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.

"a deliberate downplaying of the role of the mother."

And I counter that you are upplaying the role. Do you think that just because you have given birth you have transformed into some super-being who is the only one who can look after the baby?
'Motherhood' is a recent invention, like 'teenagers'. Women used to be fully occupied running a house but domestic appliances took over a lot of the drudge so they had to invent a new role for women. Hence we now have women who make a "career" out of being Mother.

I was waiting for Xenia to turn up and help!.

Those of you who are distinguishing mothering from fathering, I wonder what you see the difference as being? I note, blinder, that you are distinguishing 'mothering' from 'working'? So is 'mothering' about being there 24/7? Is that part of your definition?

After the breastfeeding times are over, I call it all parenting. Please can one of you tell me what you see as the role of the mother that cannot be substituted by a father?

I'll tip my hand ahead of time and say this: I don't actually think you can say with any certainty what a father is and isn't capable of if you guard your turf this jealously.

I'm a very AP sort of parent. I still breastfeed my 17 month old. We partially co-sleep. I wear her in a sling. I feel a very deep communion with my child, I am closer to her than anyone else in the world, I am deeply, madly, passionately in love with her. Her birth was an incredible moment for me - I did it naturally and without pain relief and I felt like a goddess. I have shed layers of inhibition and of falsity, and replaced them with a deep contentment of myself and of my life, and I feel fulfilled in a way I never have before.

With the exception of the breastfeeding and the birthing, my husband could say all of the same things. He is a fantastic parent, he is in tune with her, understands her when no-one else does, wakes to her slightest noise, hurts when she's sick and is thrilled with her triumphs. She benefits enormously from her days with him. He has made massive career sacrifices to be with her - he changed career because his old job required too much travel - with concomitant financial sacrifices.

It's not a zero sum game. His bond doesn't negate mine. His rights don't negate mine. His sacrifices don't negate mine. And if we were ever to split, I would expect a court to look not at my needs, or his, but at our daughter's.

Sakura, your entire post has made me angry.

1. Feminists as a group are not devaluing motherhood. This is simply a myth that you are perpetuating. Feminists debate motherhood and childcare, and how we organise these in society. That debate is important.

1. Men are not better at some jobs than women, with the exception of sperm donor. As a woman who works in science and has a component of heavy manual work in their job, I am exactly the kind of woman who you are undermining with your sexist talk of strength and different wiring.

1. Mothering 24 hours a day is not preferable to working away from your children. Different people enjoy different things - some people love working with children and others do not. I think it is a very sad and blinkered view to think that the only reason women value their jobs are for the money.

1. The vulnerability of children of SAHMs/women with poor career prosepects and SAHMs themselves to poverty and abuse is not the fault of the SAHM, but it is a reality in our society. Women and children are more likely to live in poverty.

1. I am quite happy for you to be a SAHM as you clearly love it. But your post is essentially telling me that I am born to mother rather than do any other job simply because I'm a woman. If that isn't sexism, what is? I would be utterly miserable if I had to be a SAHM. I am about to leave my kids to work abroad for 2 months and I am quite happy to do that.

1. There is clearly a difference between work which primarily benefits and influences our own offspring and work which primarily benefits and influences wider society. Women will never be equal to men unless some women are in positions of influence in wider society.

Motherhood is not a recent invention.

It's always been around.

Past the breastfeeding stage I agree it is generally parenting; but I'm not sure it's right to assert that men and women in general parent the same. We accept that in the workplace, men are generally more aggressive, more risk taking, more dynamic and women are generally more empathetic, more intuitive and more risk averse; whether that is because of nurture or nature is still debated, but why don't we accept that this transfers to other areas of life, such as parenting?

One of the dangers of this so called non-sexist law as Xenia calls it, is that what men do as parenting is wildly over-rated and over-praised and what women do, is wildly under rated and under-praised. So we are in danger of giving men custody of children, because once a week they make the sandwiches, read a bedtime story and take them to football, evidence that they are a fantastic dad. The fact that Mum does the rest of it all the rest of the time, is not considered evidence that she's a fantastic mum, it's not even noticed.

I think that's a problem. One of the problems that I have with the "everyone should be treated exactly equally, 50 50 blah di blah" cheerleaders, is that they talk as if equality in the home and workplace is already a reality. When everyone sensible knows, it usually isn't.

tortoise I simply mean taking a career break to be with a baby / small child. Apparently, that's unfeminist. Btw I actually can't afford to take a complete break (I'm working two days this week).

I agree with the whole of your last post and I'm not denigrating fatherhood as I said earlier.

If you are broadly an attachment parent, I imagine you didn't go back to work within two weeks like Xenia did? I imagine you'd feel it was quite important for a mother to follow her instincts when making choices about caring for her baby / child? So, what is your disagreement with me? Genuinely asking.

I am also appalled by the idea that working at jobs other than mothering is only important if it is middle class/professional and in the developed world. The whole concept of mothering being someone's sole occupation is an invention of the modern developed world. Most subsistence farmers are women. It is feminists who have hilighted that the majority of work around the world is done by women.

Blinder, we're broadly agreeing, I only namechecked you for the specific quote:

"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."

In the context of asking what people were defining 'mothering' as, I noted that your definition seems to be, in part, that mothering is put at odds with working outside the home. Whereas I don't think that I fail to mother because I go to work.

I also don't think that Xenia failed to follow her instincts; she is very clear that she chose to appoint a carer for her child so that her child had a continuous bond with one person all day, even though that arrangement meant she and her husband were losing money originally. Her position is that a biological mother is not the only person who can provide the care a child needs.

Incidentally, I returned to work (4 days x 10 hours) when my daughter was 5 months old. My husband stayed at home with her for those days until she was a bit older. Now we both stay home with her part-time and she goes to daycare for the 2 days a week that our work overlaps. He follows his instincts and I follow mine.

I agree that the gains I talk about are based on making it easier for mothers to work. I do think that's part of valuing mothering - it recognises that mothering is valuable and needs accommodating.

I'm having trouble understanding what actions feminists should be fighting for that would show how they value stay-at-home motherhood, that they're not already doing. The things that HerBeatitude is complaining about are sexist attitudes, not feminist attitudes. Feminists agree that it's unfair for men to get away with weekend parenting and women do all the unacknowledged work. The matrimonial laws take that into account as well, when they split assets in a way that acknowledges the stay at home spouse's contribution.

And this: "everyone should be treated exactly equally, 50 50 blah di blah" cheerleaders, is that they talk as if equality in the home and workplace is already a reality" is just nonsense. Those of us who want formal and substantive equality do not believe that we are already equal. If we did, we would hardly bother pursuing it, would we?

I was just about to post what Milly said. I think the idea of political motherhood, of foregrounding the invisible work of women, is brilliant, Sakura. But I don't think that reifying the concept of motherhood to this extent is massively helpful. What about families who can't afford for one parent to stay at home, whether in the developed or the developing world?

I don't think Britney Spears is a terribly useful example. There was a lot going on which could be argued did make her an unfit mother. And as for protesting about being objectified, she didn't seem that bothered about being "objectified" when prancing about in a schoolgirl skirt in her first video, nor indeed in a variety of rather nice revealing costumes in the more recent "Womaniser" video.

I'm aware that those attitudes are sexist, not feminist; the point I'm making is that the legal establishment is still sexist and so it will use feminist arguments (like the need for equality) to come to sexist conclusions masquerading as feminist ones. (Hey we're all equal now, what's your problem?)

Yes but unquietdad I'm sure that's true about Britney, but the bar to be an unfit mother is an awful lot lower than that to be an unfit father.

And the bar to be considered absolutely wonderful, is an awful lot higher. Was Britney's ex such a wonderful father? (Genuine question, I can't remember, didn't follow it particularly.)

'but let us never suggest that housework and childcare are great occupations for women

and equally never let us assume that all SAHM's do is housework and childcare

When I was volunteer coordinator at Homestart I basically recruited SAHM's. SAH being clearly a rubbish description. Theya chieved as much as many paid women did. And many of our schools depend on parent helpers (ours is 50/50 male female but thats only coz there's only 4 helpers LOL, easy to get a split then)

And the toddler grpoups, support groups etc that my sister's employers insisted she took her charges to each week all 'SAH'm led

If you want to work you should totally be enabled, absolutely, but I firmly beleive it ahs to be a personal choice. Made by both aprtners from a discussion about what route is best for them.

UnquietDad, the thing about Britney Spears is that she was very young, had been groomed to that position, and was dealing with huge amounts of social and financial pressure to act that way.

HB - well, yes, and people do do that. I object to the idea that it's feminists who do that, though, which is where the OP was coming from (with 'Equality Feminism'). My apologies if you weren't referring to feminists.

Sakura, is just justifying her own choice to be a housewife married to a Japanese man who apparently is quite a liberal one compared to most of them but it's still a pretty japanese set up - woman at home serving and man working. You don't often see that reversed in Japanese culture. But it's good to debate these issues.

My piont is that all women always have seconded out boring jobs but most adults love being parents and love their children but do work too. Making motherhood to some god liike thing is just done to make housewives feel their none role is a role, to make them feel important but in fact they are of such low value that the reality is they are taking on service roles which most adults chooce to outsource when they are powerful or rich enough to do so. And that outsourcnig is not wrong. I don't think women haev to suffer, earn no money, flagellate themselves, take on things they hate in order to be pure and good and live a worthy life.

I don't like women who say my husband is useless - he tried to change a nappy once, made a mess of it. Only I the only God like thing on earth can do this. Only I am mother. Such women are just trying to keep a power at home because they have no power outside. In fact the nanny, granny and their husbands may well be much better than they are at changing little Johnnie and little J may benefit from having several loved person in his life whether sometimes they work or not.

It's a very interesting thread and I am glad S started it and I hope we don't make it too personal. I don't mind any comments against me on line - it's water off a duck's back but not everyone is the same.

Interesting on my instincts though. When I was 13 and 14 I really really reanted a baby. I spent years reading about things like birth positions as a teenager, seizing on mym mother's NCT leaflets in the early 70s. I prioritised when I was young getting married young (and my career) and I was delighted we spent our first wedding anniversary touring a maternity ward when I was nearly 23. My instincts are fairly maternal. Plenty of owmen never want children and hate them. I'm not like that at all. Like most parents of either gender if I've had to peel a toddler off my leg because it won't let me go because it wants me to stay in the room that's emotionally painful but that's the case whether you're going off to work or to have your hair done but I've always been self confident enough to know the children are well cared for and not pompous or arrogant enough to think only I on the planet can care for under 5s properly who are mine.

If a nanny is better than I am with a child or their father or a granny that's wonderful. I don't need jealously to guard a territory herer at home or chase a husband out of the kitchen because he's a silly little man who would just make a mess and can't cook. I don't need the territory of home and hearth as I have loads of other territories - my professional career and status, my hobbies and may be after 25 years as a mother I (being in your 40s is much nicer than 20s because you get self confident) I also am sure of the children's regard for me.

So I don't think if you are am other or father who works you have a lesser parental instinct. Some of my happiest moments have been with one baby (or two with the twins) in the dark at night the child breastfeeding sucking contented in the dark, the release of oxytocin, skin and skin, total silence (except when they're screaming) .That's a bonding thing which I've loved but I never wanted it 24/7. I am a much better parent for having a break from it just like all those roman ladies with their slaves or the women with wet nurses in the 1500s or Victorian middle class women with a live in nanny in 1890 or even the Indians today in Africa who have African servants. In about 1920 my grandmother went to India to look after children for a family who wanted an English not an Indian Aya. Again another example of loving parents but who just don't want to do this dross child care stuff 24/7. There's no guilt or wrongness is devolving menial tasks. It doesn't mean you don't love a child because you subcontract out some of its care or house cleaning or the rest.

And yes I agree with tort. we still have a long way to go in the UK so we dont' have mumsnetters like the one I quoted above saying I must be nice to my husband because I depend on him for money and could not keep myself if he left. But it's all improving. Most women work and always have. Most men today are reasonable equal and most women don't tolerate sexism at home. I think it's all pretty good but we do need to keep at it and ensure girls don't make foolish choices.

Does anybody, male or female, seriously go into showbiz with the expectation that will be able to have control over their image and "grooming" and not have their sexuality marketed? It's as true of JLS and Boyzone as it is of Britney or Sophie Ellis Bextor. It seems remarkably naive to believe otherwise.

As for the bar for an unfit mother being lower, I'm not convinced. if that's true, why are more children not removed from their mothers? (i.e. why are more fathers not given custody?)

UD, you're now derailing. If you think anyone who goes into showbiz gets what they deserve when they crash and burn, fine, but it's really not the point. And it's callous as fuck, too.

Xenia, I really enjoyed that post. Except that I do actually actively enjoy cleaning (but possibly wouldn't if I had to clean up after several other people all day every day), and also I'm much lazier than you, I connect with everything you said.

"Most men today are reasonable equal and most women don't tolerate sexism at home"

Ah Xenia I fear you lead a sheltered life. I just simply don't believe that. Even where they work outside the home, most women do far more domestic drudgery than men and domestic violence is rife. Rape convictions are shit and look on the asking for it thread to get a (n admittedly gloomy) picture of how equal we are. I just don't believe that "most" women don't tolerate sexism - I went out to the cinema the other day with a well educated, intelligent, charming woman (with a very high status job) who said her husband was babysitting their children. I had to grit my teeth and glaze over to bear it.

Agree with HB. If any of you haven't read the rape thread yet, please go and read it.

Ah, but now I'm being derailed myself. I didn't say anybody "deserved" anything. I was just examining the idea that she was exploited and under huge social and financial pressure, had been "groomed" etc., any more than any other young star.

Wel wrt to britney I suspect what seems obvious about amrketing as adults doesn't when you are a child and getting into Disney or whatever it was she did. And then it becomes gradual and your world I guess.

Wrt to mothers- I suspect the bar is lower. Having tried to get kids removed from a terribly abusoiv e mother and seen how soem professionals seem unable to countenance the idea anyway.

Clarissimo - forgive me if I misunderstand, but doesn't the difficulty of removing kids from an abusive mother show the bar is higher, not lower?

Clarissimo, if you work outside of the home, you are not a SAHM. How much, if anything, you get paid for that work, is a different issue.

And I think it is a problematic issue. There is a big difference between someone who has a job doing some volunteering work as a way of contributing to the community, and someone who has no job volunteering, often because it is their only way into (or back into)paid employment. It seems to me that a lot of jobs outside of the family that are actually essential and have levels of responsibility are being given to unpaid women to do. They should simply be paid. Women should not be acting as SAHMs to the whole of adult society.

Why the assumption that women at home are "serving" others? I think that there is a massive difference between "serving" children (and partners) and "bringing up" children / "managing" your household. Different skill-sets, too...

UQD LOL, I stood there thinking have I got this right..... clearly I didn't

OK then IME its ahrder to convince professionals that mothers are a risk to their chidlren than dad's.. maybe that's an overhang of the old assumptioons about sexual abuse, sheer size, etc but that does seem to be the way.

MillyR I sort of agree but a lot of feminsit debate that I ahve encountered seems to think that if your partner funds you then you are a SAHM reagrdless of what else you do.

'. It seems to me that a lot of jobs outside of the family that are actually essential and have levels of responsibility are being given to unpaid women to do. They should simply be paid. Women should not be acting as SAHMs to the whole of adult society. '

and where does the money come from?

The homestart I worked for went under. SSD hasbn't taken those famillies on I suspect: they will ahve been left to sink or swim. The idea of being paid is nice but won't happen, as a society we can't afford it. Triply so I suspoect because since I left the field and now there has been a crash andf a correlated fall in charitable giving.

Besides, I am hoping to set up a sibling gropuup for my area (ASD is my field). I refusre to cover costs myself (couldn't anyway) and am looking towards NAS / SSD for that but am happy to give my time. Not monetariily rewarded does not mean rewarded, and if I don't the staus quo of a 3 year wait for young carers or nothing will remain.