Motherhood is a trap. Marriage is a bad deal. Feminist Corinne Maier on learning to be selfish

[IwantToRetire]

The French feminist provocateur’s ‘indecent’ insistence that women should prioritise themselves is jubilantly liberating

#MeFirst! A Manifesto For Female Selfishness has managed to work up even the famously laissez-faire French, with critics branding it “indecent” and “a mockery of devoted mothers”, and commenders heralding it “liberating” and “jubilatory”.

Maier is telling women to be “negligent, casual and lazy”, to “minimise the time you devote to others” – including “elderly family members” – to give up “trying to maximise your child’s potential” and “escape the role your mothers were trapped into playing”.

In #MeFirst!, she questions why, despite having worked through so many waves of feminism that no one knows where we are anymore, little girls still aren’t being taught “to get their claws out” in verbal terms: “How to have your say in a hostile environment, how to speak at length without being interrupted, how to take the lead in a group.”

“Remember that empathy,” Maier “is just one of the supposed ‘caring’ qualities we’ve had projected onto us. Qualities that happen to be very convenient for men.”

the chapters on husbands in #MeFirst!, the ones that point out how beneficial marriage is for men, and how detrimental it is for women on every level – right down to life expectancy.

Just some quotes from quite a long interveiw - see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/corinne-maier-feminism-motherhood-marriage-selfish-women/

Full article can also be read at https://archive.ph/B1LmG

even the famously laissez-faire French

Laissez-faire? Really? I don't think the interviewer knows a thing about France. And not much about second wave feminism, either.

I'm all for being lazy and saying no to unreasonable demands.

But I'd strongly dispute that marriage is only beneficial for men. Its main benefit, which was its original purpose that hasn't really changed, is to put barriers in the way of men fathering children then abandoning the children's mother to destitution.

Some other aspects of living with a man might be detrimental to women, yes. Being the household dogsbody etc. Doing all the work of raising the kids with a selfish man (if applicable). Increased risk of domestic violence.

But women are having kids with men and taking all those risks like reducing their income etc but increasingly not getting married because - feminism. Meanwhile the patriarchy is laughing all the way to the bank.

So I'm sceptical of so-called feminists advising women not to get married. I'm of the view feminism should have women's welfare at heart.

I'm so sick of mothering being seen as less than. Why can't mothering be good and worthwhile task valuable on its own terms. Why can't the work of making food for families and friends and loved ones been seen as valuable. No only valuable if you charge for it. Baking for friends and family as a joy as away of caring, as away of making connections bad. Making cupcakes a side hussle good.

Rasing your children in your own home bad. Rasing children in childcare being paid good.

Fuck that.

Mothers and mothering bring untold benefit to society.

A fun article to read, thanks!

This idea isn't that new, and in fact was one of the many criticisisms of Women's Liberation in 70s. That women could live without men.

Based on this interview, which is really a puff piece for the book, Corinne Maier is really saying dont get caught in the family home trap. She herself is married and has two children. But her ability not to be trapped into the domestic sphere, and live apart from her husband has as much to do with her level of income.

I'm not begrudging her that, but how many women (and their male partners) can afford to have two households and the type of jobs that would allow them to share child rearing and lther domestic obligations equally.

In fact Women's Liberation thought that those wanting to be adults who had / cared for children should be able to do it equally by both working part time. And through that share out tasks etc..

However one of the unintended consequences of encouraging more women to be part of the work force was that capitalism reacted by exploiting that fact that the cost of housing could be increased because many families / households had 2 incomes. (Previously it had been assumed that a man would earn enought to pay for housing, wife and children).

Again in real life even those with 2 salaries cannot afford housing, even though they may well be in essential roles eg health, education etc.. And the very option of housing intended to provide essential workers with decent housing at a rate in line with their salaries was destroyed by Thatcher's right to buy. And the proviso that no new social housing should be built by councils. So as with water what had been a shared benefit was privitised to the benefit of shareholders.

I think some schools of feminism, the ones that insist on identical outcomes for men and women, are flummoxed by motherhood and how it fits into their feminist worldview.

Because their feminism tries to ignore or deny any differences in the sexes. Matrescence, becoming a mother, is so undeniably a uniquely female thing that changes a woman's life and body. Most of us have a drive to do it - in spite of our falling birth rate, 80% of UK women still become mothers (just having fewer kids each than before).

So the vast majority of UK women are, or will be, mothers. We need feminism that works for us.

This identical-outcome school of feminism tries to make the mother replaceable or redundant, for example with formula, paid childcare etc (nb I have nothing against those things and use/have used them both). This is in the hope that if we can just carry on through life unaffected by motherhood, we can attain some kind of ideological aim.

But, in my strong opinion, those changes don't benefit individual mothers, individual children, or mothers as a group, or children as a group. It's purely ideological and the ideology is based on the fallacy that the sexes are identical.

Whew, rant over. Mother-centred feminism is a big deal to me

Sounds to me like actual narcissism

me me me

I don't think there needs to be conflict. For some people marriage doesn't work, for some people motherhood doesn't work. For others it does. From my understanding one of the founding tenants of Feminism is having access to the same options to choose from as men without being penialised for that decision.

I think any romanticised image people have of any lifestyle is the problem. Motherhood and marriage is hard for one set of reasons, but childlessness and being single is hard for another. One isn't better than the other.

In an ideal world two adults raising children together could afford a reasonable lifestyle with a full time job between them. 2-3 days a week each would be brilliant. Enough time for children, having a garden, mending things, enough time to reduce the need for fast transport, enough time to get everyone to activities and socialise.

Just a note - please dont judge the article on the paragraphs I picked out.

There is more to it than that.

My main gripe with what the interviewer says is writer's ideas is that for young girls to get ahead they need to learn to be more aggressive / assertive.

Nothing as usual about how the problem is that women's lives have changed enourmously since the back to the kitchen 50s. But men's lives (roles) have hardly changed at all.

Maybe she should have written a book about how men need to learn to think of others, and actively do more for others. (and i know everyone will know as exception, but all surveys point to the fact that women are still the main provider of domestic and parenting services.)

Yes I think the 70s feminism was in fact (hardly surprisingly) influenced by the hippy, new age, back to nature counter culture. ie not being a cog in capitalism wheels.

So yes, part time work, part time caring and time to be yourself in whatever way.

Its hard to imagine how in the current western consumer led culture we could get anywhere near a life style like that.

I think giving men a guide to how much of the caring for others is done by women is a good idea.

I have friends who do double i.e. the caring and the working too and their partners are not proactive enough to make it more equal. The woman is the default carer still in society.

I have known couples where it was as 50/50 as it could (not including the physical limitations) and it there was still the expectation on the woman to pick up any type of caring slack i.e. the school would just call her, not her husband who was more than capable.

I wonder how much the attitudes of women contribute to that? My mum laughed when my brother said that he was going to look after his kids when they were sick..."how will he know what to do?"

It’s so predictable that the author wants women to get lazy by giving up motherhood but not giving up paid work. These authors think they’re being radical but are always so cookie cutter.

I’m tired of being told that to be happy women must go against whatever natural instincts they have and act like men. When can we have a society that values women just for being themselves? Why is there always some feminist trying to tell me I’d be happier if I was a childless pan sexual rocket scientist computer programmer or some shit.

No one tries telling this to transwomen. Transwomen nowadays are the only ones allowed to embrace a traditional feminine role without judgement, it’s fine to truly enjoy being a woman but only if you’re a man.

I agree it was a fun article to read, but totally bizarre. Agree with comments so far. I find it really odd where she is recommending white lies and so on to get out of having to do stuff. Surely if we're teaching girls to speak up and be assertive, they should just be able to say 'It's your turn to sort the party present' not 'I can't because I have to check on my friend'. That kind of assertive conversation is needed to change culture so men step up at scale. Also, where she basically says women should just bullshit more because men do it all the time. The example in the interview is men getting a project funded based on their pontificating rather than knowing anything about it. Well maybe part of the reason the world is in such a state is because for too long things have been done that way. How about instead we stop rewarding bluster and bullshit and instead expect people to think, plan and evidence properly before they do stuff? Agree with all the comments about valuing motherhood, part time work and so on too. I am no supporter of #BeKind but the world really does not need more selfish people or selfish parents, instead we need society to better support and value parenting so that people can actually be good parents whilst also having a bit of a life, especially women. I'm unsure how serious she is here, or to what extent she thinks if women did just pull back, men would be forced to step up.

Thank you for that. I completely agree.

Every single mother I know is doing the majority of the domestic work while also trying to bring in an income. They're exhausted, they feel guilty, they have no time for themselves. The way our society and economy is constructed makes this almost inevitable. I do agree that women are putting up with way too much and the only way to change this is to start saying no. Personally I don't have kids but would change my mind if we didn't like in a society that is so hostile to mothers and children.

It is a myth that we once lived in a time where a single income gave us the perfect lifestyle. Most people didn’t run one, let alone two cars, didn’t have phones or IT equipment, no subscription TV. Food has for the last 40 years has been historically very cheap, even now makes up a much smaller proportion of household expenditure than it did. Holidays were often a day out once a year, not multiple trips abroad. Our expectations have risen. I also don’t think it is reasonable to continue to blame Tatcher for housing crises when she has not been in office for over 30 years and immigration in that time has hugely increase pressure on housing stock. Indeed I am not sure ‘decent housing in line with salaries’ really existed much before then either. Post war there was huge housing shortages and a lot of the ‘problem’ housing stock that exists now was the result of cheap housing built to replace slums.

As for marriage being to women’s detriment; how often do we see stories on MN where a woman has not got married but moved in with her partner and now 10 years down the line finds herself destitute as her now ex partner holds all the assets whilst her income took the hit from having children? Even in divorce laws the role of mothering has been diminished - this used to be recognised by ongoing support of the wife but now that has been ‘modernised’ so once the assets are split the long term impact of staying at home to be a mother is no longer recognised.

So many so-called feminists are ideological rather than practical when it comes to ideas that actually help women or not.

For example. I'm a huge, evangelical fan of extended paternity leave for fathers. My dh took 6mo off for our first and is taking similar with our 2nd.

But many (imo naive) women I've spoken to about this have railed "extending paternity leave? Why would we want to help the menz, they have so much already blah blah". Ideologically against giving what seems like an "extra" benefit to men.

But the mother benefits most when you extend paternity leave. The dad learns to take a key role in (say) nappy changing, bottle washing, housework etc. Then when both parents go back to work, the balance is established.

I have so many more examples of this where so-called feminism (identical-outcome vs equitable-outcome feminism) doesn't actually help real life mothers.

A lot has got lost in translation.

Corinne Maier is extremely funny. She uses provocation and exaggeration to make serious points. You are not supposed to take her literally.

You also have to factor in the French attitude to motherhood, which she is rebelling against. It's still uncommon and frowned-upon for a French woman to say she does not want children - much more so than here. On the one hand, women are expected to have kids. On the other, they are supposed to make it look easy, remain feminine and not complain. We have some of that here, of course, but it's worse in France which, outside of intellectual circles, remains a more conformist and conservative society than the UK.

I only read the OP, not the article and that kind of outlandish assertion does make me smile - a bit like the Scum Manifesto.

But as PPs have said, marriage benefits women, as well as men, as well as children, as well as society as a whole. The legal protections it offers, even if it ends in divorce, protect mothers and children.

I do agree that we have to teach girls to be more comfortable with being disliked and teach them the skills to ensure they are heard and counted, but I don’t think this requires, or is helped in any way, by mothers being negligent.

It is a myth that we once lived in a time where a single income gave us the perfect lifestyle.

Indeed. It's only ever been true of the middle and upper classes. For most of European history the majority of people have been working class, and everyone in the family worked.

it's worse in France which, outside of intellectual circles, remains a more conformist and conservative society than the UK.

Hence my feeling that the writer of the article knows nothing about France. Laissez-faire, my arse. I'd say it's also pretty conformist and conservative within intellectual circles - it's just that they are conforming to a slightly different set of rules.

Actually, not even the middle and upper classes were leisured for most of history. If you read accounts of what medieval or Tudor ladies of the manor were doing, for example, it was physical work. Of course, they no doubt had it much easier that the peasants, but - with the exception of a handful of royalty and the richest nobles - women were working and were lauded for it. The 'ideal' of a leisured middle class or upper class woman is extremely recent - post-Industrial Revolution.

Yes, 'some of' would have been more accurate.

Corinne Maier is extremely funny. She uses provocation and exaggeration to make serious points. You are not supposed to take her literally.

This is exactly what I thought in reading the article. She's using humour to make her point. The fact that she herself is married with two children suggests it's intended to be tongue-in-cheek.

I think part of her aim is to satirise those American self-help books aimed at women telling them how they should be more assertive to get ahead. She takes that to its logical conclusion.

Yes - marriage offers protection to mothers legally. That should basically be all it is, but the reality is men expect a high price for it, when it is the bare minimum they owe their children and should give freely.

But the day to day reality of marriage IS a bad deal.

Marriage actually lowers a woman’s life expectancy, but increases a man.