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.

"And, in fact, what women do now in respect to children and babies is entirely historically and culturally located."

Really? That is a very sweeping statement, for which I don't see how you can provide proof.

I don't deny that history and culture have played their part in fashioning 'what women do in respect to children and babies', but that does not mean that there are not other factors at play - some of which we may not even be aware of.

I’m not sure how you could read that conclusion into the discussion here but the main thrust is;

• children need to be well cared for and this should be considered to be fundamentally important to feminism when we consider motherhood.

• the burden of raising children, along with other kinds of care is widely unvalued and invisible. It falls almost exclusively on women

• this materially disadvantages women for many reasons and motherhood (and perceptions re women’s potential to be mothers) is a major way in which women are suffering oppression/discrimination/harm.

• at the same time as claiming biology as the reason for this burden falling disproportionately on women the same culture refuses to provide for many of the biological consequences women suffer re pregnancy and childbirth, preferring instead to treat them as ‘part of being a woman’ exposing that the culture is not actually bothered about female biology except when it involves impoverishing/controlling women.

• there is no biological reason why men cannot be parents

• the assumption that parenting ability is determined exclusively by biology harms all people but particularly women as it is used to control, impoverish and determine their value as humans.

• quality of parenting is better determined by skill sets and acceptance of responsibility than biology. Humans are good at learning skills they need but lack. Many women have to do this already re parenting.

• Biology is a factor which should not be ignored as biological differences result in the parents having different needs sometimes but biology is far less important than societal structure would have you believe and re parenting, what children need is a parent, in the vast majority of situations.

The idea that it is mothers that are inherently essential to healthy child development (outside particular biological functions such as pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding) and not the type of care is entirely unsubstantiated in science, defies logic and is sexist.

This is not a claim that there are no biological differences between men and women or that there are no biological factors involved in parenting.

Interestingly there are biological factors associated with fatherhood.

Most of the time ‘biological factors’ are determined to mean ‘children need mothers’ even when the child in question is 50 years old...

Really? That is a very sweeping statement, for which I don't see how you can provide proof

Well, I could send you to some history books maybe? There you might find that ideas of child-raising have changed remarkably over the centuries and have differed even in the UK/Europe between social classes. Indeed, even the idea of what a child is has changed. And for cultural differences, you could check out some texts on cultural anthropology...

There is a massive difference between biological function and biological factors.

Many women feel that mothering is performing their ultimate biological function. Many women do not, men might feel that way too if the culture told them their role was that of parent.

Most of the time ‘biological factors’ are determined to mean ‘children need mothers’ even when the child in question is 50 years old...

Mmmm unless the child is female and the parents need care, in which case the argument is that women 'care naturally' puke.

Yes, when the parents need care then ‘biological factors’ determine that providing that care is a female child’s job. Male children have the role of overseeing practicalities re the care if they like.

"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 think I contributed to moving the discussion to being around the Father as a main care giver but what I was trying to explain was the way in which the apportionment of home responsibilities creates inequality. My preference is definitely to create a society where both parents are able to pursue rewarding part time careers and where this is the expected norm. This is also something I personally work towards, influencing my own workplace and trying to give women who work part time a hand up. What we perceive to be a Mother's role can be carried out very effectively by a Father but in my personal experience that has required the Father to relinquish much of his male socialisation.

As regards biology, this is particularly relevant and important during the first 12 months which is why Mothers must retain a right to have the full maternity leave themselves and it must be illegal for this to negatively impact their career progression. After 12 months biology becomes less and less relevant and socialised behaviours become, if anything, more important. I am not saying a Mother's role isn't crucial but I'm saying the same role can be performed in the same way by a man. I know because I see it every day.

I agree 12 months re female biology, three years is primarily important re child development.

I don’t think it is actually possible to talk about mothers without talking about fathers TBH. Unless you believe raising children does not concern fathers at all in any way.

The sing song voice, the little rituals around telling them he loves them, the physical affection, the constant verbal input, the creative planning of activities, the thought put into the lunch box, the listening, the coming down to their level, the discipline, the hair plaiting, the endless loads of washing, the sitting with them while they do their homework, the reading with voices....you get the idea

I find it hard to believe anyone really believes those things are not learned behaviours TBH.

I think lots of people see them as entirely feminine and something men are incapable of but like you I find that idea immensely sexist.

Then there is this added dimension: If my ds is neurotypical he will seek to emulate his father more than he will me. So ends male socialisation and toxic masculinity with this family. Actually that's a massive exaggeration as obviously he is also seeking to emulate other men and boys as well but you see my line of thinking.

"The sing song voice, the little rituals around telling them he loves them, the physical affection, the constant verbal input, the creative planning of activities, the thought put into the lunch box, the listening, the coming down to their level, the discipline, the hair plaiting, the endless loads of washing, the sitting with them while they do their homework, the reading with voices....you get the idea"

I do. I'm a bit envious TBH. My DH didn't really do those things, they were still down to me. Although, my mum wasn't a very hands on parent either. I got a lot of that think from my Dad (when he got home from work, DM was SAHP). Which, if you think of it is very good evidence for being good at parenting having more to do with your personality than your sex. I have also self-diagnosed DH with ADHD and possible ASD (I know, I know, shoot me now - but I bet you'd agree if you met him), so I give him a certain amount of leeway on the basis that he struggles to relate to people in general, not just his son.

On balance, I think there is a lot to be said for being cared for by your mother in the first year, where possible and after that, whoever is best placed/suited to the job.

A large part of the problem is the low societal value placed on caring roles. They should be respected and properly supported, whoever does them.

Ha ha! I do!

I also think it is a massive problem to have this one parent only model (because the other is providing) in practice even when it is not a single parent family. Much is made about children needing two parents by some of the MRA stuff (and the problem of single mothers by the state) but they don’t actually expect this to actually mean a father being a parent to a child.

Wouldn’t it be good if you could be cared for by both your parents, and your father helped support your mother to recover from birth for at least the first 12 months!

That sounds perfect Offred. My df was a typical male for the 70s and my world revolved around my dm. I was quite young when i realised the inherent vulnerability of this situation and began to dwell fearfully on the possible death of my dm night after night.

Speaking of my own experience, having children broke me physically and in the world of work. Someone else can wipe an arse or tell a nursery rhyme but would they give up their free mobility and earning potential for my dc? Or even their sleep?! It’s so complicated imho and ime and my dh being a great dad doesn’t negate all the other stuff that I go through trying to be a good mother.

It’s great you’re supporting mothers in the workplace, sarah I hope very much to be back there myself one day

Surely the whole entire point of this discussion is that no-one should be broken physically, socially or economically by having children. If it can be avoided it should be.

I believe the vast majority of this is avoidable and I also believe that it’s not good for children to have a broken primary carer. I don’t think being broken and still doing it is a badge of honour or anything inherently female.

People who do care of all kinds get broken by the poor conditions of the work and this usually detrimentally affects the care.

The system is screwed, there is no doubt about that.

I have said before I conformed, became a SAHM, I had a very supportive husband who valued my contribution to out family.

I jacked in my career, but I was far from broken from the experience.
As money was tight in the early days I started to look at ways of working from home to support the family budget.
Small amounts to start with, but by the time the kids were at school I was earning £700 a month profit- not a great deal of money, but enough to pay for the fun things.
I tried various work from home ventures and now 15 years later I make more money than my OH - and I still work part time from home.
As we approach retirement age I have no plans to retire- and OH will split his time doing some contract consultancy and also work for me.

I never did follow my career- and thank goodness I didn't - because I am in a far better position than I would have been if I had carried on in that 9-5 in a man shaped job.

And I don't think my story is that unusual.
My 5 closest friends all have similar stories to tell. All gave up their career, all now running small businesses.

I’ve said before I hate the term ‘SAHM’ because it is demeaning. It’s what people say to dismiss mothers but I have never met a woman who is raising children who actually ‘stays at home’ there will be some but women raising children might be starting businesses, caring for the elderly, active in their communities in various important ways and most of these women have contributed more to society than they would have done in waged work.

The problem is unless your particular way of contributing is setting up a business and this business makes money your contribution remains totally unvalued and invisible.

Not undervalued by everyone.

Before I started a small business as a SAHM I ran two local toddler groups, trained and worked as a breastfeeding counsellor, sat on various NHS and other committees in my capacity as a breastfeeding counsellor, even sat on a government steering group which saw new legal rights for women and public breastfeeding.

None of that work was paid- but I felt totally valued for it.

Yeah, valued by the people doing it. I’ve had similar experiences but valued by society I mean. Benefits systems force women to stop this stuff (and any volunteer work that might lead to a career) in favour of getting low paid zero hours shitwork.