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.

I'm not talking about careers I'm talking about jobs. The pressure to return to Tesco on the checkout in order to pay a nursery to barely care for your infant.

I'm sure there are some incredible nurseries but I think they're a poor substitute for a loving parent.

it can make sense to work for peanuts sometimes.

Just an obvious enough side point - when there is a working couple paying for childcare, all too often it's still thought of as the woman working for peanuts.

That's because men don't take maternity leave, when we had our babies my husband took two weeks off every time, his career was uninterrupted.

I've never understood the "feminist" choice of paying someone poverty wages to look after young children to go and earn poverty wages

Pensions.

I think this is why for many women the default feminist stance is socialist. We all need support at some point during our lives. Mothers are producing the next generation. We can choose to not see that as a drain on the system.

The system is based on punishment of not working for a wage by not working for a wage leading to social stigma and enforcement via state structures e.g. eviction, starvation, social care. The value attributed to a whole person is based on how much money they make/have.

I'm not talking about careers I'm talking about jobs. The pressure to return to Tesco on the checkout in order to pay a nursery to barely care for your infant.

Yes. Universal Credit requires even single parents to work - or spend potential working hours looking for work - as soon as a child is three years of age. There is no point in leaving your three-year-old at a childminder so that you can go to a minimum wage job.

I guess the solution is difficult and would chain women to the fathers of their children, we used to have married allowances didn't we?

It’s an ideological choice to impose and enforce these values as they are often actually very expensive.

Pensions.

You get credits for the state pension for children under 12 if you don't work - you just need to be the recipient of Child Benefit.

Haven't rtft! - but will because it is so interesting

Just wanted to chime in agreeing with Offred on this

"Personally, and I think this is actually true for all mothers, caring about the child’s experience is how women are trapped by motherhood. Women only get trapped into it because they care about what happens to the child"

And then terfulike's post about SAHFs is also really relevant to this.
In general, SAHFs just do not do the same job as SAHMs. They don't do remotely as much work, and they don't do it remotely as well. This has a huge knock on effect on the well being of the child, unless the WOHM picks up the slack, which she always does, to her own detriment.

I don't see any way out of this impasse because the men who are doing this just literally don't understand what work they are not doing. They just don't get it and they get angry about it whenever you get close to explaining it, because understanding that would ruin their easy life, with their sense of themselves as a good guy.

This is an absolutely crucial subject for debate.

Motherhood has, for me, been far and away the most empowering role of my life. So many decisions to make, which of course implies so much research, analysis, evaluation, discussion. And, very often, swimming against the tide and defending that which I know to be true against people with vested interests in trying to force me down another path.

Women are already chained to the fathers of their DC, even when they have absented themselves.

Fathers are surely also chained to the mothers of their DC?

I worked nights in a call centre fir a while to pay bills etc while still being able to care fir the children.

There were women there who still fiercely defended their matriarchal status. They would finish a shift get home make packed lunches/care fir small children/elderly and disabled relatives snatch some sleep and do another night shift.

I would sometimes asked if their partner could do some of it and would often be met with rolly eyes.

There is status in caring for children, spotless house, being in charge of family dynamics, darling with family finances - being at the centre of things with the family. Warm
Is a means to an end - it is a way of earning money to support family and nothing more.

Identity, status is all about the family unit for these women. It is everything.

And other than state pension as langcleg mentioned, do people in low paying jobs (as opposed to careers) tend to get much by way of pension, especially in the private sector - let alone the world of zero hours contracts.

Women’s lives are a cycle of chained to the state, chained to a man, chained to the state, chained to a man....

The principle of non-interference in private and family life has never been applied to women. Women have too many children or too few, they are too rich or too poor, they are bad mothers or good mothers, taking men’s jobs or not working enough... there are numerous state structures employed to interfere in women’s lives and shape their choices, hold them to standards whilst if you look at the domain reserved for men (work) we have out of control hyper individualism.

Women are collectively responsible, for men, for children, for all of society but society is not collectively responsible for us.

We recognise that child rearing has important implications for all of society only as far as blaming women for doing it wrong and holding them responsible but we abandon that same principle when it comes to supporting women raising children.

And no, fathers are not chained to the mothers... how many schemes targeting ‘absent fathers’ are there?

How many men have to ask women if they can go back to work?

I have been a mother my whole adult life. My first child was born when I was just 17, and my youngest is 9 now (I am late 40s). This means that I never had the 'this is what feminists are on about!' moment re. inequality.

I was doing my A'levels when my first child was born and I didn't feel particularly maternal at all beforehand. I had every intention of going to university as planned when the baby was born and 'just putting it in a nursey' . When he was born, on the other hand, I experienced an overwhelming urge to look after him myself. It definitely felt biological. I felt that with all of my children and was heartbroken going back to work when the youngest was 6 months old. But we needed the money.
It's true that work structures are patriarchal and unsatisfactory for those with caring responsibilities. The whole system requires radical reform so that it meets the needs of people, rather than generates as much cash as possible for shareholders.

Maybe it depends where you live. There are European countries where the right to work for both fathers and mothers is enshrined in law. I still think fathers are chained to mothers.

And everything Offred said.

I agree that the pushing into employment of mothers with young children is wrong.
But I do think all women need to be able to earn their own living, even if they are not currently working. Otherwise they are at the mercy of male partners and are often forced to put up with emotional and financial abuse.

I strongly feel we need to get away from ‘the right to work’... The ‘right to work’ is enshrined in this country now and it is being interpreted as ‘work is the only thing that has value, if you don’t work in a job then you are scum and lacking in moral character’ but in reality what we decide is/is not ‘work’ is totally arbitrary.

We do not measure value relative to contribution to society. We measure value relative to contribution to capitalism.