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.

@ Mavis

Ighnore those comments and the occasional bit about better people earning mroe or whatever and you get intriguing posts- soem fo which I agree with, some I compeltely do not, but interesting nonetheless
Don't ignore those bits and you get stuck in an endless whirel going nowhere

"Why would I wish to spend time with women who classify them in such negative terms?"

See, this is what I'm talking about in the other thread.

Most of us are praising men to the skies in this thread! Sakura adores her husband, I have sung the praises of mine till everyone's nauseated just reading it, happysmiley is just as positive, we ALL identify as feminists.

Why pick out the bits you disagree with and nominate that as "feminist'?

Blimey tortoise - I wondered what other thread you were talking about and went and looked - 7 pages already and it only started this morning! Can't keep up, really and truly.

(Assuming you mean this one of course.)

I know, it's ridiculous. Obviously touched a lot of nerves.

This is an interesting thread and I broadly agree with Tortoise. I think the idea discussed in the op that being the mother is more important than being the father and should therefore have additional rights is dangerous.

On this board and in RL, there is an assumption that if you have small children you cannot really want to work and you are being forced into it for financial reasons. If this clearly isn't the case, you are therefore an unnatural woman who doesn't really deserve the accolade of 'mother'. IME, this criticism has come far more from other women than men.

In my view, society should (and in many ways is starting to) change to enable and encourage men to take a more active role in parenting and working the second shift. There should also be a move away from the assumption that an employee should be prepared to work all hours to keep his job - I think generally all employers/ employees shouldn't be expected to do the vast amounts of unpaid overtime which many employers expect.

In part this seems to be the responsibility of today's parents. As it becomes more common place for men and women to take on home/work/childcare responsibilities jointly and work around each other, this will model a better society for our children. the difficulty is where there is a huge imbalance of power/money/control in the relationship which one party is exercising to the detriment of the other. I don't know how this could be resolved.

Yes, if it can be seen that children have two parents so much the better.

We need to get to a position where my choosing to return to week when the babies were 2 weeks old is fine as are longer periods just as with a man.

I'm going to wade through that thread now, but just wanted to respond to HerBeatitude. In general I'd agree with you each person's individual experience is just that. I just really hate the all men are useless/rapists/the enemy. Now that's not to say that the structures established by men were/are very damaging to women (I'd say that they were/are fairly damaging to everyone) or that there wasn't resistance to change (when is there ever not) or that there are some bastards out there, and a lot of them are men. I just don't subscribe to any all women are lovely/all men are bastards dichotomy. I think it is lazy and unhelpful and counterproductive.

But who on this thread has asserted that?

I don't ever remember anyone ever saying that actually, either on MN or in RL but I constantly hear that people don't believe something I've never heard anyone assert.

Andrea Dworkin is often thought to have said that "all men are rapists" but according to Snopes she never did (though I'm not madly keen on the clarification she made that states "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent"). It's become a very potent myth - or lie, of course.

Having said that, it's not saying "all men are bastards" by any means but I took the OP words "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" to be a general assertion of the kind that nooka is referring to (hence her saying it's not to say that there isn't resistance to change). There are other general assertions that just use the unqualified word "man" scattered throughout this thread, though as far as I can remember off-hand they are none of them on the "all men are bastards" level.

"This is an interesting thread and I broadly agree with Tortoise. I think the idea discussed in the op that being the mother is more important than being the father and should therefore have additional rights is dangerous. "

My argument has been skewed by lots of people throughout this thread and made into something it's not, but this really takes the biscuit. And I'm loving the fact that tortoise has reduced my argument to "sakura loves her husband".
Whatever.

WOmen are disenfranchised in society and are treated differently to men.
They are held to a higher standard than men with regard to parenting. A man becomes a SAHD and he's hailed as a hero, a woman becomes a SAHM and her work is, yet again, devalued. As we've seen in the Britney example- if a woman takes drugs and drinks she gets her children taken from her, if a man does not only do his children not get taken off him, but he is rewarded with custody??!!? Women who want a 50%/50% stake for men and women^ do you honestly believe that society is fair in its treatment of women right now? If the answer is yes, and you can prove it to me, then I'LL take up your cause myself.
If we are not already on a level playing field, then why are you asking me to award men a 50% stake in childcare? You can't say "Well, lets give the man half the rights and we'll sort out all the other shit later". No! we sort out all the other shit first, then we give men half the rights.

20 years from now I can just imagine all the men in the divorce courts going for their ex-wive's jugular. Those men who became SAHDs- the court will rule completely in their favour- they're heros after all (remember- when men do this work it has value, when women do it, it is devalued). Patriarchy is alive and kicking as far as I can see. I am worried that a lot of women are going to lose their children.

tortoise, I'll just finish by saying I hope more than anything that you're right and I'm wrong.
I hope that if we go in the 50/50 direction, and 50% of women who WOHM lost their children in custody battles, I really hope that it's ok for them. I hope that working in an office 5 days a week ( in a society with a glass ceiling and skewed in favour of men) was worth the sacrifice of losing their kids.

But Sakura, a) the situation is already that where one parent works outside the home and the other stays at home, the children are more likely to go to whichever parent stays at home and tbh, that is probably right in most cases. It is horrible for a parent and particularly a mother to lose the rights to her children but it doesn't mean it isn't the right decision for the children.

Where both parents work outside the home which is actually far more common, the courts either try to make joint arrangements or award custody to whichever parent is the main carer. It can still be determined even if both parties WOH. You appeared in your op to be saying that women should automatically have custody which although in the majority of the cases happens, may not be best for the children who ought to be the primary consideration.

On your last point, I disagree strongly with your assertion that I would lose my children because I work outside the home. I think it is vital for women to have the opportunity and the education to do so and if they choose to do so it is still perfectly possible to be an excellent parent and the primary carer.

Within marriage - you do not lose your children if you cede to men the right to hold the baby and toddler for half the day on Saturday whilst you read the FT. you're just getting a rest and you're entitled to it. Men (and women) aren't sitting there desperate to have more time with the children whilst the childcaring spouse is fighting them off.. quite the contrary in most marriages.

Once divorced then most couples decide where the children will live and older children choose. Plenty of fathers wait until the children are 13 and can decide for themselves when martry mother who never worked always moaned and was as miserable as sin and will now live in poverty and continue to fuss all the time because children are the only thing in her life, is not necessarliy the most desirable parent so people might well find teenagers picking the working father anyway.

Most contact works best without court orders and most parents just reach agreement themselves although there are very very sad cases out there for both mothers and fathers. We cannot after all cut children in half as King Solomon offered in helping determine which was the true mother of the baby in the old story.

I think most women have no difficulty at all in introducing men to the hoover and handing over the feather duster and leaving him with the 3 under 5s whilst they go out whether to work or otherwise. I don't think most of them believe they are losing some status or horror of horrors making some assertion that a man may be better at childcare and cleaning than a woman. Some men are some aren't. Some housewives are useless and the men come home to childcare and loads of housework. Some are wonderful and the men come home and do nothing. We are just all people at the end of the day who all haev our own domestic stuff to get done and want to live with and love our families and if we can subcontract out dreadfully dull cleaning jobs whatever our sex we tend to do that when money is available.

"martry mother who never worked always moaned and was as miserable as sin and will now live in poverty and continue to fuss all the time because children are the only thing in her life, is not necessarliy the most desirable parent"

Because all female lone parents with custody are like that. Yet another mysogynist parody of women from Xenia.

Interesting how you always equate the nurture of children with domestic labour Xenia. You seem a little confused. They aren't the same at all.

azazello, aaargh I have to keep coming back because your points are nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.

Regarding your first point:
"But Sakura, a) the situation is already that where one parent works outside the home and the other stays at home, the children are more likely to go to whichever parent stays at home and tbh, that is probably right in most cases. It is horrible for a parent and particularly a mother to lose the rights to her children but it doesn't mean it isn't the right decision for the children."

I think that in this case you have to read through this entire thread and question why the mother was the one who left. Is it because the status of child-care is so low because you are considered to have the intelligence of an amoeba if you do it that she couldn't stomach doing it? Is it because the family was broke because motherhood is paid zilch? Is it because she didn't want to be financially dependant on her husband (very understandable and something I am arguing against myself further up the thread); is it because she's been duped into thinking that working all day at MAcdonalds and lining the pockets of some men at the top because she's been convinced by a capitalist system that she needs the products that are being agressively marketed to her is something important in life? Or is it because she would rather be doing something else (fair play to this last one and if it's this then I've got no issue with it).

"Where both parents work outside the home which is actually far more common, the courts either try to make joint arrangements or award custody to whichever parent is the main carer. It can still be determined even if both parties WOH. You appeared in your op to be saying that women should automatically have custody which although in the majority of the cases happens, may not be best for the children who ought to be the primary consideration. "

I think if there are extenuating circumstances why the woman should not have the children then of course they should go do the father.
This thread was begun in response to posts on other threads saying that men and women are the same, that it was feminist to say they were, and that because they are the same it makes no difference whether it's the woman or the man who takes custody. I strongly disagree with this. I think because women are the ones who suffer childbirth and carry the baby, they have a higher stake in child-rearing than men. If they don't want to do it all things being equal (please see above posts and entire thread for explanation of that) then that's fine- the custody should go to the man on a split if he became a SAHD. But all things are not equal at all. There are huge problems for women in society that need to be addressed.

" I think it is vital for women to have the opportunity and the education to do so "

Please read the thread. Have I said I don't think women should have the opportunity and education to do anything? I've said working outside the home is also very important for feminism, very important for women and very important for society.
But I'm worried that the way society is structured right now is forcing women to leave their babies and then later lose them in a custody battle in the name of something elusive called equality.

MillyR made a very good point on another thread: that the commonly held myth that the person who has the most experience is the best fit for the job is sexist and ageist. Lots of industries exlude women who take time off for mothering and don't let them re-join because they've lost out on experience. This could be one more reason forcing women to leave their babies and children, and one more thing that has to be addressed.

Is that the point Sakura, that you don't really believe that women who go out to work can really actually want to, in the same way that Xenia doesn't really believe that women who stay at home can have made a rational decision to do so?

"Men (and women) aren't sitting there desperate to have more time with the children whilst the childcaring spouse is fighting them off.. quite the contrary in most marriages."
Yes, my friend with 6 kids has openly admitted to me that the only reason she had six kids was because she didn't have to look after them herself and they went to daycare. She couldn't have done it otherwise. But my point here is that somebody was mothering her kids when she was in work, and its that mothering process that is overlooked, dismissed and undervalued by society. And that's a very big mistake.
YOu were lucky, Xenia, in that you could delegate the mothering to a good nanny. You probably chose her very carefully.
So if, after paying mothers enough to do the job well themselves, they still want to work, we need to invest well in daycare to make sure daycares have the best mothering too (in Finland you need a masters degree to work at a nursery school, for example). A father can do the mothering too, but in my point of view it is the mother who has delegated this work to him IYSWIM. Because the baby came from her, I see it as belonging to her first and foremost.

Some children like those poor Romanian orphans get no mothering at all and its sad that mothering is only noticed when it is absent. If you read up about what happened to those individuals after growing up then it is very harrowing.

I'm not a martyr myself by any means. My husband gets the kids as soon as he gets home from work and whenever he's off basically. There is a nursery service next to my house and I can drop my baby off for about 7 pound for 4 hours. I used it with my daughter because I wanted to translate, haven't used it with my son yet. But I was under no illusions about who was doing the most important work- it was the daycarers of course. But I think a lot of members of society have lost sight of that and have actually convinced themselves that mothering is not that important. Which is obviously why it is paid so poorly.

"Is that the point Sakura, that you don't really believe that women who go out to work can really actually want to, in the same way that Xenia doesn't really believe that women who stay at home can have made a rational decision to do so? "

Errr, nope.

FGS we all know the huge benefits to be had for going out to work: personal, financial, social, intellectual ( I could go on). But I'm saying there are also benefits to staying with your babies. Those don't get much attention.

But cheers again, happysmiley, for reducing my entire argument to one piddling little gambit.

Honestly Sakura, I trying to understand. The quote seems to be saying that you think women want to go out to work because they think SAH is undervalued (and they want to do something that is valued) or that they are fed lies about their value under capitalism (and fall for them). You accept that some women go out to work because they enjoy working and its benefits, but seem to imply that they are in the minority.

Well, we don't know how many women are doing what for what reasons because there are so many variables.

I think that if you could take babies to the workplace that some women would do so. But I also know that some women (like my friend) go to work to get away from the kids. That could be because because of the breakdown of the extended family she is basically on her own at home, and that is not fun. Or it could be for other reasons. I don't think she actually enjoys her job that much, but there's no way in hell she's going to look after six kids by herself. So maybe after paying a mother a wage, we could also pay for hired help or something like that?

I think if mothering was paid more than the minimum wage, then women would rather do it than go out and work in Maccy Ds and Tescos. Yes. Without a doubt.

I think if mothering was given the prestige it deserved plus pay, more mothers would rather do it than work as office staff.

I think if motherhood wasn't as socially isolating as it is, then more mothers would do it.

Then there are the women who get real satisfaction from their jobs. WOmen who can get a career. Most of these women will be higher than average intelligence and middle class (meritocracy doesn't exist remember). So those women should go ahead and work and crush patriarchy from within.
But they shouldn't forget along the way that whatever their work, the most important work a human being can do is mothering, and raising the next generation. But I think right now they have forgotten.

Thank you for your last post Sakura. It is thought provoking (although I disagree with it.) I hope I'm not misrepresenting your argument to say that I think the upshot of the changes you suggest would be that any woman choosing to go back to work was unnatural and a bad mother who wouldn't deserve to have children.

Even if this wasn't reflected in care after divorce or seperation, it would certainly be reflected in attitudes from employers or co-workers to the extent that IMO, far fewer women would pursue a career or return to work after having children. While that may be your intention, it would be a very short step from that to not allowing women to participate in work/ change the system from within when they have children, no matter what child care arrangements are in place and what the individual families want to do.