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.

don't have time to post properly but from skim reading think I would agree with a lot of what tortoise has said.

blinder, if you wish to quote me, I have no issue with that, but it's poor for to take me out of context. The quote you use from me was one where I was trying to understand dittany's argument, and if you read my next post it is clear that I don't actually agree with the quote.

Clarissimo, I can see your point. And feminist campaigning itself is usually unpaid. But I do think the fact that huge amounts of work done outside of the family sphere is done by women who are either unpaid or underpaid has different implications and is a wholly different issue than the ones set out by the OP.

The OP is talking about women being given power by society over the fate of children as a consequence of women giving up or reducing their roles outside of the family. I don't think that power is at risk. Courts will almost always give custody to the primary carer.

The Britney example seems of limited value. She lost custody because she was a problematic drug user in the US. I think her drug use had more bearing on the decision than her haircut. In the UK we have a different approach to drug users.

"as a society we can't afford it"

Hmm, that's questionable. We could afford it, if we chose. We don't choose because we choose to afford other things instead.

Part of me agrees with MillyR, if a job's worth doing it's worth paying for, then the other half says but why is money the only way we show value for something and isn't it too easy to translate that we will only value things we pay for?

I'm not arguing any particular point there, just musing.

Ok, first of all Xenia. I said I didn't want cheap shots on this thread, so if you don't say I'm trying to justify being a SAHM with my arguments, I won't say you are desparately trying to justify leaving your 2 week old newborn. Deal?
Has it not crossed your mind that, given the fact I formed these views long before I met my husband, I was quite happy to marry him because Japan is actually a culture that still values motherhood.
Now there are pros and cons in this as we discussed before, but I am shocked to learn on this topic that some women seriously believe that men and women are equal.

Tortoiseshell said:
"I completely disagree with you that women are naturally better carers or that men are naturally better at 'other stuff' because they are 'stronger'."

then said:

"Well, I agree about the hormones and that mothering is very different from fathering in the early months/years, sure"

Well, which one is it? It can't be both. And if its the latter then that is the main point I am trying to make on this thread.

"

Milly said:
"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"

Not at all. Lots of women don't even have children. Some women don't enjoy looking after them. But you are taking a very patriarchal view if you think the work is not important. It should be invested with prestige and respect and it is not. It should be paid accordingly, but it isn't. If you prefer to do other things, then do so. BUt do not tell me that men and women are the same or that men know what it is to be a mother.

"why is money the only way we show value for something"

Because that is all that money is. It is just a bartering medium - nothing more, nothing less.
Money puts a value on a scarce resource and love, like fresh air which is also free, is not a scarce resource (thankfully!)

tortoiseonahalfshell - 'I also don't think that Xenia failed to follow her instincts'

No I didnt mean to imply that. I'm sure Xenia did follow her instincts. I'm not in any position to judge anyone's else's choices and I assume she did what was best for her family.

But my instincts say that for me and my child, I would prefer not to work until she is older, partly because I really enjoy being with her. I appreciate that this is an economic luxury many women don't have (I don't either as it happens, hence my part time work!).

But, how come Xenia's instincts (to prioritise work) are 'feminist' and mine (to prioritise child contact) aren't?

(Sorry to keep name-checking you Xenia, but wanted to respond specifically to the point above - and you haven't responded directly to me but you're quite welcome to.)

happysmiley - I didn't namecheck you on the quote to be as polite as possible, but it seemed to me that you were arguing throughout the other thread that SAHMs were comparable to strippers in their 'harm to other women'. Sorry if that has misrepresented you, but there are quite a lot of posts from you suggesting that.

Clarissimo I think your points about SAHMs contributing so much to society are absolutely true. Many volunteers working on the front line in deprived areas are so-called SAHMs. What's a sibling group?

HB, I am also musing over it! We all obviously do lots of things that constitute work, and do so purely for enjoyment without being paid.

But we have to value money to some extent. Money is our trading system. As most of us are not subsistence farmers, without money most of us would simply starve and die.

And many women work outside of the home and don't get paid, or work in the home and don't get paid, or work but are underpaid. Those women are then reliant on either their husbands. That creates a huge power imbalance.

I know there are women who say they don't work but share their husband's wages equally. But that it ultimately the husband's choice. The husband can choose not to do that, at any point. He cannot be legally made to give his wife or children money unless they are getting divorced. Many women are denied money or have to behave in certain ways in order to get money off their husbands. Most men do not earn enough to support two households, so even after divorce, the ex-SAHM and the kids often end up in poverty.

The solutions seem to be that we either create a totally new economic structure where women are paid for all work, both inside and outside the family. Or we modify society so that men and women do equal amounts of the paid and unpaid tasks. This would be done by making it easier for parents to access jobs by offering flexible working, adequate promotion of part time staff, affordable or free childcare, and lots more childcare being done by men.

blinder, here's a quote from me that I do actually agree with.

I don't believe that looking after children is intrinsically harmful to a woman, but I do believe that giving up an income is and the two usually go together. (Very few woman who have given up work have an income independent of their husbands and I find that quite worrying personally.)

Sakura, so if you want people who raise their own children to be paid a wage, do you think that is possible in a capitalist system?

If it is not possible in a capitalist system, what alternative system are you proposing? Feminist anarcho-syndicalism? Communism? Do you think the alternative systems could afford to pay people to solely spend time with their own children?

In any such system, should there be a limit to how many children an individual should be paid to spend time with? Should you be allowed to choose to spend time with only your own children or should you also be asked to care for other people's? If caring be equal to other jobs, then its rewards have to be equal - and that should surely include caring for children that are not related to you, so that you are caring for children who don't carry on your own genetic material and are not simply rewarding your own genes?

Sibling group- for teh brotehrs and sisters of children with additional needs (in this case autism), sort of youth club with added value really

I recognise that a lot of voluntary work is done by fremales but don't forget teh smalla rmy of men running football groups, or the ratehr wonderful rugby players who take my 2 for sn rugby every saturday. Every time Dh helps build a kids carnival float- its all voluntary work.

Herbie We could do it but only by letting so much else go. We're alrady out of money, after all. Figures when I was at HS showed every £10 spent on us saved £70 for SSD (or soemthing) which is fab but my experience, as someone both from teh field and with SN kids, is that SSd get around that very effectively but just not offering anything. A lot of what the voluntary sector does is the 'nice to ahve' stuff- but as well as offering services such as (random example) village in bloom they keep people active, do help keep people prepared for work should they need it....it's a social life in itself as well, esp. for older generation ime

of course there's a lot provided by voluntary that shouldnt be: our school should have enough staff that the kids don't only get to read when a parent goes in; ds2's only chance of that group shoudln't be if I set it up. The only support e've so far had outside school with ds1 has been | National Autistic society befriender. Those sorts of things should be funded but in all truth, if they haven't been through the boom thenm they sure as hell won't be through the bust.

And all the time I and a million other people are doing these things (mine is far from al;truistic LOL- was going to do it anyway but am told I can use as MA dissertation- double whammy!) we are keeping our skill sets up that so that if we do re-enter the job market- for me it ould mean SN friendly childcare appears, for others divorce, chidlren growing up, financial striggles all sorts- then we do have a reference, and evidence of recent activity.

Thiugh I always remember the lass who went from supported family, to supporter, to sector prodessional- feminism at its best that is, charity set up by a woman helping women to help themselves.

Clarissimo, I think my worry is that there are now many jobs that you cannot get into without volunteer experience. Some volunteering jobs should be paid apprenticeships.

This is clearly a national concern, and is a barrier to equal opportunities, as many people cannot afford to not work in order to take on a volunteering role. It is one of the areas that the Government is looking at as so many people are finding jobs closed to them because they can't afford to work for free.

Unless the woman you mention in your post could have got that professional position without doing unpaid work for you first, then I think that is certainly not an example of feminism in action.

UD You're mansplaining and derailing - this is a thread about sahm, not whether or not Britney was an unfit mother and whether or not, in a patriarchy, there is any ability to choose if you're objectified.

She didn't work for me. She had the same job as me for another provider.

She could ahve got into that job yes, I didn't enter it through voluntary work. But after a long time with big issues (can't explain, am sure you relaise why) volunteering helped her work out what she wanted to do, and get herself togetehr enough to go for it.

I ahve ehard of these you-must-vollie-for-roles, usually the big charities that have a cool save the world rep: not soemthing I ever experienced back in Somerset though tbh. We just regarded voluntary experience as equally worthy of paid experience in the field.

And yes I do agree there are issues: I worked for a time on a paid student mentoring scheme in the welsh valleys- was fab until they realiosed they'd still get students to do it for free (was no overall gender bias). They got different people obviously, and I suspect not the poornones from similar backgrounds to the kds because we needed money. Which was a shame in that system.

FWIW I should probably point out I am not an unpaid SAHM: I am registered carer receiving CA. I worked until I had the one I am a carer for. So not really defending my own choices, although absolutely SAHM was the cjoice I desperately wanted to make ast the time, but coudln't afford it and then DH got ill so extra couldn't afford it.

AAAGH! Somebody has not only used that hideous fake-word "mansplain", they have also helpfully linked to it in case I am too thick to know what it "means"... And people may wonder why more men don't come in here.

The OP used Britney as an example. NOT ME.

Referring to the OP's example - should the higher earner then not pay the lower earner maintenance if the higher earner happens to be a woman?... This seems to be the implication.

It's not the higher / lower earner that's relevant, it's who has care and control of the children, surely?

That was what I thought, but the example makes it sound as if it is the higher vs. lower earner situation.

One would hope

gien how many important essential careers pay less than ones we could easily do without (imagine iof katie P married a GoP, anyone?)

"Referring to the OP's example - should the higher earner then not pay the lower earner maintenance if the higher earner happens to be a woman?... This seems to be the implication. "

There is in English law a legal duty for spouses (but not the unmarried) to support each other when married by the way so that already exists. It is gender neutral. AFter divorce if one person cannot work and there is not enough of a lump sum that can be given to them to buy out that right, then the lower earner which is reasonably often a man, gets that support for themself.

Seprately whoever looks after the children after divorce is entitled to percentages up to 25% of net income for the children with deductions for the nights the children spend with the other spouse.

Happy to stop mentioning Japan but it has so very very few babies born it can hardly be that into babies. Doesn't it have almost a zero population growth?
I only mention enjoying being back at work quickly after birth so other women can know plenty of us have lovely family lives and work full time, whether we are male or female. It's possible. You can be happy that way. Instead all press articles seem to be about women whingeing all the time about all sorts, flexible working etc etc as if none of us like working full time, enjoy being surgeons or pilots or whatever whilst being parents too.

You can be happy thatw ay Xenia, absolutely. but I don't think it is a matter of everyone can be becuase I know how unhappy I was that way

I think some people can be happy that way, their voices should be listened to and accepted, but no one take the emotions suurounding on work or parenthood should be generalised to everyone else

Quite, Clarissima.

but I am shocked to learn on this topic that some women seriously believe that men and women are equal.

Are you under the impression that could be and are mean the same thing Happysmiley?

Beatitude, If the OP was trying to differentiate between are equal and could be equal, I'd see where you are coming from. But the OP is clearly trying to claim that in some ways men and women aren't equal and shouldn't be treated as such. She also says

And motherhood (child-bearing and rearing) is the only thing that sets us apart from men. We can do it better than men

Yes, as hs puts it is what is implied. The elevation of woman to madonna or whore in a sense - venerate her motherhood and keep her chained at home. Suggest men are not really parents in the same sense and you keep women out of the board room and in their pinny.

I am amazed any women would say men and women aren't equal but I think all that was meant wa sthey are not the same. they are definitely equal. Indeed all the major religions inculding Christianity and most country's laws state all people are equal and it's fundamental principle of many cultures it is what feminists fought for - equal rights under the law. It is extremely damaging to get the wrong words on this issue. We are all equal as human beings under the law, whether we have down's syndrome are female male or whatever we are equal.

However we often differ. My looks, IQ, weight, health, sex is different from that of others. There are more differences within the races and within the genders than there aer between different races and genders but I woiuld never stop discussion on PC grounds of differences between men and women and I expect most of us know there are indeed differences. The question is whether we should use the differences to justify who cleans the house and earns the pennies and I don't think so. I adored breastfeeding and men can't do that but aside from basic things like that my childen's father was as good as I was if not better at doing evrything to do with them as I was. Why should he not be? He has arms. He is their father. He has the physuical ability to change a nappy or clean a work surface.