Matricentric feminism - the need for feminism to recognise the experience of mothers

[EmilyDickinson]

mommuseum.org/aint-i-a-feminist-matricentric-feminism-feminist-mamas-and-why-mothers-need-a-feminist-movementtheory-of-their-own/

There's an interesting article in the Guardian today (I'll link in a minute) that refers to this more detailed article.

"Motherhood is when inequality kicks in. "

I think I'd re-phrase that as "Motherhood is when difference really kicks in". I absolutely believe that women's lived experience of mothering is completely different from men's experience of fathering, with correspondingly different effects (or lack of) on their lives.

We can argue about the precise degree to which these differences are due to biology/social constructs, but surely we will actually never know. How could we, ethically, do that investigation?

"But in social terms why should 'mothering' be different from 'fathering'?"

I started a thread a couple of years ago on this precise topic a couple of years ago - there were some very interesting responses, as here.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/1672413--to-think-that-Mothers-and-Fathers-are-Equal-but-Different

"I posted this at the end of another thread with a slightly different focus, so will re-post here: I was struck by the assumption that 'equality' means 'sameness'; that being a mother is no different from being a father; that 'parenting' is the same whether being done by the mother or father.

I disagree with all these assumptions. That does not mean that I don't think that mothers and fathers have equally important roles to play in the upbringing of their children: it does mean that I think those roles are different, because men and women are different. And I think that a child's mother is uniquely suited to being the primary carer of her child. This website is not called "Person-Net" for a reason.

I know I'm going to be accused of being gender-deterministic, or of vilifying mothers who return to work and leave their babies with professional childminders. This is not my intention at all; however, I do believe that it minimises the importance of the maternal bond - and therefore of women - to state that if a baby's physical needs are being met by a competent, or even caring, child-care professional, then this is qualitatively the same as that baby being cared for by its mother, or father, or other personally, consistently 'attached' adult.

I think a whole generation of women have believed the lie that they are not equal to men unless they are financially independent; that they have little value, or right to respect, unless they are contributing to the economy directly via the workforce.

In order to be happy with their new role as "same-as-men",women have then had to be convinced that their babies are just as well-off in child-care as with them. Does anyone on here really believe that? That a child-care professional is as good as a mother? And if they don't believe that, how has it happened that women end up in a position where they are forced to sacrifice their child's welfare for the sake of their own financial independence?

That was a rhetorical question; I really don't believe that a mother would deliberately make a choice she thought was detrimental to her child if there were other alternatives available; but the whole set-up of society now makes it very difficult to support a family, let alone own a home, unless both parents are working. And if both parents work, their children are in child-care. And in order to justify that 'necessity', women need to convince themselves that qualitatively their children are no worse off than if they were at home, being cared for by a parent (preferably, according to a few thousand years of evolution, their mother). And by accepting that bit of double-think, they devalue and do themselves out of the most important job any human being has ever had to do in the history of the world: raising the next generation of humankind. And our government is perpetuating that double-think by constantly pressuring women to return to work so that they can also provide a job for whoever will be looking after their children.

Apologies for the rant. Apologies to all whose I've just offended. Not my intention."

It is my experience that the division of parenting responsibility between Mother and Father very much affects power, independence and freedom. I have become the one with the economic power, the one others look to and listen to, the one with social status. I have leap frogged others in my career as I have been able to work longer hours, flex my life to achieve career goals etc etc. I have missed out on time with my children, at least in the early stages. A big part of me did long for them but as my dh became better at what he did that eased a lot as I could see the quality of life they were enjoying with him. Also because he did all the house work I can give all my free time to them. I recognise economic advantage here obviously. Often I see things on this site presented as traits of masculinity which I have acquired directly as a result of the division of home responsibilities. If my dh could have had shared parental leave and each worked part time whilst not being held back in our careers we would, I believe, have been a lot more equal in our relationship. I work hard to maintain equality and check my own behaviours but that still means I am the one with all the power.

Chester you make some valid points but some fathers can be fantastic primary care givers and to focus on the importance of mothers being at home with the main contrast being nursery as opposed to both working part time or the father staying home perpetuates inequality. I do agree that in low wage situations, however, there should not be incentives to put children into childcare before school age. Again financial support for both parents to work part time or one to stay home would be better.

I don't know. As I said (way) upthread, I was heartbroken to go back to work when my son was 6 months old, but DH was in a job with a fixed term contract, due to expire in a couple of months and no sign of renewal. So, DS went into nursery and, no, I don't think that was best for him. He never slept during the day (at 6 months old!). DH's contract did expire after a couple of months, so then he became a SAHD, and I was the 'breadwinner'. I was happier with that situation than with DS being in nursery, but as PP said, I sometimes found myself getting a bit 1950s on DH. I expected him to do all the 'housewife' stuff, cleaning, organising, etc, because I had during a period as a SAHM (previous marriage) But he didn't pick those up. I resented that, and being solely financially responsible for the family. So, not all roses round the door ....
We're both self-employed now and much more flexible. Guess who still does 90% of the wifework?

Interesting thread and very important. I think as a sahm I find it hard when the argument is anyone can be a mother. Well yes, they can, but it completely undermines the love bit doesn’t it? If anyone else had required you to carry them whilst sucking the life out of you, being ripped in two whilst they entered the world and then made sure you never slept again, looking after them would be impossible if you didn’t love them! I wouldn’t do it for anyone else

Yes I agree it does need spelling out to Dads what their responsibilities are, whether sah or not. As others have said HVs could do a lot here. I made it clear to my dh it was part of the deal that he did the housework as well. Later I came to realise that a fair division of chores includes the one who is working oth doing some housework as well. Otherwise at least in our case it wasn't equal.

"I work hard to maintain equality and check my own behaviours but that still means I am the one with all the power."

...because in our society, Power lies with Money, which is gained through full-on, full-time work, which is often not actually the first choice of mothers with young children.

The family unit is the basis, and future, of human society. Seen within this framework, motherhood is the most powerful role around, because without it, the future doesn't exist.

I believe that the state, and working life, should be at the service of the family, not the other way around, as is currently distinctly the case in the West.

Power does not just lie with money: it lies with executive function (agency and decision-making ability) over others.

I agree with that Chester but I think part time work for both parents is a great solution

I absolutely agree that the state ought to be at the service of the family. The state has broken family and community bonds down entirely and grabbed power by (in theory) picking up the pieces. Actually, it has taken control of the pieces.

Not compulsory obviously! But the option to work part time without it impacting negatively on your career. For all people not just parents!

Chester I think you have muddled thinking TBH.

Re parenting we only need to know what children need and whether men and women are capable of providing those things.

Unless we are talking about actually carrying the baby, birthing the baby or feeding the baby then it’s ridiculous and sexist to claim that men are not capable of raising a child.

These things re biology may be factors but it is the vanity of small differences and the majority of the requirements of the role require skills. Since men are human beings, men are perfectly capable of performing the tasks associated with raising a child.

"it’s ridiculous and sexist to claim that men are not capable of raising a child."
I haven't made that claim, offred.

"...the majority of the requirements of the role require skills. Since men are human beings, men are perfectly capable of performing the tasks associated with raising a child."

By that logic, we can have the state-run nurseries mentioned up-thread; they would be staffed by "human beings...perfectly capable of performing the tasks associated with raising a child."

If in fact you meant that fathers were as capable as mothers of performing most of the tasks associated with child-raising (with the obvious and crucial exception of breastfeeding), I would agree as far as purely practical, functional tasks are concerned (mostly; my husband can sleep through a baby crying; I can't - and not because I don't want to sometimes!)

But who amongst us thinks that parenthood is merely a practical, physical function? Someone upthread mentioned LOVE; is it so unreasonable and unthinkable to suggest that men and women might love their offspring in different ways, and that the child might have more need (in terms of time exposure) of one kind of love than another, at different stages of their life?

The fact that love cannot be empirically verified/analysed/legislated for does not mean that it is not a crucial part of the discussion.

But who amongst us thinks that parenthood is merely a practical, physical function? Someone upthread mentioned LOVE; is it so unreasonable and unthinkable to suggest that men and women might love their offspring in different ways, and that the child might have more need (in terms of time exposure) of one kind of love than another, at different stages of their life

Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but if I were a man I'd be offended by that. Of course men can do what women do. And, in fact, what women do now in respect to children and babies is entirely historically and culturally located.There is no one 'womanly way' of raising babies at all!

Yes I meant fathers vs mothers.

I think it is sexist to believe that men are not as capable as women of loving a child in the way they need or providing the necessary care.

Men don’t wake up to a crying baby in part because they believe it isn’t their job to, in part it is likely to be influenced by biology. People can for example choose when they go to sleep to wake up when they hear a certain sound such as an alarm clock.

State nurseries also have other inherent factors that inhibit the ability to provide what a child needs such as turnover of staff.

But we are not just talking about small babies are we. What we are talking about is motherhood across a woman’s lifetime even into a child’s old age if the mother lives that long.

If biology was so important that a child could not be raised without it’s mother then society would be fucked. Babies can even be breastfed by a woman who hasn’t given birth so even with breastfeeding it is female biology that trumps being the actual mother.

We know that fathers can learn to speak to babies, we know that fathers can wake up in the night, we know that fathers can do many things, we know children can be raised without a mother or a father or by a father on his own and therefore the influence of biology on parenting is likely to be small.

*hasnt given birth to them

I mean really? Male biology means that innately men are attuned to their alarm so they can wake up for work or a flight, or their phone so they can wake up when they are on call but can’t wake up when a baby is crying and female biology means women do all that AND hear babies?

Love is neither here nor there re parenting anyway IMO. The main factor is accepting responsibility. Childcarers of any type accept the responsibility of in loco parentis, it is often only the woman who really accepts the responsibility of parent and I believe that is really the fundamental difference and it is down to how we culturally view motherhood and fatherhood.

Many many men love their children without being a parent.

I’m not saying responsibility is enough. I’m saying that love without responsibility is not parenting and that there is no reason at all to believe that men are biologically incapable of taking on that responsibility or that the reason women do in the majority of cases is because responsibility taking is biologically programmed into women.

Who knows if fathers can do exactly what mothers do when we live in an unequal society? The world isn’t full of men having discussions about work, sah etc etc that women agonise over and suffer over. Whilst it’s a women’s/mothers predominantly issue it’s something we have to deal with in feminism. When we have proper equality then we can talk! I find the repeated devaluing of what mothers do in this thread the opposite of feminist - it plays into the idea that what a mother does is worthless and can literally be done by anybody with a pulse. Ideas that I feel have kept women subjugated for a very long time and continue to do so.

I think that is confused thinking too. Everybody is arguing that the work should be valued because it is important work.

The arguments re mothers vs fathers are making the point that mothers and fathers are equally capable of performing all of this important and valuable work apart from exceptions where the work cannot be done by fathers e.g. pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding but that this does not mean there is no role for fathers to play re this work.

I don’t know. This thread was about mothers and feminism and seems to have turned into one about how fathers are just as good as mothers (and what actually does a mother do anyway?). I don’t disagree that fathers can’t do what mothers do aside from biology, but this obviously minimises the biological consequences of having dc and the societal effects of having dc which predominantly effect mothers.

societal effects of having dc which predominantly effect mothers

But there is nothing essential or natural in this so this can be changed.

I haven't said men don't love their children as much as women do, or that their love is less important than a mother's love.

I do believe that there are differences between men and women - which will always be a complex interwoven web of biology, culture, history and something I will call 'nature' (by which I mean that which is intrinsic to the Male vs Female experience of themselves and the world) - which last exists at a deep level of our psyche, inaccessible to scientific interrogation.

Another way of putting that would be to insist on retaining the concepts of Motherhood and Fatherhood, rather than settling for the insipid, impersonal concept of 'Parenting', a series of practical tasks that can be performed by any random person, regardless of their personal relationship/commitment to the child.

I'm not out to convince anyone, just to add a different voice to a very interesting thread on an important topic.

I do think it's problematic to talk of equality of outcome, for example in the workplace, when the physical differences between men and women (which are biological, and not anyone's 'fault'), must have a significant impact on said outcomes.

And why shouldn't pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding have an impact on women's working lives? How can they not? How can we, as champions of women, fight to diminish the impact of these things, without also diminishing their value and importance, to us personally as mothers, and to our children, and to society as a whole?

I still think how many hours a day you are actually communicating with, physically contacting an infant is the important thing, not whether you are actually going to work or not.