Proponents of 'equality feminism'- convince me that men will play fair!

[Sakura]

I've mentioned (rather a lot) on here about my choice to become a SAHM, but I've noticed that this decision seems to have been lumped into a chategory called "choice feminism" i.e the choice to wear high heels, cut up your body to look beautiful or work in the sex industry. Being a SAHM appears to be regarded as anti-feminist by women who believe that men and women are basically the same and therefore my choice is not really a choice after all, but a result of social conditioning.
So proponents of equality feminism envisage a world where men partake in 50% of the childcare and 50% of women are in the boardroom.

Now call me cynical, call me man-hater, but history has shown me that men do not play fair and in general they only agree to something if there's something in it for them. (Women were finally 'allowed' work simply because it flooded the market with a supply of cheaper labour, not because men suddenly though "OH yes, women are just as capable as us". So ultimately it benefited men. Rich men) I think that equality feminists are being very naive in thinking that once we get to a stage where men do half the childcare the world will all be peachy.

I think we should pay attention very closely to history. 10 years ago I read a very chilling message by Germaine Greer in The Whole Woman that I identified with completely: women are gradually losing their grip on motherhood.
And motherhood (child-bearing and rearing) is the only thing that sets us apart from men. We can do it better than men, and because men are stronger and wired differently there are other things that men can do better than us.
Because motherhood has been completely and systematically devalued by society, women see paid work as being the better option at this moment in time.
But I will not willingly give up my birthright as a woman to be a mother and be with my children when they are young until I see something better to replace it, and right now I do not.

Its happening already, where men are using the word 'equality' to advantage themselves. I think it was Leningrad who mentioned a woman she knew on maternity leave who was having to pay half the bills out of her maternity allowance in the name of equality.

The most shocking public example I see is of BRitney Spears. She had what seemed to be a nervous breakdown culminating in her shaving her head. Then when her relationship broke down her ex received custody of the children on the basis that she was mentally unstable. Then because she was the higher earner she had to pay him maintenance, so a law that was put in place to protect women was being used against a woman who was denied access to her children. Nobody thought to consider that she shaved her head in protest against being completely objectified (I think she was 17 when her first hit came out) and seen as being nothing more than a sex object. In shaving her head she was asserting her autonomous self.
Then (and this bit makes me sick), because she was "insane" her father took it upon himself to confiscate her assets. Her father and brother (a lawyer) fought for the right to wrest her assets from her until she was considered more 'sane'. Patriarchy at its worst. The courts thought this a perfectly reasonable request and her brother took over her money. Her father and told her that she could only have her money back once she'd got herself together i.e back into Barbie mode. She managed to do that, probably because she wanted to see her kids again.

Nowhere did anyone say: "But she's a mother, let's not separate her from her children when she at her worst. Get her some proper support so she can keep seeing then until she's back on her feet. She's going through at terrible patch at the moment, but lets offer her support and lets make sure she gets to stay with her kids. Nope, they wisked those children away, because "If you want equal rights, then equal rights you will get".

Rant over. Anyway, back on track. Please convince me that men will play fair and not just use the equality as another way to oppress and disadvantage mothers and motherhood.

No, men won't play fair. They will fight every loss of privilege tooth and nail.

But when you talk about Britney Spears, you are talking about something that happened in the context of a male-dominated judiciary, male-dominated media and a society that has trouble with the whole Madonna/whore dichotomy.

(Well, and, plus, I have no idea if she was a fit mother at that point, I don't read celeb stuff.)

I completely disagree with you that women are naturally better carers or that men are naturally better at 'other stuff' because they are 'stronger'. Physical strength is almost completely irrelevant in most jobs, and certainly all the jobs of power can be done by people of either sex.

I think you're feeling defensive about your SAHM choice. And for what it's worth, by the way, I think you're also missing the distinction between 'your choice is not overtly feminist in and of itself' and 'your choice is anti-feminist' and 'you can't be a feminist if you make this choice'.

But you don't, in fact, have a 'birthright' to be at home with your children. You are at home with your children as part of a private agreement between you and your partner, which - handily for you - is also the choice most supported by society, and government benefits aid that choice. You can't seriously want me to believe that your choice wasn't influenced by social conditioning. You don't exist in a social vacuum.

I agree with you that some men use the 'equality' thing as a stick. But that's not a result of any sort of feminism. And the answer is not to jealously guard your nominally-gendered turf.

Perhaps I should clarify.

Physical strength is an example I give to demonstrate how men are different to us. I'm not saying you need it in order to work , I'm just saying its one of the things that makes us different.

The reason I say that my choice was not influenced by social conditioning was because I come from a family where more than one generation of women have worked full-time outside the home. My mother was a full-time professional. It was expected that I too was to work outside the home. BUt something never sat right with me about the whole "we are just like men" thing. ANd when I read the Whole Woman all the pieces fell into place. I can say it was like a Eureka moment.

I may sound defensive in my decision to stay with my kids, but no moreso than women who have left their kids at an early age in order to work. So I think that's a cheap shot.

I am also a bit at your suggestion that I am a feather-head who is interested in celebrity gossip because I gave an example of Britney Spears. You don't know where I learned about her situation from. I don't read gossip magazines.

No, that wasn't at all what I was suggesting! I just literally don't know any of the details about Britney Spears and can't comment. I said 'celeb stuff' as a shorthand for 'anything about celebrities' not as a shorthand for gossip mags.

But I don't at all see why it's unfair that she, as the higher earner, had to pay child support for her children. I would expect to pay child support for mine, if my husband won custody. And although it would break my heart if it happened, I would also expect him to be considered a valid contender for primary custody and not be put out of the running just because he has a penis.

Physical strength gets brought up a lot, as an unarguable difference. But it's fairly irrelevant, and I'm yet to hear a good example that is a relevant reason why men hold all the powerful wellpaid jobs.

I'm not trying to take a shot, by the way. I agree with you that motherhood is devalued and shouldn't be. I do tend to believe that if men did more of the care it would become more valued, though. That's historically been the case; jobs that were once the domain of men and have become the domain of women (teachers, for example) have become devalued and relatively poorly paid as that happened. Midwives (female) got overtaken by obstetricians (male), and suddenly assissting at a birth was a complex specialised job that was renumerated well.

So if men join the childcare realm, childcare will start to become more valuable. And the converse is, if men join the childcare realm, women will be freed up to pursue positions of power if they so choose, and the decisions you're worried about will no longer be made by men for men.

I don't think that it is particularly useful to draw any conclusions about Brittany Spears really. In custody cases the well being of the children should be considered first, and it did not appear at the time that she was making very sensible decisions. The reasons for her breakdown are another matter entirely, and you may well be right (or not, none of us know what might or might not have been going through her head at he time). It may be that perhaps she wasn't really that ill, and that her doctors were all discriminating against her, but powers of attorney are used routinely when a person is considered incapable, and financial decisions need to be made.

When I asked about divorcing my husband I was told that I would have to give him half of all assets, despite the fact that I had brought those assets to the relationship (and he'd spent a lot of them), and that if he got residency rights as primary carer, then I woudl have to pay maintenance. Bloody annoying, but I really can't see why I should argue that it was unfair on the grounds of me being female. In the UK at least it is still very unusual for children to live with their fathers post divorce, so I am inclined to think that on the whole (barring miscarriages of justice) when a decision is made in that direction, it's just as likely to be right as wrong.

On your wider point, I don't think that motherhood is particularly denigrated, except by the total over emphasis that working far too hard is the only way to succeed culture. Whilst I think that mothers are great at motherhood, I also think, as I've said before that fathers can be and often, perhaps usually are excellent parents too, and that mothers do not automatically trump fathers in the parenting stakes. Of course that may be because I don't define myself primarily as a mother, although I am one.

But I also don't think that your choice is in itself anti-feminist, on the other hand I don't think it is a particularly feminist choice either. I think the choice feminism that was discussed the other day was the "because I am female all choices I make are therefore feminist, even if they actively damage both myself and other women" line that seems a bit prevalent at the moment, and I don't think that you are doing that - mainly because it seems entirely without reflection or thought, whereas your choice is clearly something that is important to you, and one that you have thought about.

As to the effect of prevailing culture, it's really not possible to say that any of us are immune. Our upbringing is of course very important, but just watching my own children I can see that external influences are at least as formative as our own personal family set up.

"But I don't at all see why it's unfair that she, as the higher earner, had to pay child support for her children"
Because it doesn't take into consideration the wider issues: that she took time off for pregnancy and undoubtedly suffered loss of earnings because of what her job was, whereas he had no physical reason not to work, and yet he gets her cash. I'm not sure as to the details- whether or not he was a SAHD- but I'm hazarding a guess that he wasn't.

"Physical strength gets brought up a lot, as an unarguable difference. But it's fairly irrelevant, and I'm yet to hear a good example that is a relevant reason why men hold all the powerful wellpaid jobs."

I completely agree with you on that. Physical strength means that men can do tree-chopping or somesuch; it doesn't mean men are more entitled to well paid jobs.

"So if men join the childcare realm, childcare will start to become more valuable. And the converse is, if men join the childcare realm, women will be freed up to pursue positions of power if they so choose, and the decisions you're worried about will no longer be made by men for men."

Yes, I do think that if more men do childcare it will be valued more, and then if more women make public policy then hopefully society will be become more feminised. The problem is, I can see it (can ^already see it )being used in men`s favour (like the Britney example).

Because of the hormones in a woman's body after childbirth and when breastfeeding I think it is far more devastating for a woman to be separated from her baby and child than it is for a man. I think this part is biology. When I had DD the need to pick her up when she was crying was overwhelming and I then read that it was connected to the hormones rushing about my body. I can see this vulnerability in new mothers being taken advantage of by people who don't have women's best interests at heart (the boss who refuses to let the new mother have more time off, for example).

nooka said:
"On your wider point, I don't think that motherhood is particularly denigrated, except by the total over emphasis that working far too hard is the only way to succeed culture. Whilst I think that mothers are great at motherhood, I also think, as I've said before that fathers can be and often, perhaps usually are excellent parents too, and that mothers do not automatically trump fathers in the parenting stakes. Of course that may be because I don't define myself primarily as a mother, although I am one."

I agree that the "working (for pay) to succeed" is part of the problem but I don't agree that motherhood isn't denigrated. Maybe one reason you don't think motherhood is denigrated is because you haven't really experienced it as a SAHM! You have another identity in your work, which sort of lets you off the hook because you can fall back onto that.

I think men are good at caring for children but I certainly don't think a father should be able to trump a mother over first refusal in caring for her child and baby. I can only begin to imagine the heartbreak for mothers that this would cause, and the ways in which men would use it to their advantage.

Well, I agree about the hormones and that mothering is very different from fathering in the early months/years, sure. But not to the extent that it overrides the children's best interest. Custody decisions aren't about the parents' best interest.

But no, you can't convince me that it was 'her' cash, and he wasn't entitled to it. She had the higher earnings, and she is obliged to pay for her children and her spouse to maintain the lifestyle that they were used to. If her earnings were compromised by taking time off for maternity leave, then that would have been factored in; maintenance is calculated on the basis of what the noncustodial parent is earning at the time of the split, and she was earning more then. If she was earning less than she would have been had she had no children, that was reflected in the maintenance. You aren't saying that she was ordered to pay maintenance on the basis of a salary that she didn't get, are you?

For every example you give about equality acting in men's favour, there are lots more acting in women's favour. My country is finally introducing paid maternity leave, which is a recognition of the fact that women can't always physically work and childrear at the same time.

My husband and I do split childcare 50:50 (we both stay home part time) and we both receive support for that choice whereas we wouldn't have done so once upon a time.

His university (he's studying for his doctorate and also works for them as a tutor and research assistant) has made accommodations for him as a fulltime student who is also a primary carer - the same accomodations as the female student he shares an office with receives.

My law firm accomodates working mothers and flexible schedules. Almost 50% of the solicitors here are part-time because we all have young children. When one man's wife went back to her job, he switched to flexible working arrangements to accomodate that. He isn't thought less of for that. All the women who care for young children have flexible schedules, which change as the children grow older.

As a trivial but telling example - there are more and more nappy change stations in men's public toilets now. Sometimes it's the little things.

So, yes, I do think that in my case, where both parents spend equal time with the child, both parents should be considered equally suitable contenders for primary custody. That is part of equality to me, and it's a bargain I'm willing to take.

Well said Sakura - It's often been a thought of mine that the recognition of the work and contribution to society of being a mother, of rearing the children of the next generation - the 'unwaged' invisible labour and after all the most important work there is for a society, indeed the creation of society - has been something that many feminists, past and present, have mistakenly ignored, as a subject of struggle, at their peril. It seems some feminists subscribe, and in doing so in fact collaborate with men, the Patriarchy and the 'system', to the notion that only paid work is valuable or desirable, thereby negating, devaluing and diminishing the huge volume of unwaged work, child rearing, and the women who do it, currently and historically, throughout the world; their sisters in fact. Just as men have always done.

Indeed, some feminists criticise and belittle these very women, for doing this work rather than supporting them, as sisters, and the work they do.

We should be and are, of course, fighting for equality in the workplace, but we should also, as women, in unity, be demanding the deserved recognition for the work that women already do, and not allow ourselves to be sleepwalked into the idea that child rearing is something to be regarded as a temporary interruption, even a nuisance (by employers) or a 'life-style choice', getting in the way of a proper or real job. Something to be negotiated around before one can rejoin the real world and thus acceptance as a full, fulfilled and worthy member of society once again.

How we are all manipulated. During the two World Wars, women, who had often been denied any sort of paid work at all, let alone equality, were encouraged into warwork, doing the jobs left vacant when men went to fight; as land girls, or in munitions and were lauded for it. They had rarely known such independence and dangerously, developed a taste for it. Afterwards though, they were soon sent back to the kitchen; when they were no longer required in the factories and offices, the home was once again then considered their 'proper place'.

I've just posted this on the 'Asking for it' thread, but it seems very relevant to what you're saying about Britney Spears.

Last broadcast yesterday, 11:30 on BBC Radio 4:

'Madwomen in the Attic' will consider bedside analysis from afar for the mad, bad and sad heroines of classic fiction through the eyes of modern medicine and psychiatry. '... including the first Mrs Rochester in 'Jane Eyre', Lady Glyde in Wilkie Collins' 'A Woman in White' and the (undoubtedly maddening) Emma Bovary in 'Madame Bovary'"

Also includes the case of Rosina Bulwer Lytton, novelist, essayist and satirist, daughter of the early feminist Anna Wheeler, ...for a modern audience, it seems barely credible that a fortune-seeking husband could get away with having his sane wife certified and locked up in an asylum... but Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton had his wife carted off to Brentford asylum in 1858 because she was an embarrassment to his political career.

To quote the presenter, Vivienne Parry "...women that refused to conform were the ones that got locked up, by men, in attics or whatever other spaces were available..."

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s0cn3

Thanks for the link Gardenpath. I will look at it now. Is there any recent literature on this?
Yes, the Britney Spears story really makes my blood boil. Its the oldest trick in the book: to underscore a woman's autonomy (would a man be considered mad for shaving his head?), take away her rights, privileges and assets(and thesedays access to her children too, it seems) and say that it was all necessary because she was insane; while forgetting the fact that a lot of women's 'insanity' is caused by enduring the unbearable circumstances created by existing a sexist society in the first place.

For me, these are real feminist issues. SO I will continue to use the word 'birthright' when I say that women should have first refusal to be with their babies, and that they shouldn't have their babies taken off them just because the man may have contributed 50% or more to childcare. At the moment it is still tacitly understood that children need their mother, but another 30 years or so and a man might easily be able to wrest the children off their mother under the guise of equality. The thought sends shivers down my spine.

I have to add that I believe that I have made the feminist choice in becoming a SAHM. IT was not an opt-out decision or the result of 'choice' feminism. It was to retain the "grip" on motherhood and to align myself with women over the world who do this work. It was a political choice to put my money where my mouth is and say "Yes, this work is valuable." I don't think that the women who have prioritized 'equality feminism' and left their babies to do so are anti-feminist. I think the struggle for places in the boardroom is also a very important struggle, but I do think that it is only really applicable to a particular kind of woman (middle-class, developed world), and it is in no way more important than the struggle to invest motherhood with respect. It may earn you the grudging respect of patriarchal society, but if women think that boadroom work is superior to child-bearing and rearing then it just shows masculinist society still is. And as GardenPath says, proceed in that direction if you like but you do it at women's peril.

Hear hear Sakura!

I'm passionately a mother first and foremost (although I do also have a career which I love, but which is firmly on the back burner at the moment).

I think it's terrifying that we often seem to be falling into the trap of just adopting patriarchal values as if they were our own. Earning money is important and so is equality of opportunity and recompense. But mothering is equally important. To me, mothering is a precious experience that I have no intention of handing over to others. The trend of prioritising work over mothering weakens our ability to retain that role. I an scared too that men will be able to wrestle that from us.

Btw as I type this my dd is sitting happily in her daddy's arms. I'm not denigrating fathering before anyone shouts 'what about the men?!'. Fathering is jot under attack. Mothering is, often sadly by feminists themselves.

Not under attack. Blame my iPhone keyboard !

You guys do realise that feminists fought for maternity leave and flexible working arrangements, and the right to breastfeed in public, and the right to have breastfeeding facilities at work, right? Is that not a recognition of mothering being valuable to society, to you?

This idea that feminists don't respect mothers is, frankly, an antifeminist myth.

tortoiseonthehalfshell - I argued on another thread that feminism made it possible for me economically to mother my child as I wanted, and to be able to return to work more easily etc.

I was told by some other posters that it was an antifeminist choice to put my career on hold. I'm not buying into any myths, just responding to a trend on this topic area that is denigrating mothering. I could paste some example comments from other threads if you like?

there have been posts such as...

'a SAHM (unless she has independent means) loses her income and becomes financially dependent on her parter, potentially allowing herself to be oppressed in an unhappy relationship, in the same way as a stripper allows herself to be sexually exploited. Both make things worse for other women by normalising their respective situations.'

and

'For now there's a political and feminist duty to work and the default position be the husband doesn't work until we ensure better equality at work and more women in senior positions. Staying home is a bad and non feminist choice and damages other women.'

And wrt flexible working arrangements and the right to breast-feed / express at work, yes they are important gains but they are still about mothers working when this thread is about prioritising mothering over working, at least while they are little.

I uphold the right of mothers to work, but I don't relish being told that it is unfeminist to reduce my work while I have a little child. And I resent the expectation that I should return to work as soon as possible, as if that were the only value I possess. It's just as tyrannical a mind-set as the assumption that my only value is in child-bearing.

Hear hear Sakura and blinder.

Liberal reform is A Good Thing, of course, but you only have to read the rape thread ('Asking for it') to see that patriarchy is alive and well. The reforms we've seen over the last 40 years haven't touched that deep-seated 'thing' (which I'm calling patriarchy but I'm not sure if I'm using the term correctly) that keeps women down.

I think your instincts on this are absolutely spot on, Sakura.

"Because of the hormones in a woman's body after childbirth and when breastfeeding I think it is far more devastating for a woman to be separated from her baby and child than it is for a man. I think this part is biology. When I had DD the need to pick her up when she was crying was overwhelming and I then read that it was connected to the hormones rushing about my body."

I feel that you are generalising, based on your experience - it was not my experience. I find babies very boring and much prefer my DC now that they are grown.
I think that you are in danger of deifying motherhood. Yes, childhood development is important but no-one has (yet!) deemed it necessary to get a qualification in parenting, anyone can do it. As long as a child has one or more stable carers of some description in its life (mother, father, grandparent, nanny, childminder, etc) then it will be OK. It doesn't need only a mother, and I feel that it certainly does not need a woman to totally sacrifice herself on the altar of motherhood.
FWIW I speak as one who used nannies and nurseries when the DC were young. They have turned out to be lovely young people and probably better rounded individuals than if they had stayed 24/7 with this particular mother.

I would be horrified if DH and I split and the DC decided to go with him, but cannot argue against it. It's the downside of equality but you can't call it equality if we only cherrypick the upside bits.

.

On the Britney front:
"Nobody thought to consider that she shaved her head in protest against being completely objectified and seen as being nothing more than a sex object."
I read that she shaved to destroy evidence: you can try to appear 'clean' by detox but hair still contains evidence of months-ago drug use.

Britney Spears didn't lose custody of her children because she shaved her head. The children's father gained emergency custody at that time because Spears was in and out of alcohol/drug rehab. After a couple of years of the court getting reports and monitoring how she was doing Spears agreed that Federline should have primary custody. I think they're now doing 50:50.

Sorry but I don't think any thoughts that because she is the children's mother should automatically trump the apparent fact that said mother was off her face a lot of the time that the initial orders were made.

'You can't seriously want me to believe that your choice wasn't influenced by social conditioning. You don't exist in a social vacuum'

Isn't that a generalisation?

I am home as carer now; that sentence may make posters think i've succombed to some social norm yet DH was home beofre kme and may well be agin should I return to ft study

snapshots tell you zilch IMO and IME

And absolutely I feel a biological pull; i knmow many don't- my sister for one leaves that side to BIL- but a feminism that asks people to forego what they really want from life in favour of a major aim that quite liekly they will never see as it's generations away is going to last about 5 minutes I think.

Someone in my family unti has to be at home, why shouldn't it be me? If I am happiest tot ake the reins of being a carer, and dh is only happy if invoved with outside stuff, why on eart would we reverse that and end up with 2 unhappy people? Of course I am lucky in that I am a PT post grad student and certainly ebing a carer and fighting endless bureaucracy is far from handing voer one's brains- but life ias a SHAm is only as unchallenging as you make it. Society for a start relies on SAHM's in voluntary rtoles (and no emn can't do tehm all, certainly we ahd trouble placing our single male volunteer when I worked for a charity involved in family sphere).

[[http://threeriversblog.com/tag/choice-feminism interesting[[ article here.

sorry

"As long as a child has one or more stable carers of some description in its life (mother, father, grandparent, nanny, childminder, etc) then it will be OK. It doesn't need only a mother"

I generally agree with that statement but... but... it does feel like what Sakura is saying, that it is a deliberate downplaying of the role of the mother. (And I want my children to be more than OK.)

"and I feel that it certainly does not need a woman to totally sacrifice herself on the altar of motherhood"

This phrase "altar of motherhood"... what is that? I hear this a lot on here (though not iin RL) and it sounds sneery - like any attempt to assert the importance of motherhood and to think seriously about how you do it well, for the benefit of yourself, your children and society as a whole, is trying to make it into some kind of religious cult. It's not. It's just accepting that the way you mother your child matters.

Oh and this sacrificing yourself - what does that mean? For most women, working out how best to function as a mother, whether that means as a SAHM, a WOHM, or a bit of both, is not a sacrifice - we want to do our best, don't we? It's only a sacrifice if you're doing something you hate doing.

I agree with tortoise and not Sakura.

Working parents are very good parents who love their children and maximise the time they spend with them. Most parents in the UK both work.

How could any mother on here argue against women paying financial support to men and call herself a feminist? I am one of our prime examples - I paid out to my ex husband on divorce. Leaving aside my own personal situation, I can stand back and say - wow - this is wonderful - we have come so far that the law is not sexist. The next stage would be to ensure children could live with each parent 50/50 after divorce rather than regard children as the property of the mother which the father if he's lucky gets a tiny chance to see. Feminists do fight for fathers' rights, rights of fathers to spend time with their children etc. Feminisim is really only essentially about fairness.

It is not fair if men get fun jobs and women clean the loos. Every culture always has found that as soon as women have money or power they subcontract the dross low IQ domestic stuff. The roman women had slaves. Women in Shakespeare's day used wet nurses. Many families abroad will use older siblings to care for children etc etc. There is no nirvana which says scrubbing the floors and having the privilege of changing 10 nappies a day and minind 2 toddlers is a wonderful fun thing to do which we should fight to enable women to do.

Instead we fight to enable women to earn the money and power to ensure they can craft the life they want. HNow that might be that they make a fortune and sell up at 40 so they can afford to spend their days lying in the sun whilst a nanny and housekeeper keeps little junior happy or whatever but let us never suggest that housework and childcare are great occupations for women. All adults in the UK need to organise aspects of those and we do but most will outsource them when they can because they are low grade, boring and all societies have them at the bottom of the heap.

Oh and looka t this on some other thread about someone whose husband is playing computer games until late drinking vodka every night.

"My dh was playing it again last night too.I don't think I have the heart to stop making his food or doing his washing etc he might leave for good and I need the money he provides."

it all comes back to education of girls, women picking decent careers and earning their own money so they are not having to p ut up with bad behaviour from anyone for economic reasons. I bet if she earned £100k a year and he earned £10k she wouldn't be tolerating things in the same way.