(Sky News now) Stella Creasy is coming up against the biological basis of sexism

[RubberTreePlant]

The irony.

I wonder whether the penny will drop?

We MPs who are mothers are well looked after

Kemi Badenoch mp

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-mps-who-are-mothers-are-well-looked-after-3pcsj2pmt?shareToken=9644a23bb3075b3894b579e78b17c378

I think that pushing an agenda of pushing women back into the home is an interesting way of being a feminist. I am agog that women should get back into their homes is seriously being discussed on a feminist website. We really are in a huge pushback territory, similar to the post-War situation: there are fewer jobs around, the economy is crashing, so women are expected to nicely clear out of the way for the all-important white male. I don't know where all the real feminists have gone.

Like hell does taking women's independent sources of income away give them more choice. It makes them entirely dependent on male incomes and gives men all the economic power. Economic power is real. Are you going to argue that it isn't? We know from the Stanford Prison experiment that unequal power relations themselves cause abusive behaviours. We know from empirical evidence that it traps women into abusive relationships. We know from empirical evidence that this is happening right now in Britain and violence against women is on the increase.

The idea that the only issue with domestic slavery is "feelings of being trapped and dependency" is very interesting given what seems to be points you make elsewhere about the feelings of trans people being real, although I am not a regular on these boards. You seem to have a problem distinguishing feelings and reality. Being trapped and dependent in domestic work with no independent income is not a feeling, it is a reality. Women in this situation have no escape. Trans people's feelings are not real, they are feelings. Learn the difference.

Taking some time away to bond with your child and recover from pregnancy, childbirth and other physical demands is not being pushed back into the home at all, lots of us do it then resume successful careers.

And the Stanford prison experiment has been discredited www.livescience.com/62832-stanford-prison-experiment-flawed.html

lots of us do it then resume successful careers

How many?

In reality when women get pushed out of the workplace it has huge impacts. Many never enter careers ever again and find themselves shelved into part time unskilled work for the rest of their lives. In a time when work does not pay that matters. Again, this is empirical reality that we can see happening everywhere. Start talking reality.

If men want families as a pp says why are they so eager to not take time out and not bond with their children all of a sudden? It happens in Scandinavia. We need maternity leave and breastfeeding leave, yes. Beyond that there is no need for it to be only women who stay at home with kids. No need at all.

The Green Party have tried to encourage the idea of job sharing in parliament.
In the case of an MP going on mat leave they could/should be able to take (for example) 3 months completely off but replaced then go back part time / half time for say, 9 months or so, or even much longer as an option. The person they job share with is voted in by the party members.

Caroline Lucas job-shared with Jonathan Bartley.
This idea makes it far easier for mothers (and fathers) to be MPs.

I think that pushing an agenda of pushing women back into the home is an interesting way of being a feminist. I am agog that women should get back into their homes is seriously being discussed on a feminist website

Nobody is talking about women being " pushed" anywhere. What has been spoken about is the reality of the biological function for women, and its consequences. Not everything about being a female in society is negative. Many women actually want, or would like, to spend the early years with their child. And for those in the sort of situation which would permit that, then there is nothing 'anti-feminist' about it. It is liberating and fulfilling, even if it has its down-sides. What choices in life do not have down-sides?

Feminism is not a fixed, unchanging dogma. It is about valuing women, valuing the feminine, and valuing traditional female roles, as well as about offering opportunities for all to explore and flourish, in spite of their sex.

The facts of motherhood can't be imagined away - and it is not as simple as maternity leave and job sharing - although they can be important for those that require them, of course.

The idea that the only issue with domestic slavery is "feelings of being trapped and dependency" is very interesting given what seems to be points you make elsewhere about the feelings of trans people being real

Can't work out what you mean about the trans issue. Please explain further.

I am speaking from my own experience, as we all do. I had my firts child at age 19, and after the first eight weeks of my daughters life, I was abandoned and a single parent. I had two other children by the age of 28, but in very different circumstances - with a man who actively wanted children and has been a very good father, and now a loving grandfather.

I know some of the wide range of feeling that comes from the condition of the female experience: of menstruation, puberty, sexuality, pregnancy, childbirth, early years child care.

I'm not diminishing the feelings of dependency and entrapment that one can feel, but I'm also not negating the positive experiences and fulfilment that looking after your own young children can bring, given an appropriate and supportive set of conditions.

Trying to say all womenmust take up or retain paid employment just in order to be a fully paid up feminist is not a liberating position.
Life is full of choices; not all of them easy, and the choices that women face are often quite different to the choices men make - and that is not just because of patriarchal oppression, it is because of the fact of the female biological function.

Feminism does not just exist 'in the head' in ideas about the self; it exists i, and because of, the body. The body is what makes you a woman/female.

We know from empirical evidence that it traps women into abusive relationships. We know from empirical evidence that this is happening right now in Britain and violence against women is on the increase

Yes, but not all relationships are violent and abusive. You don't realistically make decisions in life based on whether you imagine your partner is going to start beating you at some point in the future; or become financially controlling over-night.

Some may of course make decisions based on these sorts of factors; especially if they have a personal history of child abuse or domestic violence. And that would be understandable.

But there are no fixed sets of rules for how to live one's life.

Start talking reality

I think we are all talking reality. The reality of our own lived experiences and the choices we have made as a result.

Beyond that there is no need for it to be only women who stay at home with kids. No need at all

Nobody has said it is just the mother who needs to stay at home.
The fact is though, that many women want to. Those that don't aren't compelled to. Of course, many women have little choice because of economic circumstances.

A relevant structural issue is who earns more when the baby arrives. In the typical nuclear family, the family unit protects the higher paid job and the lower paid person takes more time out and the rots sets in career- and future earnings-wise, with associated risk of later economic dependence. That is not to devalue unpaid domestic work, I value it very highly, but lack of earning potential is such an issue if the shit later hits the relationship fan, whether that be feeling trapped or being left.

The idea that the solution is to just get women to work for pay accepts the status quo of the job market and that is inherently exploitative. It's just pushing women into an already exploitative system and does nothing to get to the root of the problem.

And what happens to the children of these women, they go into paid care, often by other women who are seperated from their own children. It becomes a matter of commoditising the closest human relationships and interactions or else we don't see them as valid.

It's one step away from the full commodification of people.

The fact is though, that many women want to. Those that don't aren't compelled to. Of course, many women have little choice because of economic circumstances.

It's very rarely a free choice, though. It's usually driven by finances and other factors.

The idea that the solution is to just get women to work for pay accepts the status quo of the job market and that is inherently exploitative. It's just pushing women into an already exploitative system and does nothing to get to the root of the problem.

You are going to have to explore that one a bit further. The job market is inherently exploitative? Are you saying that a specialised economy is wrong? Should we all be living in a self-reliant subsistence economy?

If the jobmarket is exploitative for women, is it not equally inherently exploitative for men? So surely men should have - and want - the right to withdraw from such an awful system too and instead experience the fulfilment of looking after their own children?

And what happens to the children of these women, they go into paid care, often by other women who are seperated from their own children. It becomes a matter of commoditising the closest human relationships and interactions or else we don't see them as valid.

No, it's the principle of communality and specialised economies at work. It is purely a question of distribution of work and the rewards from work. You want men to have all the paid work and take all the work, while women are left to experience the "joys and fulfillment" of being trapped at home with no economic power. It's not enough to say that abusive relationships are not necessarily going to happen. They do happen, and in the kind of system that you describe, they happen all the more regularly. Go and look at the kind of cultures that have women kept in the home. Look at their incidence of violence against women.

How is this feminist again?

Indeed, capitalism is inherently exploitative for men as well, I said so upthread.

And it's getting worse for all of us. Longer hours, more expected, wage stagnation. This needs fixing for a myriad of reasons and the impact on primary carers of young children, particularly mothers, is one of them. I enjoy working to some extent and would always want to work, but I took the opportunity to drop my hours on having children and so did DH, and part of the reason for that was just how much the workplace demands.

Horrid, I hear what you are saying - god knows I know, many of us do not have the option of opting out of work as living costs rise - but the solution is not as Goosefoot is suggesting forcing women out of work into their homes. Women are not responsible for all the evils of employment nor the rising cost of living and other solutions are possible. This has been done before, incidentally often in the name of the children and their needs. Let's not forget that denying childcare as an equally acceptable sector and service in a specialised economy to those of other sector is denying women the opportunity to organise and cooperate as well.

You can google women in the 50s and the backlash forcing women out of their jobs back into domestic slavery: I found this one a quick and easy summary www.cbc.ca/life/backintimefordinner/crazy-things-we-told-housewives-in-the-1950s-1.4683987. Susan Faludi wrote a whole book on it.