Oh dear. A split.

[Redlake]

Kellie Jay ranting against feminists.

I agree 100% Floisme.

We are interdependent.

We forget too easily in the modern world that we evolved as tribal animals. Men and women of all ages once knew the truth of interdependence. Individualism and independence are illusions. That is why many of us find ourselves so at odds with the modern world and modern values when we do that most primal of things and bring new life into the world. For some of us things that used to make sense to us just don’t anymore once we have our babies in our arms.

I’ve learnt a lot from this thread, thank you to the contributors. I imagine it’s developed in a far different way than the plopper of an OP thought it would. The twitter situation (and the fall out) mystified me a bit, but I feel I understand much better now.

@Floisme feminism recognises that everyone is dependent at various points in life. It is a fact of life. Children, mothers with young babies, disabled people, very elderly people. No one can be truly independent.

If feminism does recognise that then I'm pleased to hear it. However I have to say that wasn't my experience as a new mother.

Yes, Daisies and Flo, completely agree. Again, it's the neo-liberal idea of extreme individualism, fulfilment via consumerism and economic liberation (an impossible idea for almost everyone) that we are all chasing. An impossible dream, a mirage that keeps us all on the treadmill.

I guess some of it is over-correcting the way that patriarchal systems keep women dependent and thus oppressed, the knee jerk response is to isolate women from all networks to achieve ultra independence. The issue isn't the economics themselves though, it's the dynamic, the coercions and the pressure.

Yes, I will never forget the midwife visiting after I had come home with my new born baby and asking me when I was going back to work.

I will share a guilty secret with you all: When my child was small, I could not give a fuck about the glass ceiling.

@Floisme that is a bizarre thing for her to have said.
Lots of women and men don't want high powered jobs. I work for the money. Thats it.

aliceca it was a totally What-the-fuck moment but it chimed very much with the narrative all around me at the time. And to be fair to her, it was a narrative I'd bought into myself until they handed my new born baby. My child is grown up now so I don't know if things have changed.

@Floisme maybe it depends on the circles you move in?
I kept hearing, wait until the baby is born before making plans because you don't know how you will feel then.
I was a bit shocked when a well off friend went back when her baby was only 4 months old, but of course it was up to her, so I said nothing.

Maybe, although I don't move in high powered circles.

No neither do I. She was my one friend with a well-paid job.

@Shedmistress

Is it really 'subsidising' women to allow them to work, if the work they do eventually pays money back into the tax system, allows them to keep earning and benefiting from promotions, keeping key skills and learning more and the small outlay in the first few years is paid many times over by the 20-30 additional years of increased tax income. Not just from their earnings but the things they then buy with their wages and their increased pensions.

It is very short sighted to say it is 'subsidising'. And I haven't got kids, nor did I ever want them but I want more women in the workplace with the independence to get out of bad situations if they need it.

I don't think it's a loaded term. A state may subsidize all kinds of businesses or individuals with the idea that it supports industries that are good for the economy, including paying taxes.

The state could provide more help to women to get out of bad situations.

@aliceca I agree with that. The problem with the "everything changing" on becoming a mother is that for some women. that may mean feeling more connected to their partner and baby, seeing their partner step up for them at the time they are most vulnerable etc etc. For other reason, that sudden loss of independence can be disastrous - worst case scenario that's when controlling or abusive behaviour can start from partners. Even when partners aren't actually abusive. the sudden (maybe inevitable) shift in the balance of power can really mess up the dynamics of the relationship. It also puts a lot of pressure on the other partner (as the sole income) since losing their job then becomes disastrous. It is a time when women lose their independence - that's why there is advice on making sure that you are protected through having independent income (keeping your job). The problem is that doesn't solve the problem anyway (women are still vulnerable to unfair dismissal, problems getting back to work etc). But in the wake of an alternative it is the only protection some women have.

I suspect that a lot of this will depend on women's individual experience (if your partner is a good egg and you found it very difficult to be separated from your toddler you will feel differently to someone whose partner turned out to be feckless, dismissive or full on abusive. Or whose partner lost their job unexpectedly but thank goodness going back after mat leave was still an option. etc)

@namitynamechange I totally understand why the advice is not to become financially dependent on your partner.
Although with my partner at times I have not been working or he has not been working, so we have both had times of being the breadwinner.
I also know financial abuse is very common.

Someone, maybe Arabella, mentioned the industrial revolution - that's a really interesting point IMO. There was a time when the domestic/workplace sphere were not so separate as they are now. Yes, work was divided often by sex, but the home and land around it were in a more direct way the workplace for many men and women. If you made shoes in a shop in your house that's not so much removed from managing the household itself. If you were a farmer, growing food to feed yourself and some to sell is not so different than processing that food to feed yourself, and maybe some to sell too.

We tend to assume that the domestic sphere is unproductive, that it's the place where we consume, rather than where we produce for ourselves. And feminism has seemed in many cases to say, well, the way to make women producers then is to put them out into the productive workforce, like men.

The underlying issue though may be the outsourced productivity. Which can be tricky to see when you only look at the situation of women and don't stop to think, maybe this is a wider issue.

When I was young a lot of women still did home working with sewing machines. It was poorly paid though.

@SantaClawsServiette
Your talking about productivity has made me realise something... I think that trying to define/defend women in terms of their value is always going to be problematic. E.g., "women have economic/productive value as part of the workforce" (true); "as the only people that have babies women are essential to the survival of the human race" (true); "women's rights are worth defending because we are sexually alluring" (thanks liberal feminism!). etc etc. It misses the central point that all women have value in and of themselves as human beings regardless of their contribution to the economy, human race, community, male titillation etc etc. I think if we try to argue are rights are worth defending only because of our contribution to society/men we lose the argument immediately. And it all becomes a bit dystopian.
So, that's why I think I felt happy to see having my child as the most significant thing I have done so far. But I don't want the state/society to value me based on that.

sorry, name change fail!

Hmm, that's interesting, flytterbug.

I would say yes, we don't have to put all valuble things or activities under an economic paradigm in order to value them. Absolutely. Children for example, are people, and citizens, they are valuble in themselves. I also think education is valuble as a fundamental human activity totally apart from any economic advantage it creates.

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.

Additionally, I think it is important for the state to value things that may not be economically productive. When we say that the role of the state, or even the role on industry and business, is only limited to dealing with economic roles, that leads to an unbalanced and toxic civilization. The state should be deeply concerned with the most human things, if we want a humane civilization.

It's an awful dilemma. Becoming financially dependent carries so many risks and yet advising women against it is effectively telling most of them 'Don't raise your own child'.

It's a fascinating discussion.

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.

@SantaClawsServiette

Someone, maybe Arabella, mentioned the industrial revolution - that's a really interesting point IMO. There was a time when the domestic/workplace sphere were not so separate as they are now. Yes, work was divided often by sex, but the home and land around it were in a more direct way the workplace for many men and women. If you made shoes in a shop in your house that's not so much removed from managing the household itself. If you were a farmer, growing food to feed yourself and some to sell is not so different than processing that food to feed yourself, and maybe some to sell too.

We tend to assume that the domestic sphere is unproductive, that it's the place where we consume, rather than where we produce for ourselves. And feminism has seemed in many cases to say, well, the way to make women producers then is to put them out into the productive workforce, like men.

The underlying issue though may be the outsourced productivity. Which can be tricky to see when you only look at the situation of women and don't stop to think, maybe this is a wider issue.

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!

I think I've seen the same article Arabella - probably on Unherd?

probably - I had a look but nothing jumped out!