to do and as I’ve mostly been a single mum there is no ‘staying at home’ re things that are the work of life like shopping.

(Mummy things include exhibitions I am interested in, political campaigning/meetings etc)

I’ve always wanted to reinforce to them that I am a person I guess and that it’s ok for them to feel bored or annoyed about me doing something I like but it’s not ok for them to stop me doing it because of being bored or annoyed.

It always grates on me that my mum lets my kids eat her food for example. I let them try things I am eating but I will not and never will allow them to look at my food as something they are entitled to. It is my food and it is for me. I’m not going to allow myself to become any more invisible as a person than being a mother already makes me even in small (neurotic) ways!

Olenna's Yes I know it's Utopia I started the thread at silly o'clock in the morning and obviously my brain hadn't engaged yet. Very embarrassing.

Would I have been adding more value to the world working in a sports shop (as before I was pregnant) or have the things I’ve done while being ‘just a SAHM’ actually contributed more?

Jumping back upthread but this is an important point, I think. The current focus seems to be to push parents to work - certainly there are only tax breaks for working not caring for your kids yourself - even when most surveys show that the majority of parents would prefer to stay at home given a choice (if they could get the same help by staying home).

In my situation, I would get no tax credits from working cos DH earns too much (though we still find it tough on his salary alone -SE housing costs) and the amount I'd need to earn to make working worthwhile at a family level is way above national average (i know there are other reasons to, I'm talking household finances). We're all experts in our own children, so why is the state willing to pay a less qualified person to look after the next generation rather than give the same tax breaks/ benefits to someone who is an expert? It doesn't make a lot of sense. The way things are you could literally get someone doing a badly paid childcare job rather than looking after their own children, just so they can get benefits / tax credits.

I also think that if all the SAHP just stopped all the voluntary work they do then our society, schools etc would be even more stuffed than they are. Parent volunteers are filling the holes in teacher / TA provision at my local school & I bet that's a pattern up and down the country.

If SAHP and all they do was valued more you'd see more men doing it or more 50/50 splits I think and this would benefit everyone.