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

I find myself doing a massive eye roll at someone getting married and having 2 kids - ie the standard Western model that we've all been socialised into for decades - and then spouting their wisdom on how to be alternative and subversive.

You've done the obvious thing. Now shut up and get on with it.

You want to differ from the norm? Be like me - a 40 year old woman who has chosen to not have any kids at all.

It's just more "you've chosen your oppression so you've got to endure it" crap.

It's not feminism that works for me.

It's akin to "well you shouldn't be so feminine if you want to be taken seriously in the office".

How many of us have heard this kind of message?

And isn't Maier saying something like this too?

Feminists like this actually look down on women, I believe.

Mother-centred feminism will certainly benefit all women, including those who are not mothers.

How exactly?

I really enjoyed this article and feel it very much describes my own philosophy. I chose not to have children because I didn't want to and felt it would require too much sacrifice. I'm married but I don't cook for him or do his laundry and in fact my DH does much more housework than I do (while I earn most of the money doing a job I enjoy). He moved countries for me because of my job. And I have strict barriers in place as to how much I'm willing to do for my parents and sibling (I don't tell white lies though, I just say no).

I developed this way of living because I had a terrible childhood during which I was physically abused and badly neglected. I decided as a child that when I grew up I'd do exactly what I wanted and be happy and that's what I've done.

I don't understand why people are taking this author's comments as anti-mother when she's a mother herself. It's just about not martyring yourself to the needs and wants of others and to society's expectations of what you should do. But on the other hand being a mother is at best a neutral choice if not a selfish one itself (and that OK!). But it's not a sacred duty. This planet is overpopulated as it is, and although we do have an aging population in the west there are people from elsewhere literally dying to come and work and live here. We are in absolutely no danger of running out of people!

I also don't think any adult should be financially dependent on someone else if they're capable of earning their own living. It's too much of a risk putting your fate entirely in someone else's hands. But if anyone chooses to do that then for goodness sake they should get married first so at least they have some kind of legal protection.

The comment was in response to the statistic on life expectancy and cannot be disproven with anecdote, even more so as you are still alive.

I think mother-centred feminism will benefit all women, because it should seek to implement laws, standards and norms that benefit all women.

It will entail a massive shift politically and socially. The Scandinavian countries managed this to a degree in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

So for instance put into law that both women and men should have Parental leave. 50/50, 70/30 or whatever is most beneficial. Minimum 6 months for each parent. Minimum.

Subsidised childcare, which will mean that women of fertile ages will not get squeezed out of promotions on the mere suspicion they may want children. Subsidised childcare will mean women will return after their Parental leave, as will the fathers. The shared Parental leave means that employers know both men and women will have a given time off when they have children.

A recognition of the value of care work. Children, disabilities, elderly etc. This work is immensely important. We should start appreciating that in society as a whole.

A recognition of the different health needs of women and men; not only menstrual health or menopausal health, but those can certainly be lifted first (which they to an extent are).

A lift to maternal health and abortion provisions + research into alternative preventive measures because sadly the Pill is not compatible with many women

sorry about typos, on phone and DD needs help

There are lots of ways to be different to the norm. You can be different to the norm in a variety of areas of life. You can have children and still be at the front line or forefront of something; you can still achieve unusual things; have unusual interests; not go along with the crowd in all matters. Your children can also be unusual or out of the norm in some way too. Simply not having children doesn't make you necessarily or particularly unusual, or even that subversive.

Yes I agree, but more importantly why is bring different to the norm, as a woman, a desired goal?

Unless you look down on the majority of women and don't want to be like them?

I've got nothing against women who don't want children, I have equal respect for them, as I said above.

What I do scorn is women who think not having kids makes them better, more enlightened, more feminist than mothers. Because mothers have "done the obvious thing", as if that's why we're mothers, just silly sheeple.

What rubbish. It's the opposite of feminist, to look down on 80% of women.

I agree. I don't have (biol) kids, but I haven't made that choice as some statement of higher purpose. I've done it for the same reason that I imagine most mothers have children (in cultures where women have a choice) - because I hoped it would make me happy. It is no more or less selfish or virtuous than choosing to have children.

I understand why childfree women get frustrated at being co-opted into issues around motherhood, when it doesn't feel like our fight, and when it feels as if mothers do not always fight our corner in return. But, ultimately we should be supporting all women to have choices, including ones that are different from our own.

Being a mother is something that most women do and is the thing only women do.

It's the fundamental thing that seperates us from men. Even deciding not to be a mother is unique to women. It's not quite the same, or seen as the same, as deciding not to be a father.

It should be at the centre of everything we think about when we think about women.

How does it shape our role, what benefits does it bring, how do we celebrate and value it, how does it make us vulnerable or limit us, how do we ensure it doesn't define us, how do we balance it with our other roles and aspirations, how does it impact our decisions around ralstionships with men, what should be the governments role in supporting it, what does it mean for the women who don't choose it, how do we see and value them, how desparate is it for women who want but can't have children, how do we use technology to support them.

The feminsist idea that being a mother is a side issue and the central issue is how to minimise motherhood so we can do everything just like the men, is the most antiwomen position you could take.

No it wasn’t. The statistic was there to support the assertion that marriage isn’t a good deal for women.

also - no one was trying to disprove it.

@Mumoftwo1312 wasn't questioning the statistic. She was saying that marriage does offer some women legal protection ( which it does and I totally agree with)

oh and the figures don’t suggest you drop dead on marriage - your life expectancy is just shorter by a couple of years, so I would expect anyone lower than 70 to be dead.

also I’m single- does that mean the fact I’m alive proves it’s true? Or just that you lack comprehension skills?

that should read:

• wouldn’t expect anyone lower than 70 to be dead.

Have just cuaght up with thread and suprised how many have taken this about degrading motherhood. The article implies that the point being made is that in fact motherhood is revered and in fact (maybe this is France as a PP said) you are somehow meant to do it (messy bits and joyful bits) and not let on that it actually takes up a lot of time, emotional energy and thought.

Also incredibly surprised at those who think marriage was created to protect the rights of the children born in a marriage.

Recent changes by FEMINST campaigners have now managed to make issues over children and costs after divorce a bit more equal.

Marriage was about a woman previously the responsibility of her father being taken on by a husband. It gave her no rights whatsoever. And in the few cases where the lucky bride had some of her own money, she then lost it to her husband. Marriage was also to allow men to think (hope) that all the children his wife had were really his.

As to the one income could cover the cost of housing, that was in theory, but also partly based on the fact that married women who did go out to work or took in work at home were earing "pin" money. It wouldn't be a career with expectations of promotion etc..

In fact the biggest changes to women's employment prospects was between the 2 world wars when because of the devastating loss of life in WWI there was then an enormous number of "spinsters". Many of the institutions set up ar that time to help campaign for equal rights for women as employees helped fashioned what became decades later equal rights legislation.

I also took, but maybe this wasn't meant, that Corinne Maier was taking a bit of a side swipe at what is now fostered by advertising etc., or competitive motherhood. Or rather a pressure by consumerism to be seen to be doing the right thing by their children, which seems to involve spending a huge amount of money on keep children entertained, with all the latest gizmos, holidays etc.. And obviously not all can but newspapers, magazines and tv push this narrative.

One of my neighbours is a single mother and cant help but compare her role to how her mother was. She remebers in her childhood that basically when not a school being left to entertain herself. But she is her son's social secretary for the many engagements and outings that his school friends all assume is their right and her son wants to be part of. Obviously for her finances are an ongoing problem, but she is really worried that he will find it really hard to be independent. So many women have talked about feeling that at home they are the administrator having to organise the man she it supposedly sharing domestic work with, and now their children's as well.

So just to repeat what I said late last night. The issue is that women have changed, but men haven't.

It isn't an attack on motherhood but that men / society aren't making any effort to allow women to be mothers and equal members of society.

I wonder if the increase (for some people) of working from home, has in any way shifted this bias and men are actuallly facing up to the joint responsibilities as a parent.

Interesting.

How I see it is that if this is somewhat offensive then maybe as a woman you have had to or chosen to give more of yourself up in exchange for parenting or being a partner. Knowing that the writer has raised 2 children gives another dimension to it.

I do not think men or women should be too selfish but guess what, men are allowed to be and are. I believe there is a time and place to let the ego take over, society is constantly accepting the male ego.

Here is an example of how the lack of selflessness subtly manifests itself for women - in the article she gave the example of following your man across the world for work - I’m guessing the issue with this is if you loose yourself.

On MN you see mums giving up education or work because “my children are only young once” whilst men continue with their careers, upskill or change jobs if they need to and maintain their social life and network. Whereas as a woman we are made to feel guilty for choosing to balance it. Of course it’s different if you choose to stay at home. Even so, why should we not raise children and dabble in hobbies or do something fulfilling. Our children stay young once but we only have one life too.

Not going to read the article honestly, the summary itself sounds very selfish and is exactly imo how society is in the position it's in where so many people are unhappy and life is getting more and more depressing.

If everyone's being selfish and doing the whole self-care, self-love, "It's nothing to do with me why should I get involved" type mentality then no one will look out for one another when they need it.
That girl crying on a street corner will be left to fend for herself, that stressed out new mum at her wits end who could do with a friendly chat from a stranger could end up having a breakdown later that night, Just seems.... Like a world I wouldn't want to live in honestly :S

It's the fundamental thing that seperates us from men. Even deciding not to be a mother is unique to women. It's not quite the same, or seen as the same, as deciding not to be a father.

The feminist idea that being a mother is a side issue and the central issue is how to minimise motherhood so we can do everything just like the men, is the most antiwomen position you could take.

I strongly agree with both the above points.

It should be at the centre of everything we think about when we think about women.
Totally disagree with that. At least 10% of adult women will not have children by the menopause. We are not an afterthought, to be subsumed into a version of womanhood that centres only motherhood. And many mothers - Corinne Maier among them - also do not want their existence to be centred on motherhood.

Motherhood is a hugely important part of life for women who have children, but it is not at the centre of every aspect of every woman's life. It is as deeply regressive to treat motherhood as the cornerstone of women's existence as it is to treat women like defective men.

It should be at the centre of everything we think about when we think about women.

Absolutely not.
Patriarchy and misogynyst scum (both men and women) already demand that women should have partners and kids and if you don’t, you’re a failure.
Ask any woman who doesn’t have, can’t have, doesn’t want kids and they can tell you how much misogyny they face.
Society already put women with partners and/or kids on a pedastal. And now feminists have to centre everything around mothers too!

Hell no to that bullshit!
I swear, online feminist spaces has made me wonder who the hell comments here and other places.
This kind of misogynystic bullshit where only conventional women matters was the reason I seeked out feminism in the first place, like damn!

Thank you so much for your views on an article you haven't read. Illuminating.

@TodayIsNotMyDay There is an Mner on the Mners without children board who got reported to HR by her colleugues for not doing what would have been her 9th Christmas shift in a row. Instead of thanking her for the EIGHT Christmases she had already done so they could spend theirs with their kids they went whining to HR about discrimination. The poster stood her ground and had Christmas off but come Christmas Day got a call from her manager asking her to come in as the parent had predictably called in sick. She stood her ground and said no but has now decided to look for another job. Employers already see "family friendly" to only mean kids

Well surely a women's movement should mainly be focused on the things that impact most women?
That just seems logical?

I agree though, it should inlcude all women, and if you read my post I do.

But I do think it's our role as mothers that's the most signifcant barrier/ difference/ privilege that has to be grappled with when we think about what impacts women.

I find it suprsing that is controversial.

That exact situation could happen to a man without children.
So it's not a feminist/ women's issue it's a childless as viewed by HR issue.

The point is female parents had treated her (another female) that way.

Well surely a women's movement should mainly be focused on the things that impact most women?
That just seems logical?

The women's movement should focus on the political, economic and social liberation of women. Broadly speaking.

Most girls and women in this country do not undergo FGM or forced marriage, but it's still an issue that needed work from the women's movement to try to get FGM outlawed here and enforcement of that.

Most women have not been raped, but the women's movement should still focus on helping women who have and on getting justice for them through the punishment of perpetrators.

Most women aren't, have never, and will never end up in prison, but the safety and well-being of women in prison is still a women's issue.

Most women are not lesbians, but the fight for the rights of lesbians is still a woman's fight. What benefits lesbians is largely what benefits any single woman: she needs to be able to live a life without men. Enabling that for a woman benefits all women, even if they don't want to live alone and without a man, because it allows for female independence, economically and socially.