Oh dear. A split.

[Redlake]

Kellie Jay ranting against feminists.

@SantaClawsServiette But I would say that some things that have intrinsic value are also things that can be analyzed in terms of economics. Education may have intrinsic value but it also has important economic functions. It's important to keep both things in mind because sometimes one can get in the way of the other. Childcare too, is intrinsically good, but also plays a role in the economy.

I agree with that - the difference to me though is that childcare/education etc are policies/services - of course those can have (measurable) value to society generally as well as women/children as individuals. However, I think that is different to saying women as individuals are of value BECAUSE they provide measurable benefit in terms of good or services. The same goes for men by the way (although generally I think that goes without saying more often). I think all human beings worth is intrinsic and non-negotiable. Otherwise it gets weird very quickly...

@Floisme

And sorry that was very poor wording - we all raise our own children. But I think wanting to be at home with your child is a valid choice, and when feminism seems to deny that choice, or even - to get back to the op - sneers at it then women are let down.

I agree, i think it is going to be absolutely essential to remove some of the judgmentalism/defensive from the discussion. On the one hand you have mothers wanting to stay at home with their children feeling looked down upon/sneered at. On the other hand another poster mentioned feeling judged for going back to work by stay at home mums. The only way to sort out the very complex issues is to start from the premise that different women make different choices and face different circumstances and that is fine. Divided we fall and all that.

'Now THAT is an interesting thought! I'd have thought there was no difference between these two things - what do you see the difference is?

Ok I admit I haven't explored feminism deeply other than the books written in the 1970's. However to me feminism seems to have a rather narrow ideologically left wing viewpoint which focuses on patriarchy and oppression.'

ONE branch / strand of feminist theory/ beliefs does. Some, maybe.

Other types of feminism have other ideas.

In general though as with other rights movements. Gay rights back in the day, civil rights USA, disability rights, etc.
It is when it comes to agitating for change across society for groups that are experiencing oppression/ are sidelined in society/ lives impacted by discrimination etc. Wanting things to improve for groups in society that are struggling/ suffering because of basic characteristics/ groups born into.
Sits more naturally with socialist political principles than conservatism principles.
Talking not specific parties or countries, but the political ideologies, by the generally accepted definitions.
(Because left in UK is not the same as left in USA and they're not the same as left in other countries etc).

Next post though gives more nuance here... Sorry splitting posts keep losing them!

Yes, the divorce of labour from the domestic sphere was what I'd meant. That was the beginning of the idea of the 'stay at home' mother as an aspiration for higher classes and what broke up most home-based employment - children sent to mill schools, parents to factories. Previously labour was largely home based, albeit in servitude. Mary Harrington has talked about this, but I can't find the article now!

Servitude is an interesting word - while people in the pre-industrial world didn't always have the freedom to go, they did have the freedom to stay, which many people today do not have. In part perhaps because we don't think of it as a freedom.

When it comes to women and girls and many of the issues that exist.

Then that is neither of the right or the left. It is about women. Women in general care about women and girls. Irrespective of politics.
(And there are women who have no interest/ actively support or believe things that to most women here are... Some things that are extreme and detrimental to women and girls. Across the political spectrum, including in feminism. (Most of the time but not always these women are awful about a certain area but fine otherwise. People are complicated).

Irrespective of political opinions. Women as a group tend to care about rape stats, sentences. Levels of VAWG. DV. Girls being sexually exploited. Our issues being taken seriously, acted on, rather than pushed to the side.

Having a voice and not being dismissed, ignored, patronised.

Do women (across the board) care about and want to change things for women and girls. Or is it equal across men/women?

Do labour supporting men, in general. Treat left wing women with respect, listen to us the same as to men? See us as valuable individuals with a variety of skills and abilities, personalities. Naturally as intelligent, rational, politically sound, focussed as men? Important to listen, think about views, points? Etc?

Do all conservative supporting men dismiss women totally. Believe they have nothing to say worth listening to, are not capable, do not have the qualities to understand let alone express rational political ideas....?

Ummmm. Weelll.

Not true that, is it. Demonstrably not true.

Politics of Breastfeeding is a feminist book with demands for changes to improve breastfeeding - some were enacted. There was lots of campaigning around this. Because babies used to be taken to a nursery and often given formula by nurses, even if the mum had said she wanted to breastfeed. This was a time when formula was being pushed.
I know there is now a major lack of support around breastfeeding, but then the situation was worse as breastfeeding was sabotaged by how hospitals operated.

In the end. When it comes to the aspects of women and girls rights. That are not linked to the fundamental principles of any political ideology.

How can it be a surprise that the massive majority of women across the board know sex> gender. And that males in women's stuff is unfair, bizarre dangerous and utterly shit?

Why would that view be. Limited to women with this politics or that label?

It's obviously not. It's women and girls. Reacting to something that whatever the spin is, is wanted, being fought for, and lots been got already, by males.

There are so many threads on can women who aren't left even do anything for women? If they do but they're not left, isn't that a PROBLEM (somehow..? not sure how!). If right wing women agree, shouldn't left wing women know that are obviously wrong? You must vote labour or you're a fascist!

Irrelevant really. A distraction. Fun to get arguing over though so off we go!

It's all a distraction.

This is about women and girls. All of us.

Like here getting stuck into SAH/WOH.

Which has nothing to do with this.
And is naturally for many a personal topic, and v emotive/ often upsetting when gets going. As about individual mothers looking after their children.

It's IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand.
Divide and rule. We are set against each other by constant judgement everywhere including media.

It's a society with deeply embedded views about women, stirring the pot. Toxic.

The topic of the thread OP is about all women and girls. We're being fucked with to distract.

@ArabellaScott

think Posie upsets some feminists because she demonstrates that feminism is not central to the fight for women's rights.

Now THAT is an interesting thought! I'd have thought there was no difference between these two things - what do you see the difference is?

Not seen this point before! Really interesting! Something new to get teeth into

IMO
It's like saying what's the point of political thinkers/ theorists/ historians/ etc when there's political parties and supporters on the ground doing the do.

It's same situation as eg

The ideology/theory of free market capitalism is to those who think it's the way to have things, and/or who profit from it in a deliberate way (obvious example traders in stocks shares purely to profit).

(Obvious example obv unrelated totally! And clearly those who are amateurs interested in capitalist theory or Feminism aren't you know. Generally writing world changing publications!).

Of course feminist is usually applied to what maybe should be called feminist activist. The fact Feminism is actually an ideology, set of theories etc I don't think is generally known outside universities..?

Fuxake. Epic post lost.

Example.
First on scene when gender> sex started to get media/ public attention.

Many were feminist academics and others who were long term full time Feminist activists, writers etc.

They had known for years. Who, how, why. That losing our words was an all out attack, what it meant. The obvious risks. The sexism. Impact of redefining us as a role, costume. Separating us from our biology, our reproductive function. The reason behind our global oppression for millennia (longer?).

Forewarned, forearmed. Used to being seen as extreme, getting shit.

Ready to spell it all out, having been watching thinking etc for years.

That's the difference between feminism (the theory, ideology) and what would be better named feminist activism. (Feminist in the well known use. Supporter of / believer in feminism as a set of principles, theories etc.)

the only way to sort out the very complex issues is to start from the premise that different women make different choices and face different circumstances

Yes, but we also have babies in the equation, which is where things become complicated. As ever.

CheeseMmmm
And I put stuff together and consider for myself.

I think CheeseMmmm puts her finger on it.
Most of us seen a problem, sort of wandered in, took a look around at "feminism", recognised what we saw and decided to stay and learn a little more. We may not agree with or even understand everything but are free thinking enough to learn what we need to get the job done. And gently used a barge pole on other bits

@namitynamechange
Or to broaden it "the baby growing workforce is the most important workforce". I don't think that attitude will lead to greater respect for mothers/women in general. In fact I think it could all get a bit Handmaid's Tale-esque

Having and raising a baby is never the total sum of the woman's contribution but it's the "to support" bit that is the problem. Women carry forward the economic cost of being the sex which carries the child.
Each year women are still sacked for being pregnant, they are passed over for promotion. There is always the dilemma of who stays home with the sick child. Etc

Under the current system it would not lead to greater respect. Imaging if women were thanked for their service the way the soldiers are thanked. How many women have been pregnant (not just birth) and not changed in some way.

(Haven't read the HT only seen the original production)
In the Handmaid the scarce resource were children?
Your loved ones should obey or die and if needed fight (and die) for the ideology creating a new world order. But if there is no future, there is no new world, and the social structure will fail. So the women who could give birth have to be controlled. If you have no children to protect why fight/die for a regime which suppresses personal growth/happyness. Rape, sexual slavery and the stealing of children; all war crimes and acts of slow genocide are justified as for the common good.
The children were removed to be trained by the "believers" and child was a reward for loyalty. The child became a valuable tradable commodity.

@namitynamechange
As a young women I found it was older woman in supermarket/restaurant/bar jobs who were the most protective in terms of preventing sexual harassment of younger women etc
If women stop participating in the workforce entirely when they have children/if they all step back in their careers then we stand to lose a lot.

They have been there, know the signs as it was done to them. They have had the time to listen and understand women's oral history. And they in turn will pass that oral history down to the next generation. And it takes a lot to be a mother from sleepless nights, terrible twos and teen tantrums. They have set a line of minimum acceptable social behaviours of what they expect from their children because that is the world they want their grandchildren to live in.

SantaClawsServiette
while people in the pre-industrial world didn't always have the freedom to go, they did have the freedom to stay, which many people today do not have.

This is very true.

Minding children can't be successful industrialised. It's bad for the child and subsequently bad for society. MN has a multitude of threads about how to find the best substitute. From childcare to schools matching personal values and carers values and how to balance that with paid employment.

@ArabellaScott

the only way to sort out the very complex issues is to start from the premise that different women make different choices and face different circumstances

Yes, but we also have babies in the equation, which is where things become complicated. As ever.

Great example of a big point in my earlier posts which were probably tl;dr! (Sorry need to learn brevity).

Read whole post the quote is from, fair enough. It was around looking after children.

Different women make different choices.

This is the big change that has come in relatively fast in social attitude.

When it comes to babies, children. It's moved very fast from families, couples etc.

To anything to do with having babies and raising children, it's just women. The men have been written out pretty much entirely!

General views, comments (on here all time in fighty threads!), lots of media output news etc.

Women are the ones who want babies.
Women choose to get pregnant
Women choose to have children

Women make personal choices.
Women who make bad choices, that's on them.
Why should reckless women who don't do the research, calculations, projections, future income analysis, large pension pot, healthy savings, etc etc etc. get handouts?
Women who are irresponsible, selfish, having babies just because they want to. They made their bed etc.

You'd think we reproduced asexually!

How and why have the previous long standing attitudes changed so fast?
I'm sure we all are familiar with -

Men and women, couples, have children. Men despite bizarre current popular ideas. Do want to have babies, children. How can anyone genuinely believe in general men don't, women do? It's so obviously not true.

The expectation that women, when thinking about having a baby. Should consider if can afford etc. As an individual. Vast majority will be in established relationship with man. Somehow he's out of the whole picture when thinking about baby, considering, practical and financial considerations etc.

That's weird isn't it?

This fundamental change in general thinking about babies etc. I have some nebulous thoughts about why.

It's imo not good for women. This new framing of it all.

And the other big massive thing is.
It used to be accepted, and surely in general it goes back through human history.

That in groups of humans- tribes, villages, communities, onto societies. The children of the group are important, should be protected, cared for etc. So grow into healthy adults who are important for success of group. In a variety of different ways.

The history here of people and groups working to improve lives of children who were disadvantaged is well documented and those people seen as doing essential good thing.

The general idea that the children of a society are important, that they can be vulnerable, that they are not in a position to change their circs.

I'm sure most would say as individuals I don't think that. But that doesn't match with so many things said and done now.

Individualism a reason?
Others?

Depressing though.

When was having babies and women’s functions ever including men? In various societies men weren’t allowed to see women on their period, men weren’t allowed at the birth, often men weren’t expected to appear at all, ever pick up a baby etc. it’s always been that way. This dads are parents too for the roughly under 8s seems pretty recent (& thank goodness we have that now).

Which societies, all of them everywhere through history of humans? That was pretty much constant, irrespective?

It's only relatively recently that dads did anything parental at all for children under about 8.

Can you give a rough date you're thinking for when men being parents to under 8s came in?

Sorry another question.
When you say dads, is it just them who were as you describe, or grandads, uncles, etc as well? Men in general rather than dads? Or specifically dads?

And one more question, just want to be sure not misunderstanding. Dads were never expected to pick up a baby (context implies weren't expected to so didn't? So... Didn't want to, so didn't?). More or less?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Do you think dads had a big role in baby and small child rearing? I’m far from a sociological expert but about 50-70 years ago maybe I am judging that western parents became more engaged, might have been earlier but for significant war periods. You don’t have to have been on mumsnet for long to know that plenty of dads still do literally no actual care for their babies or are even in their life.

I interpreted your comment as saying it’s recent to align babies and children with women as a role, and before that fathers were expected to be involved, and I disagree with that.

By dads yes I mean men generally had no role in baby care.

Really interested in the dads bit.

I found reading that really depressing tbh. I don't understand why/how you came to think that. Getting a bit more into it. It's even more stark!

In blunter terms, it suggests that dads have no interest in/ no desire to interact with their babies/ younger children.

If global and through history I think it follows that this is a fundamental, natural behavioural feature of male humans.

And therefore men getting involved with their babies/ children under 8, being seen as parents too. Is going against millennia of fundamental male human behaviour?

That's a really dismal thing to believe about men. Why do you think this?

Why do you not think this? Who do you think looked after babies and children? Along with cooking and cleaning, all the ‘keeping the home’ role? What evidence do you have that this has been a strong male role in history? If you go back to primitive times men were often away for months, be it war, hunting, trading, looking for work. Men taught skills to their children, often only to the boys, and imparted wisdom. At some point boys became old enough to join the men’s world. There are obviously lots of nuances at play but as a general theme this is pretty consistent so I’m confused by your seeming like it’s a wholly new theory. I do find your posts quite hard to read by the way.

Oh sorry xposts.

Around the world and through human history that's a huge statement though.

I want to make sure I get what you're saying or we'll be at cross purposes and both confused!

Are you thinking of children under 8ish, or just babies? Under 1, 2, that sort of age?

Do you have specific things in mind when you say babycare?
Or anything to do with the baby?

Well, around the world and human history was all populated by men and women so it’s not surprising there are some similarities. Obviously there will be exceptions just like there are a few matriarchal societies out there but they are exceptions.
Babies: Everything.
Toddlers/young children:everything to do with personal care, men might entertain /teach.
The age is not precise at which point children enter adult work, but if the menfolk regularly leave for periods of time / spend all day out at work, in the fields etc then the children are left with the women until old enough to go along/ out to work themselves. Obviously in some places this was at 5 or 6 and in other ages older, puberty being the upper limit.
Do you have any examples it wasn’t like this? Where men wiped bottoms and washed the children’s clothes and nursed them through fevers and cooked the food for the children as a norm? Or even carried them around? I’ve always wondered about that one- even when I’m not recovering from pregnancy and birth carrying a baby and toddler is work for me but a total non event for my bigger stronger husband, why was that so women centric too? (See history of baby wearing- women all the way, North America, South America, Africa, etc)

'When was having babies and women’s functions ever including men? '

In those posts I was talking about sex. Male/ female (sperm egg) both needed. Women can't get pregnant by themselves iyswim.

Also that it's not true that it's women who want babies and men don't really.
Stacks of men want to have a baby / babies. Want children.

In the last maybe 20 years or so, though. Society has shifted the way anything to do with babies/ children is seen.

Change from couples/ families having babies/children.

To women wanting babies/ children.

Also change from babies/ children being important part of society and so children who need it are helped.

To women choose to have babies, if struggle then that's on them. Having babies/ children is solely woman's choice, anything go wrong invariably because of her poor/ selfish/ reckless choices. Any difficulties are on her. Nothing to do with society.

(Lots of media and general people. Not all obv!)

To me this is a huge shift.

It's in your view, unusual to find a society anywhere/ ever. Where men had anything at all to do with their babies whatsoever until say 1yo?

Seriously?

No watching them while mum went anywhere ever? Never holding? Never handing to male relatives, friends, etc to have a look at? Never trying to make them smile, or... Touch? No feeling of affection, connection, pride, love, wow it's a whole baby and it's mine? Never giving it a little tickle while mum holding in evening?

Just zero interest?

If gets ill. Not worried, concerned, dad and mum comforting each other?

Nothing?

And given a choice, do you think that would be the preference still?

You can't see how I wouldn't know that's true?

No watching them while mum went anywhere ever? Never holding? Never handing to male relatives, friends, etc to have a look at? Never trying to make them smile, or... Touch? No feeling of affection, connection, pride, love, wow it's a whole baby and it's mine? Never giving it a little tickle while mum holding in evening?
For goodness sake, that’s why I specified personal care. I’m sure they gave them a cuddle and a smile, and enjoyed that and thought they were beautiful. Yes men wanted children, of course they did. Even men who never wanted to see that child before they could say a polite please and thank you wanted them to carry on the family name. That aside I’m sure men loved their babies and children, and were anxious when they were sick and died, but their personal care was not a male role. Baby and child rearing was an extension of women’s biological role in child bearing. My grandpa was loving and caring. It’s not that they were unloving, many were great dads according to their time. My grandpa didn’t cook clean or change nappies. He went on lecture tours while my grandma moved 8 children internationally in the 50s. My fil has never changed a nappy. My great grandpa never changed a nappy. His dad never changed a nappy. Go back a hundred years and that’s what happened, and a hundred again and a hundred again. Things are different now and I’m so glad to live in today’s world despite its faults. I’m not dead because I’m female and fell pregnant, I can go back to a good job after having a baby, I can expect my husband to do housework and even take paternity leave (next year, and I am building it up in my mind as the most amazing time ever where I can just waltz off to work leaving him home to care for dc)