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.

I think mother is a status not a job or lifestyle.

Oh it's much more than just a status. Tbh I don't really get all this talk of choice. It just sounds to me like a luxury few women have. My childcare arrangements have always been dictated by necessity, not choice. I was a SAHM for 3 years when my DCs were babies, then had to go back to work because my earning potential was higher than my husband's, so he became a SAHD (which he resented and threw back in my face when we split). I would have preferred to work P/T but that wasn't an option. Then I became a single WOHM and had to muddle through with childcare (2 nights pw with their dad, after school at a kids' club which they thoroughly disliked, holiday care split between me using annual leave, their dad and my mum). I had to stop work to look after my DD full-time again when she was in her teens, at which point I became dependent on my DP. Apart from the choice to have children in the first place, I've never really felt I had choices, just necessities, and I suspect that's the experience of most women.

The more that I think about this issue the more I think I have to concede that I am not a feminist. I don't want to play a part in creating a world where things are better solely for women. I would rather look at ways to create a world that is sustainable and just for everyone.

I don't think of myself primarily as being what I do, but who I am. If someone said to me "who are you" I wouldn't say I am a mother or I am a manager. In fact I think it is a strange question. If someone asked me what I do I would tell them a bit about my job, where I live, what I'm interested in and my family too. So no, I don't think that I fall back on my job for my identity. Having said that my professional life is very important to me, but that's because of the sort of person I am. I am a thinker by nature, quite academic, strategic, interested in ideas and concepts, wanting to change the world for the better and quite ambitious. Perhaps that's because I've been totally conditioned by a paternal society, but I think it's more to do with family really, and don't see what is wrong with any of those goals. I don't want to live in a subsistence economy where the only work available is totally utilitarian.

The periods I spent at home with the children were really not happy ones for me, because parenting alone is just not enough, I found it stifling and boring (especially when the children were small), and I hated not having an independent income. But I don't recall anyone doing anything other than expecting me to be at home, dh gets a much more interesting response when he says he is a stay at home dad.

"dh gets a much more interesting response when he says he is a stay at home dad"

That's because when men do something it's assumed to have value. If a woman does it she's just doing what comes naturally, right? Wrong. Childcare is bloody difficult, unpaid and unnapreciated by society- as men are slowly beginning to find out for themselves.

MillyR
"The more that I think about this issue the more I think I have to concede that I am not a feminist. I don't want to play a part in creating a world where things are better solely for women. I would rather look at ways to create a world that is sustainable and just for everyone. "

I agree with you on that. But we're not starting at a level playing field here- women are disenfranchised and de-valued. Which is why, as a feminist, it's my place to concentrate on women. Don'T worry about the men. They can more than take care of themselves.
Someone asked earlier-what's in it for the men? And I've been thinking a lot about that.
For too long the majority of men have taken for granted that they are entitled to live with women and children, lord it over them and generally do as they like. Most divorces are instigated by women. MOst women are just simpley better off living alone than with a man. I am shocked at this notion of a woman being just so thrilled that a man has finally asked her to marry him and she then displays her rock to everyone so they can admire the size of it. She finally gets her prince .
So what men get out of the deal is this:
The good men, the reasonable men, the fair men; those who respect women and the contribution that women make to society, like tortoise's husband who is committed to equality , or UNquiet dad on here who takes mother-work seriously. OR men like my own husband who enable me to do the mothering work myself by giving me sole access to the bank account and not involving himself in what I do with the money. These men are the ones who can experience the pleasure of living in a world where money isn't everything. The pleasure of contributing to the raising of children in a fair and respectful way, and helping their female partner in how she prefers to do her mothering (herself/ delegating it to him or someone else).

What I was talking about when I was saying it's naive to give men a 50% stake in children was that not all men are like this. By a long shot. So don't think women should hand over the rights of mothering to men willy nilly.

Sorry, I obviously didn't express myself very well there. When I was at home with the children it was not something that was commented on by friends or family or even acquaintances. Because it is a fairly normal, unexceptional thing to do. For a woman. When I mention to people that my dh is at home with the children I usually get a double take because it is such a very unusual thing for a man to do. My mother is convinced that dh must be deeply unhappy not to be working. However she spent much of the time when I was growing up going on about it being the greatest fulfillment for any woman to devote herself to motherhood. That's not feminism in my book, but total double standards.

I think that your view of men is pretty sad Sakura. I think in general most people are happier living with the company of someone they love who in return loves them. The vast majority of men that I know are good kind interesting people who do not "lord it over" anyone, but treat their partners with respect and love their children. I've not noticed men being anything other than over the moon when they get engaged or married, and whilst engagement rings in guys are very unusual, most men now where wedding rings.

I am very glad that feminism has made it possible for men to be able to express their caring natures and not be shoehorned into a particular stereotype that really doesn't help anyone.

Sure there are still some obnoxious people out there, and women in many parts of the world have pretty crappy lives, and there is much much work to be done but I don't think it's helpful to treat individual men with such disdain and assume that we'd be better off without them because they are such poor specimens of humankind. After all, between us we are probably mothering many future men, and I don't know about anyone else but I love my son as much as my daughter, they are both fine lovely people, and I hope and expect they both will bring much value to the world.

Hear, hear, nooka.

I agree entirely with nooka too. I am above all a libertarian. I want to live in a country where people would die to ensure those who live lives which are different or just plain wrong can continue to do so - where you can choose Eton or home schooling, a sink comp or a grammar; where you can where the burka or a crop top. However we also must remain free to say that if women buy into power and money giving you strength and choices then you don't get much of that at home. The muth of the hand that rocks the cradle holds the throne is not what women should want. Behind every powerful man is a supportive women is a muth which needs a good kicking in. Let's have the women with the power and Mr Cameron at home with his mop.

I accept I am terribly lucky for all kinds of reasons and not typical. I think the elements of that are first born - first born children tend to do differently from others: secondly my IQ is reasonable and I had good education at home and school although I have never been handed any money I didn't earn and the reason I had three babies by the time I was 26 was because I really wanted children and lots of them. I didn't want to leave that to chance so to an extent we shape our own lives. If you wait to 38 (I see Cameron's sister married at 38 yesterday) it's quite hard to have a football team of children or even a netball team. Also I did read feminist writers in my teens but I'm not sure that had a particular influence. I wanted to buy an island so I did look at the pay of different careers but I doubt at 14 I really understood the differences and I wanted work I would enjoy. In fact I suspect it's the job at doing it, the sheer "flow" as they call it which is may be the nicest thing in terms of work that I have, rather than the pay itself.

Also someone who interviewed me once said every other woman like I am she had interviewed in the series had had this one characteristic - they could accept a good enough job rather than being a total perfectionist. They could look at the children scruffy in the garden and think that's fine I can accept it or leave the office at 6.30 and think I've done enough, a good job. Much harder if your personality is perfectionist.

Women should also be happier - we have gained a lot. Life is not harder. Even domestic applicances make things a lot easier.

Someone mentioned above Germaine G saying always look at whether particular tasks need to be done and some don't. Obviously everyone makes their own choices but I have always felt delighted I can make other parents happy by my children having badly made school costumes - sending them in in a bin bag can be your good deed of the day particularyl ilf they're proud you were doing XYZ work thing rather than spending 3 hours sweing the thing that will never be worn again. If you can get the children to have the positive happy attitude about your work that's great or even better get the father to make it which indeed we have done in this family. Dividing tasks so he is 100% responsible for say the washing and you never go near it and you do 100% of packing school bags. I did our tax returns for 17 years and he took the children to the dentist. Just share things out fairly.

The reason this has been such a good thread is because Sakura is saying exactly the opposite of what I think.
Arguing men cannot wash up, do the washing clean the house or look after children properly is actually what I regard as the main reason women are kept back. They tend to have reasonable prospects at work but if they also do everything at home and are the idiot who takes time off when a child is sick 100% of the time and the husband never does they will always be held back and feel resentful. In other words one of the best things feminism can do today is trumpet the ability of men with children and in terms of housework. There is the key to women having a better life and s' suggestion was we should retain that one thing which I think most holds us back.

"The vast majority of men that I know are good kind interesting people who do not "lord it over" anyone, but treat their partners with respect and love their children."

I don't think it's relevant to refer to the men we know because necessarily, what they are like is skewed by our own lifestyle, class, education, experience etc. When you look at statistics and find that 1 in 4 women are subjected to physical violence in the home, you have to ask how many others are subjected to other forms of abuse and have to accept that just because the men we know are nice, that means jack in terms of how women as a majority are treated by their partners - sometimes without being aware that they are treated badly.

Sakura is not arguing that men can't do housework. Not once on this thread has she said that.

It's true Sakura did not say that

However as someone amrried to a man who does share the jobs equally (he accepts that being a carer is a job in itself so housework should be shared as it was ewhen I was employed) I recognise also how, as Xenia says, other women do seem to have this nmotion that men cannot... which imo is as silly as women cannot... however, whsilt what women usually want is something thatc arries bonuses such as independence and financial status, I can quite see why a man would choose not toa rgue and end up with the dusting if he is not someone who feels ideologically obliged to chip in!

I'm a first born like Xenia, I come from a very different background (sink estate, bullied badly at school by the teachers etc) and that's just luck but I did manage to turn a lot of that around by my late twenties: a false start doesn't have to be a roadblock. By the time ds3 (the one with more severe SN) was born I was a charity manager: ahrdly Xenia income status but nonetheless a good career job and one that made me very happy. A decent aim imo. Things got shaken up with ds3's diagnosis and dh's redundancy as one would expect but because I am used to making my own way as is DH (anbother first born) we're buildling a path back out step by step. Which is perfectly reasonable. In ten tyears DH should be making more SE than he ver did in his last careeer, and I am getting top grade in my group for my MA and amking contacts where I want to end up.

There are circs where people can't be said to have an average chance and people like me who are not very cash motivated (security of course) but regardless imo a bit of drive and an equal marriage shoves your chances of being happy far higher than some old marital stereotype and a gender domninance

I think Sakura's latest statement of her position (01:18) is clearer and less open to misinterpretation than her OP and is much more something I can agree with. Earlier on there were various posts that just referred to 'men' in the aggregate; I think it's very dangerous to come across as tarring all men with the same brush, as it makes it sound like a) they're all the same (and we know they're not, and have direct examples of this) and b) as if they can't change or might not be able to change, because it could be an essential quality of them. That's both wrong and pernicious.

HB's latest point is also very important though - if we refer just or mostly to the men we know, then we are taking a skewed group which is not necessarily going to be relevant across even our own society (insofar as we are all within the same society - given that we have Japan represented in this discussion as well as Western countries).

But while I'm not saying "men and women are the same" I still don't think I buy into "motherhood is special", so much as "parenthood is special". Ah well, haven't had my baby yet, maybe I will have the same epiphany as Sakura did on the birth of her first child .

Feminism is about fairness. It is as much about allowing fathers to be good parents as mothers. The more we ensure fathers are allowed to take their rightful place as parents the more we benefit children and their mothers. Apart from the wonderful process of being pregnant and breastfeeding and the slight differences thereafter in how some women and men interact with their off spring though fathers have as much a role to play as women.

We are all parents whether we work or not and no matter what hours of work we play. Some fathers are finding it hard at present as they have avericious wives wanting the latest clothes and houses but not who don't themselves work and the father is out there working very long hours when he would rather do what most fathers try to do - be home, bath the children, talk over dinner. My father did bed time - shared it as children. My mother did some of us and he the other. Fathers have always been very involved and feminism helps mothers more by helping fathers into their role at home as by saying mother hood is some sanctified thing that needs to be worshipped. We all know that being good to those we love and caring for them when they are vulnerable whether they are our chidlren, parents or friends or partner is terribly important and I doubt anyone even on the Rich List today would say the most important thing to me is the steel I've sold. We all try to be good parents whatever our gender and have good relationships with others.

I would be happy to stick with comix's "parenthood is special". Gender neutrality is great. As children we read out the Enid Blyton books to each otehr reversing the girls for the boys' names which was hilarious and revealed the sexism therein. Gender neutrality rules in so many areas (not all but plenty) and respect for men as human beings with whom we have more in common than different.

Sakura - I understand that you think that being at home with children is the best thing a woman can do with her life. I am also hearing that you don't believe that a man could do this as well. Do you then think that young women like myself, pursuing thier careers while having young children (beccause let's face it, the best, in terms of biology, child bearing years and the best years for starting and developing your career run in parallel)are oppressed in some way? Robbed of our birthrigh, as you put it? Deluded as to what is important?

Because I couldn't afford to be a SAHM anyway so it's a bit of a non-argument for me. I might as well do a job that I enjoy, which reflects who I am and enables me to be financially independent. It's good to use my 4 A Levels, Russel Group Degree, Masters and post grad in education don't you think???

Do you not think both 'choices' are valid (although as I say Sukura, only well of middle class women can really choose to be at home)?

I'm sorry if I've missed something here. I haven't had the time to read all posts. But I do find your argument quite essentialist and on some levels, deeply offensive, although I am aware that this is a debate and not personal - I always find it hard to detach myself on such issues though as phrases that you have used such as WOHM choosing to 'leave' their children are emotive to say the least.

I think being a SAHM, if you really want it, is a valid choice. Please don't fight to take the value away from mine. It's anti-feminist.

I think some of us are secure in our choices. I haev never felt upset by a stay at home mother sayign it's best for children to be with their mother 24/7 because I know it's a load of rubbish and I've known plenty of stay at home mothers who are quite happy with their own position too. However you do get a lot of others in each grouup who feel threatened by the other. No one should. I know I'm right but if they think they are let them continue in self delusion and if they aer sure they are right feminists saying ghettoising the home as a female only area will be water off a duck's back to them sure in their knowledge that they are doing right by staying home.

The reason the issue is fascinating is that it is saying that women should reserve the domestic sphere for themselves which is the opposite of the views of most femininsts and in my mind is the biggest cause of women's lack of progress these days, more so than the inability of some non assertive women to ask for more pay or set up their own businesses.

Oh come now Dittany. Men also helped with the fight to get the vote, and the battle for education for women. More men - a lot more men - fought against those things because it was against their entrenched interests, but to deny that men can also be interested in women's rights is just, again, tarring them all with the same brush.

I think we can talk using some generalisations so long as it is clear that these are generalisations and not essential qualities of each group. I am not denying that you can sensibly make some groupings of some female experience versus male experience, but those are very much also bound up in class, race, culture, and other specifics.

I've read a lot of dittany's posts about femininsts and they are good but I don't agree women alone got the vote. Men had a huge role to play in that. Countless men have always been involved with their children. Men are good and caring and wise. They aren't some awful violent rapist beast out to get us and one way to "change them" - those who need changing - is ensure you don't tolerate for one day sexism at home. Plenty of us wouldn't and vast numbers of British men are or have been brought up by women and men who share chores, cooking etc. My son cooks dinner for his brothers every night. Large numbers of musmsnet working women have husbands who do most of the cooking. Far too many accept sexism at home but hopefully if they can be enticed ov er the feminist threads they will learn the skills to ensure they aren't left holding the baby

What we don't want them to read is that women are only fit to clean up so guard jealously the one area you're good at - serving men. That would be a very bad message.

Femininsts and many other groups have often got bogged down in discussing principles just like communists and other groups. What is more helpful is sharing experiences and changing laws and giving women advice. Husband disappears on saturdays to play golf etc. Solution - you dump the children on him every Sunday alone and do your thing. If you don't you're being mug and we'll give you a good kicking on here.

A lot of men, nowadays, are interested in women's rights. I'm not saying that the exceptions make the rule, but unless we come up with actual numbers and statistics that we can trust then why talk only in wide generalisations that miss a lot of specifics?

I don't see men as having some essential qualities and I don't see where you get that from my posts above. I am saying that we can make groupings of male experiences & behaviour or female experiences & behaviour in combination with other specifics. And I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether I'm arguing that female experience isn't a specific in itself. I think I'm saying it's all specifics, which can be grouped into wider cases but you need to be fairly clear about what those wider groupings are.

Not just nowadays either - take the National Organization for Women. The reason it uses the word "for" rather than "of" is precisely because it included men from the beginning.

I agree Xenia

and for my own part, it's the sort of grouping men as X Y and Z feminism that puts me off as the Mother of 4 boys. Why would I wish to spend time with women who classify them in such negative terms?

Some men are really great, sharing, interested people. What this is though is eprsoinality- soemthing that is missed from a lot of feminsit tracts. Women and menare as genders equally suitable as main parents: reduce that to the individual couple however and you get eprsonalities that are better suited to domesticity and those that are not.

Feminism is important but is only one part of the whole equation.

"I know I'm right but if they think they are let them continue in self delusion"

I heart Xenia.