Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

'Denying my Existence' - a piece by Mary Harrington

225 replies

NotHavingIt · 28/05/2023 20:11

Mary Harrington's world view has very clearly been revolutionised by her having become a mother, hence her interest in, and focus on, the effects of socialised childcare in 'Feminism Against Progress' and here, in this piece, on the postulated effects of maternal deprivation on developing identity.

As ever, speculative and exploratory - but certainly interesting.

https://open.substack.com/pub/reactionaryfeminist/p/denying-my-existence?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

“Denying my existence”

Institutions cannot replace the mother's gaze

https://open.substack.com/pub/reactionaryfeminist/p/denying-my-existence?r=clsg2

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 08:20

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 08:03

For me the most interesting thing ( about the effects of institutionalised childacre from babyhood) is not so much the impact on the individual child, but the net effect on how generations of children may then look for safety or care-taking from the State.

Thinking of cultures such as Maoist China, or those in the former Eastern European Communist coutries when it was standard practice for state/collective provided childcare from a very early age.

How can you say that any psychological impact would be caused solely by socialised child care and not everything else that is different in a full on repressive communist society including a police state?

Too, if you had read any accounts of people who had grown up in Mao’s China or the Soviet bloc from childhood the idea that they looked to the State for safety or care-taking is absolutely ridiculous revisionist claptrap.

PomegranateOfPersephone · 07/06/2023 08:23

I find it interesting to note the similarities with communist countries and where we find ourselves now in capitalism.

Both systems focus on economic output in practice rather the wellbeing of human beings so they are really two sides of the same coin. Human beings become units of production in both so there is little room to allow for what might be best for mothers and babies, or for families and communities.

They way we as a society treat mothers and babies/children reflects the society we are creating.

For example during the days of the British Empire early separation in the ruling class, especially including boarding schools helped to build the kind of men who would follow orders, go over seas and commit atrocities.

Now we are engaging in parenting practices that lead to building a generation who will be more likely to value their appearance and their social media standing over human relationships, who will tyrannise others with narcissistic demands that we bolster their false selves at all times. It starts with birth practices, then early institutionalised childcare, parents glued to screens when they are with their children, children given devices and even social media at a young age and children being constantly photographed.

HBGKC · 07/06/2023 08:27

From one of several articles published yesterday (about which I can find not a whisper on MN 🤔) on a recent study showing that a year of breastfeeding improves GCSE exam results significantly;

"Breastfeeding is believed to help the development of a child’s brain, not only as a result of the nutrients in breast milk but because the bond between mother and child strengthens sensory and emotional circuitry."

That last clause is particularly pertinent to this discussion.

digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1270/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/1270/pub/1270/page/43/article/NaN

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 08:33

HBGKC · 07/06/2023 08:27

From one of several articles published yesterday (about which I can find not a whisper on MN 🤔) on a recent study showing that a year of breastfeeding improves GCSE exam results significantly;

"Breastfeeding is believed to help the development of a child’s brain, not only as a result of the nutrients in breast milk but because the bond between mother and child strengthens sensory and emotional circuitry."

That last clause is particularly pertinent to this discussion.

digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1270/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/1270/pub/1270/page/43/article/NaN

The bond of feeding/caring…the hormones released are the same no matter who is feeding/caring for the baby and no matter whether it is breast or bottle. So if breastmilk is a causal factor as opposed to merely being correlated, it would be something in breastmilk.

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 08:53

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 08:12

Follow the links I posted as they are several sources which give the definition for the term “sexual minority”. It isn’t my position that sexual minority has the definition I am using, it is its recorded and accepted definition.

The way you are understanding the term sexual minority is not in accordance with its definition. Your understanding of the term sexual minority as only applying to anyone who is LGB is wrong, incorrect, and probably due to assuming what words mean without actually looking up what they mean.

Do you rely on 'official' information for everything? It would be more helpful, and fruitful, for the purposes of discussion if you could engage directly yourself with questions, and then clarify when asked to do so.

Otherwise it seems as if you don't have the capacity for unaided debate.

I understand what sex means, I understand what sexual means, and I understand what sexual orientation means; i also understand what minority'...seems you don't because if you did you could explain it yourself.

OP posts:
NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 08:56

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 08:20

How can you say that any psychological impact would be caused solely by socialised child care and not everything else that is different in a full on repressive communist society including a police state?

Too, if you had read any accounts of people who had grown up in Mao’s China or the Soviet bloc from childhood the idea that they looked to the State for safety or care-taking is absolutely ridiculous revisionist claptrap.

All you have is empty rebuttals and abusive discourse.

Developing reading skills is an essential part in engaging in discussion. If you don't understand the point being made, then you are going to be arguing at cross purposes throughout - then resorting to swearing and rant-filled rhetoric.

OP posts:
NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 09:02

PomegranateOfPersephone · 07/06/2023 08:23

I find it interesting to note the similarities with communist countries and where we find ourselves now in capitalism.

Both systems focus on economic output in practice rather the wellbeing of human beings so they are really two sides of the same coin. Human beings become units of production in both so there is little room to allow for what might be best for mothers and babies, or for families and communities.

They way we as a society treat mothers and babies/children reflects the society we are creating.

For example during the days of the British Empire early separation in the ruling class, especially including boarding schools helped to build the kind of men who would follow orders, go over seas and commit atrocities.

Now we are engaging in parenting practices that lead to building a generation who will be more likely to value their appearance and their social media standing over human relationships, who will tyrannise others with narcissistic demands that we bolster their false selves at all times. It starts with birth practices, then early institutionalised childcare, parents glued to screens when they are with their children, children given devices and even social media at a young age and children being constantly photographed.

I think one of the nost interesting points for discussion in Mary Harrington's book related to the increasing commodification of everything; extending to human relationships and even to the body itself.

Consumer culture seeks out new markets continually - to the point where people become thoroughly alienated not just from the products of their own labour ( as in a Marxist analysis), but also from their own bodies, which become commodities, or as she calls it 'Meat Suit Lego'.

OP posts:
NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 09:06

Of course in Maoist China and in other Central command economies the state virtually owns your body - to the point where you can be told you can only have one child, or where forceable steriisation is a thing.During Covid it was reported that people were literally barricaded into their homes so they couldn't leave.

OP posts:
AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 09:11

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 09:02

I think one of the nost interesting points for discussion in Mary Harrington's book related to the increasing commodification of everything; extending to human relationships and even to the body itself.

Consumer culture seeks out new markets continually - to the point where people become thoroughly alienated not just from the products of their own labour ( as in a Marxist analysis), but also from their own bodies, which become commodities, or as she calls it 'Meat Suit Lego'.

Historically, the commodification of our bodies has decreased, not increased. Our bodies used to be fully commodified- ever hear of chattel slavery?

Oh, but that’s right Harrington is a thinker and a philosopher can’t expect her to know any history or even to fact check the most basic statements that she presents as if they were facts for historical accuracy.

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 09:35

I think it’s (to put it kindly) a stretch to hone in on socialised childcare as the thing that communist states did to drive outcomes.

Let us not forget that Nordic countries have early socialised child care - it is vanishingly rare for a mother to be home with her child after the initial post birth period - and some of the best well being outcomes in the world.

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 10:00

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 09:11

Historically, the commodification of our bodies has decreased, not increased. Our bodies used to be fully commodified- ever hear of chattel slavery?

Oh, but that’s right Harrington is a thinker and a philosopher can’t expect her to know any history or even to fact check the most basic statements that she presents as if they were facts for historical accuracy.

You let yourself, and your argument, down by posting throw-away, confrontational one liners; failing to expand upon them in a spirit of discussion, and then by castigating others using emotive language to rubbish anything you disagree with .

Arguably, consumerist society, late stage individualistic capitalism has entered into every aspect of our lives - creating ever new markets in which to sell new must have products - and this expands to the body itself.

Yes, and also society tends to repeat patterns; nothing is ever new - simply re-arranged in slightly different ways. And also, of course slave owning, and bonded labour is still very much a thing the world over.

OP posts:
NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 10:06

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 09:35

I think it’s (to put it kindly) a stretch to hone in on socialised childcare as the thing that communist states did to drive outcomes.

Let us not forget that Nordic countries have early socialised child care - it is vanishingly rare for a mother to be home with her child after the initial post birth period - and some of the best well being outcomes in the world.

Interestingly, Denmark has taken steps to making it harder to get a divorce, as divorce was becoming the norm and it was costing local authorities a fortune to house and accommodate the many newly created households:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/breaking-up-is-harder-to-do-in-denmark-after-divorce-law-changes

Breaking up is harder to do in Denmark after divorce law changes

Couples planning to split must wait three months and undergo counselling

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/breaking-up-is-harder-to-do-in-denmark-after-divorce-law-changes

OP posts:
MaterDei · 07/06/2023 10:09

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 08:33

The bond of feeding/caring…the hormones released are the same no matter who is feeding/caring for the baby and no matter whether it is breast or bottle. So if breastmilk is a causal factor as opposed to merely being correlated, it would be something in breastmilk.

Source? This is simply not true.

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 10:09

Also gender segregation is still very much a thing in the workplace; and contrary to what one might expect with such policies of social equality, women seem to be actively choosing more typically female gendered occupations. Most likely because even with all of the measures in place, childcare ( and elderly care) still largely falls on the shoulders of women, and sex based preferences still persist.

https://nordics.info/show/artikel/gender-segregation-of-nordic-labour

Gender segregation in the Nordic labour market

Since the 1960s the Nordic countries have been renowned for their high level of gender equality as they have amongst the world’s highest employment and education rates for women. At the same time the Nordic countries also have greater horizontal segreg...

https://nordics.info/show/artikel/gender-segregation-of-nordic-labour

OP posts:
HBGKC · 07/06/2023 10:30

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 09:35

I think it’s (to put it kindly) a stretch to hone in on socialised childcare as the thing that communist states did to drive outcomes.

Let us not forget that Nordic countries have early socialised child care - it is vanishingly rare for a mother to be home with her child after the initial post birth period - and some of the best well being outcomes in the world.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'initial post-birth period'? As 2 weeks (as in the USA) is very different from the first six months, which is again very different from the first 2 or 3 years.

And has another poster has pointed out, in those same Nordic countries with excellent childcare provision and virtually zero barriers to women working in whichever sector they want, women STILL CHOOSE to work in sectors like teaching, nursing, 'caring' in far greater numbers than men.

You can say that's due to historically embedded socially gendered norms and expectations if you like; but isn't a bit patronising, to assume those women have no agency over their career choices, and are just behaving like brainwashed domestic servants because that's how they've been 'programmed'..?

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 10:40

MaterDei · 07/06/2023 10:09

Source? This is simply not true.

When you are feeding a baby you both release the hormone oxytocin. This is true no matter who is feeding the baby- mum, dad, nanny, nursery worker. The hormone oxytocin is a bonding hormone that makes us feel connected to each other- so the act of feeding itself fosters a bond between baby and feeder.

Doesn’t have to be the mother. Doesn’t have to be breastmilk direct from the breast. Doesn’t even have to be a baby and adult- two humans sharing food and the same hormone oxytocin is released creating emotional bonding- why do you think so much social interaction is based around consuming food together?

As for sources, there are literally dozens and dozens of them.

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 10:59

My point about the Nordic countries was about child outcomes, which are much better than in for example the U.K. (even in days gone by).

but will respond to the other posts individually even though they’re not relevant to the point I was making

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 11:01

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 10:06

Interestingly, Denmark has taken steps to making it harder to get a divorce, as divorce was becoming the norm and it was costing local authorities a fortune to house and accommodate the many newly created households:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/breaking-up-is-harder-to-do-in-denmark-after-divorce-law-changes

I can well believe that the solution that’s best for women (divorce - I see it as a good thing that women can choose to break up a family) is not the preferred solution for a government or society. Important to have the debate. Not particularly relevant to any of the posts on this thread though.

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 11:03

NotHavingIt · 07/06/2023 10:09

Also gender segregation is still very much a thing in the workplace; and contrary to what one might expect with such policies of social equality, women seem to be actively choosing more typically female gendered occupations. Most likely because even with all of the measures in place, childcare ( and elderly care) still largely falls on the shoulders of women, and sex based preferences still persist.

https://nordics.info/show/artikel/gender-segregation-of-nordic-labour

I don’t think it’s patronising to believe that hard baked assumptions about women’s roles in society can lead to women as a class making different decisions. That’s literally the entire thesis of feminism!

Remember also that these so called female professions were the domain of men 100 years ago - when women started to enter them the pay and status went down massively (a trend that occurs with every single occupation that women enter btw) and they became known as female occupations.

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 11:06

HBGKC · 07/06/2023 10:30

Can you clarify what you mean by 'initial post-birth period'? As 2 weeks (as in the USA) is very different from the first six months, which is again very different from the first 2 or 3 years.

And has another poster has pointed out, in those same Nordic countries with excellent childcare provision and virtually zero barriers to women working in whichever sector they want, women STILL CHOOSE to work in sectors like teaching, nursing, 'caring' in far greater numbers than men.

You can say that's due to historically embedded socially gendered norms and expectations if you like; but isn't a bit patronising, to assume those women have no agency over their career choices, and are just behaving like brainwashed domestic servants because that's how they've been 'programmed'..?

Sorry I made the patronising response in the wrong response.

re the post birth period - I think the US approach is barbaric. I’d say somewhere around the 6-12 month mark is about right. And btw I breastfed both of mine for 1.5 and 2 years respectively (exclusively so for the first year) so I am in no way anti breastfeeding, and I’m not surprised to see some of the results re breastfed babies - the microbiome is a powerful thing esp when milk is the only source of nutrition.

MaterDei · 07/06/2023 11:18

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 10:40

When you are feeding a baby you both release the hormone oxytocin. This is true no matter who is feeding the baby- mum, dad, nanny, nursery worker. The hormone oxytocin is a bonding hormone that makes us feel connected to each other- so the act of feeding itself fosters a bond between baby and feeder.

Doesn’t have to be the mother. Doesn’t have to be breastmilk direct from the breast. Doesn’t even have to be a baby and adult- two humans sharing food and the same hormone oxytocin is released creating emotional bonding- why do you think so much social interaction is based around consuming food together?

As for sources, there are literally dozens and dozens of them.

I would wager any sources that support these claims are sponsored by Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson, Abbott & Friesland Campina,

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 11:40

MaterDei · 07/06/2023 11:18

I would wager any sources that support these claims are sponsored by Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson, Abbott & Friesland Campina,

And you’d lose everything down to your last penny.

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 11:43

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 11:01

I can well believe that the solution that’s best for women (divorce - I see it as a good thing that women can choose to break up a family) is not the preferred solution for a government or society. Important to have the debate. Not particularly relevant to any of the posts on this thread though.

What about when men choose to break up a family and the higher rates of maternal and child poverty that come with it? Divorce is a doubled edged sword and can be simultaneously good and bad for women/children vs society/government

AP5Diva · 07/06/2023 11:44

stealthbanana · 07/06/2023 11:03

I don’t think it’s patronising to believe that hard baked assumptions about women’s roles in society can lead to women as a class making different decisions. That’s literally the entire thesis of feminism!

Remember also that these so called female professions were the domain of men 100 years ago - when women started to enter them the pay and status went down massively (a trend that occurs with every single occupation that women enter btw) and they became known as female occupations.

School teachers comes instantly to mind as a formerly male profession, now female dominated and underpaid.

DollyParkin · 07/06/2023 11:57

The role of secretary is another one. V high status in the 18th and 19th centuries.