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.

But you've just attributed to the OP a whole load of stuff she didn't actually say.

I think she's made it quite clear that the struggle for equality in the workplace is also important.

i agree with xenia

I think she meant that men and women aren't equal in that they aren't given equal status in society, not that they aren't equal in terms of their intrinsic worth.

But that assumes women don't work. In my society most women of under 5s are workers as well as parents just as men are and they have equal status as parent (ie it is an upaid role) and equal (ish) status as workers.

Capitalist societies put a value on services. Most women who gain power or money or status have always subcontracted out dull domestic stuff in Roman times and today because it's dull and low status to wield the broom or scrub the loo or change the baby for the 10th time that day but all of us know that being good parents is very important. It's simply that's it's not a job. It's something men and women do as part of their overall lives.

I don't want to live in a society where doctors are paid what street sweepers and parents who stay home or carers of OAPs are paid. It didn't work in Communist china and it won't work today precisely because those skills are ten a penny compared to the rarer more valued skills of the intelligent worker or indeed the good footballer or popular singer.

I suppose if we were going to rank mothers we could give me a hero of the mothers award because I have had 5 children which may be makes me a supermother whereas someone with 1 or 2 is a lesser mother? Would we do that? Laughing as I type although I am not too bad as a mother. Believe it or not you can be a good parent and work full time.

No one reasonable doubts that Xenia.

You don't have to keep saying that mothers who work full time can be very good mothers. Everyone knows that.

I wasn't aware that this was a thread about ranking mothers.

But you've just attributed to the OP a whole load of stuff she didn't actually say.

I think she's made it quite clear that the struggle for equality in the workplace is also important.

Well what is this thread about then, HB? It seems to me that the OP wants:

1. women to have more rights over children than men do.
2. SAHM to have a wage.
3. SAHM to be a job with 'prestige.'

I think she needs to come back and explain how that would work, and under what kind of political and economic system.

I don't think anyone is denying that looking after a baby is an essential task, or saying that task isn't important. Feminists have always argued that raising children is work. There seems to be a lot of arguing against straw men from the OP. It was Dittany who brought up the concept of 'choice feminism' and she made it clear she was not referring to SAHM.

Also, the whole concept of prestige is somewhat odd, because prestige really operates within an individual's work sphere.

I think she meant that men and women aren't equal in that they aren't given equal status in society, not that they aren't equal in terms of their intrinsic worth.

I agree with HappySmiley. The whole premise of men being less capable of caring for children undermines shared childcare arrangements within families. I think shared care is an idea we should be supporting by offering more flexible working opportunities.

I think ...you think too much.

I am an equality-freak. I work lots because I love my work. I do a lot of parenting because I love my children. My DH works rather less enthusiastically than I do, because he is less keen on his work. He does as much if not more parenting than I do. He does more housework because he is at home more.

I'm not in any way oppressed by anyone. Lucky old me.

Think you are nuts to do the sahm thing. What is valued in our society is economic power. You're voting to be devalued. And you've most probably chosen to be supported by a man which is ipso facto dubious.

MIllyR said:
"Well what is this thread about then, HB?"

Phew I'm glad you finally asked that question.

Since I began this thread I have been jumped on for saying a lot of things I have not said and do not think.

It began with tortoise's:
"Physical strength gets brought up a lot, as an unarguable difference. But it's fairly irrelevant, and I'm yet to hear a good example that is a relevant reason why men hold all the powerful wellpaid jobs."
and went on from there.
I have never said men and women's innate differences entitle men to more powerful jobs. This is something men have made up in order to keep women down. And now it appears women on this thread are pretending I am saying made-up men-arguments rather than listening to what I actually am saying.

First the point of this thread was to express shock that there really are women who believe that men and women are the same. If so then they have bought into the idea of women's inferiority so well that they are unable to celebrate the differences for fear that those differences will be used against them in the workplace. They are effectively aligning themselves with men.
We need women to fight for women's rights in the workplace. We need women like Xenia, we needed the suffragettes.
What we do not need is the daft belief that men can do mothering better than women.
Some men are very very good fathers, some women are terrible mothers but they are not the same.

I think that women who are willing to give motherhood up to men and expect all men to have equal power and access to women's children should think very carefully before they agree to such a system.
You are operating under the notion that men play fair. And I am a firm believer that we should look at history to teach us lessons, and history tells us that men do not play fair.
If it becomes generally accepted that a man has equal rights to a baby or child that a mother has carried inside her womb and birthed and breastfed we are on very rocky ground. It doesn't matter to me whether he had done half or most of the childcare: it does not make him a mother.

Can I quote Germaine Greer?
"The Labour government has announced that henceforth unwed fathers who signed the birth certificate were to have the same rights in law over their offspring as fathers married to children's others. Once again men get the whip hand; they can excercise paternal rights or evade parental responsibilities- as they choose. The father cannot be forced to sign but the mother may be forced to allow him to, regardless of her wishes." Whether men opt in or out of parenting will remain their choice, as it always has been.

So before you ask me to create a world where my daughter should give up her birthright as a mother, convince me that men will use these rights of theirs to play fair. Because I have seen nothing yet that tells me it will be so. I have seen the opposite: that men will use these rights to their advantage, to override the mother.

Milly asked what kind of economic system would work. I have been suggesting on a number of threads now that a socialist system is ideal. PRoper provisions for mothers or those who choose this role. Then women wouldn't have to rely on a her partner if she chooses to undergo this job herself (rather than delegate it to daycare or to another, poorer woman as is the case now) Men too- I am not excluding men from this work and yes, if more men care for children hopefully the value of this work will rise (although all that will do is prove that anything that men do still has value and only has value because men do it) I am saying that just because a man does it doesn't make him a mother.

Happysmiley is right, Sakura is arguing that women are intrinsically better at parenting than men;

"But do not tell me that men and women are the same or that men know what it is to be a mother"

Sakura, I AM telling you that a man who is allowed to (and chooses to) spend quantity time with his children "knows what it is to be a mother", although I note that you, like everyone else agreeing with your view that women are exalted in this sphere, have completely failed to define mother.

I have already said that my husband is as closely and intuitively linked with my daughter as I am, and I am a fucking fantastic parent. He can tell when she's about to come down with an illness, he is as likely as I am to wake at night if she whimpers, he can snap her out of a tantrum or comfort her when she gets hurt or persuade her to eat something she's wary of. He picks up on her proto-words and he winces when she gets a scratch.

And I am sick of people undermining his skills and sacrifices. He is passionately committed to equality, and our daughter benefits out the wazoo because of it.

I know more about this than you do. Sorry, but I do. Your husband does not practice equal parenting (I'm sure he's a great father, that's not a criticism at all), and mine does. So I am in a better position to argue about the ability of a man to be a primary carer than you are.

I'll refine my earlier point; I believe that being a biological mother in the first weeks is completely different from being a biological father. But if both partners share the childcare load as early as possible, they grow equal. After the first year, I would argue that any remaining difference is socially imposed and not intrinsic.

What do you think women bring to the relationship that men can't? Is it a hormonal link? What's your position on adoptive parents, then?

Quattro, Sakura is not 'voting to be devalued'. On the contrary, the gist of her argument is challenging that very assumption that only economic power should be valued. Which raises the question: who does all this 'valuing' anyway? Why, those who are in a position to dictate what is 'valuable' or not, i.e. men and 'the system'. How is it valued? In the only way, under that 'system?, that currently records, rewards and recognises that value, i.e. paying for it. Which immediately excludes child-rearing. This is the very thing that should be challenged, not subscribed and yielded to. Otherwise, approximately half the world population, and guess which half, is doing work to which no value is ascribed and without which we could not exist, let alone survive.
One might as well say, "What is valued in our society is men", therefore to be valued, women must become men. Surely this is not what feminism is all about.

Oh, cross post.

"If it becomes generally accepted that a man has equal rights to a baby or child that a mother has carried inside her womb and birthed and breastfed we are on very rocky ground. It doesn't matter to me whether he had done half or most of the childcare: it does not make him a mother."

Well, my questions above are very relevant then.

Are you defining 'mother' as someone who as birthed and breastfed, then? Irrespective of her behaviour after the birth, and irrespective of the time spent wit the child? Are you seriously arguing that a woman who has carried the baby, given birth to it, and then gone back to work fulltime leaving it in the fulltime care of its own father should be awarded primary custody in a split?

As for my first ever 'jumping on you' you said this:
"because men are stronger and wired differently there are other things that men can do better than us. "
I asked what they were and how they were relevant to a discussion about societal power.

Xenia, Yes, Japan has a almost zero population growth because there is a cement ceiling and women here are choosing work over motherhood, just like in Italy.
In time I hope that with time Japanese women will also hold as many powerful positions as women in Britain do, but hopefully they will be able to achieve that without lowering the status of motherhood itself. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. WHilst we need women to operate in the public sphere we cannot assume that this is the main priority of a feminist.

Having been pregnant and given birth I have more in common with another woman who has done the same than I have with any man. Foreign men who live in Japan long-term have one constant complaint and that is that the Japanese, an insular homogenous tribe, will not accept them. But for me as a woman the experience has been quite different. WOmen automatically accept me as one of them, because I am a woman and my life is their life, whether I'm a SAHM or a WOHM or whatever. My best friend here who I meet at least once a week is a full-time working mother of 6 kids, but being a woman and a mother gives us that common ground. So the point of this thread is basically to strongly argue how different men and women are in general and that this is a good thing, and that I am frightened that some women believe that men taking over 50% of the childcare is going to solve our problems. I think that women who want a society where men and women have 'equal' rights and access to children are being very naive.

tortoise,
"And I am sick of people undermining his skills and sacrifices. He is passionately committed to equality, and our daughter benefits out the wazoo because of it."

Look, I am not undermining your husband. He sounds wonderful, truly. He sounds like he is very nurturing and 'good at' mothering (doesn't make him a mother, you're the mother). I truly wish all men were like him. But they're not. ANd you are losing sight of that. If all men were like your husband I would say "Fine, lets allow men a 50% stake in the children". But men (especially when they're in packs) fight dirty.

"Are you seriously arguing that a woman who has carried the baby, given birth to it, and then gone back to work fulltime leaving it in the fulltime care of its own father should be awarded primary custody in a split?"

I think if both parents went back to work full-time then in a split the child should go to its mother. If the father became a SAHD then I think it should be roughly 50/50. Remember, you are not taking into consideration the reasons that so many women are in the workplace to begin with and it has nothing to do with feminism- merely to flood the workplace with a cheap supply of labour. So why should a woman be penalised and have her children taken away from her because she is the victim of such a system? Other women, like yourself, have chosen to work in a job you enjoy but please keep in mind that your choice only applies to a certain class of women.

Sakura, what do you mean when you say that you are "shocked to learn on this topic that some women seriously believe that men and women are equal". Are you suggesting that as feminists we should believe we are better than men, or alternately perhaps are you saying that we should acknowledge that we are worse than men?

I fundamentally believe/know that I am the equal of most men (of course some individuals will be better than me at doing all sorts of things, regardless of their gender). I would be incredibly worried if my daughter didn't grow up feeling the same way - or my son for that matter.

Society may not treat me as equal all the time, but surely that is artefactual?

I think that parenting is a privilege and a choice. It is something that dh and I share. I have no wish to claim any superiority, my children love and need us both (and the other significant people in their lives too).

I'm not losing sight of that. It's incredibly rare. I don't know of another Mumsnetter whose husband does substantial childcare - they must be out there, but they don't post about it - and this is a big site.

But you ARE undermining him when you say that "We can do it better than men". Although, for the nth time, you haven't told me what we do better. Because if he, or I, believed that ahead of time we would never have tried to find out if it was true. It's a sexist belief and it reinforces divisive gender roles.

You appear to be saying 'well okay in this example it works, but we still shouldn't allow men to become part of this example'.

"what do you mean when you say that you are "shocked to learn on this topic that some women seriously believe that men and women are equal".
I am shocked to learn that there are some women who think that men and women are interchangeable.

"Are you suggesting that as feminists we should believe we are better than men, or alternately perhaps are you saying that we should acknowledge that we are worse than men?"
Not at all. I think that the 'women are better than men' is another made-up man-argument to undermine feminism. And I certatinly don't think we are worse than men. BUt I am positive we are not the same. OUr brains are different, our bodies our different, our behaviour is different.

Equal and interchangeable are not the same thing.

"But you ARE undermining him when you say that "We can do it better than men. Although, for the nth time, you haven't told me what we do better. "

My argument is not that all women can parent better than all men at all times. But the experience of being a mother and father is different and the way children relate to either is also different.

So I have two issues here: the first issue that men and women are the same- I don't think we are. Each bring different attributes to the table. Research that shows that men and women parent differently. It begins with the hormones that flood a woman's body after birth to help her respond to her newborn's needs. SO being a woman definitely helps a lot with mothering. From then it continues to the way children relate to their parents. The same-sex parent is important for role-modelling and the opposite sex parent is important for a child's self-esteem. I do think that being female helps with parenting, but that could be nurture, and hopefully more men can learn to be more nurturing in time.

But from what I've read on some posts, saying men and women are the same is apparently feminist.

The second issue I have is this utopian image of men in society having an equal stake in children.
I'm not sure what the ratio in society is of men like your husband, tortoise. But men are made differently to us- they are made to compete, they have hierarchies in ways that women do not. I think you are very naive of the true nature of some men. When I said men 'in packs' I meant everything from football hooligans to oppressive institutional patriarchy, which operates by men bandying together.

I think what you and your husband are doing is admirable and is also a feminist fight.
But as I understand it some women who proclaim to be feminists don't realize that investing in motherhood by choosing to stay with my children is also a feminist fight and no less valid. Your feminism is well understood and hailed and my feminism is regarded as a 'non-choice'.

I don't know any feminist who believes men and women are interchangeable, although I have read many antifeminist strawman arguments to that effect. Again, and to quote Dittany quoting me:

"it was feminists who fought for mothers' rights and who achieved a whole lot of important laws that protected mothers and supported motherhood. It's also feminists who raised awareness that treating every person as if they are an able bodied man without children, or with a wife at home taking care of children, is unfair to women and mothers."

I'm really not naive, thanks, and to get back to the original question:

Women who want to work in high powered careers are often stymied because they are also expected to do the second shift of housework and childcare, and it's too much without help (partner or paid). It's one of the reasons for the persistence of the pay gap, the glass ceiling, etc. To improve matters for women, you need women in positions of legislative and judicial power. Not because those jobs, for individual women, are the best choice. But because if you want a society that supports and values women's work, you need a society where women hold meaningful power and can pass laws supporting the things you want supported.

Patriarchy exists by men bandying together, as you say, so to change patriarchy we need women to break into those groups. The second shift prevents us. The idea that we are naturally better parents and children will suffer if we don't stay at home with them prevents us. The idea that men are more naturally competitive and hierarchial (ideas which have been used to support the contention that men are naturally better equipped to be lawyers, politicians, generals, etc) prevents us. I'm getting passionate about your argument not because I'm naive, but because your argument is designed to keep women in the home and out of the boardroom, and frankly, fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Discouraging men from making career sacrifices to stay home with children also prevents us. Put aside all my feelgood posts about how good a father my husband is, and let's be cynical. That's one man who has been neutralised - taken out of the competitive bands of rich powerful men and introduced into the sphere of nurture and cooperation. Isn't that a good thing? Don't you want to see more of that?

The reason men won't use equality to their advantage is that it's not all one-way. If they're going to take on 50% of the childcare (which is NOT the same as having 50% of the legal rights, by the way, which is what Greer is talking about) they won't be able to keep undertaking 95% of the positions of power as well. The status of at-home parents will rise, which is what you want. And women will enter the positions of power and legislate for better, which is presumably also what you want.

Sorry I lost a chunk of the thread there, lots of posts in between the last one I read and the last one posted.

I'm sorry Sakura I really cannot empathize with your posting at all now. I do not automatically connect with other women who have had children simply because I experienced pregnancy and birth. I'm not sure how old your children are, but for me, that was ten years ago, and really not incredibly relevant any more. I frequently find common ground with other parents however, and also with many other people for many reasons.

I think that your ideas about motherhood are extremely damaging to what I think are very important efforts to encourage men and women to consider each other as individuals, with different skills, aptitudes and needs. I'd like my son to know that he can be a fantastic father, teacher, nurse or any other caring roles, and that my daughter can be whatever she would like to be too. Including a mother if that's what life brings her.

Decisions about what happens to children after divorce should not be on the basis of who deserves them more (to me the I carried and fed them approach smacks almost of ownership) but on the basis of what is best for them. The general view is that when parents split up the best thing for the child is to have as much stability as possible, which is why care arrangements tend to continue the status quo arrangements. On the whole that means living with the mother, as she is most likely to be the primary carer. If the father is the primary carer then I can't see any very good reasons why the rules should be different.

Tortoise said: "I'm naive, but because your argument is designed to keep women in the home and out of the boardroom, and frankly, fuck that for a game of soldiers"

That's not my argument. My argument is that if you want to call yourself a feminist then you must fight for all women. Rape, incest, sexual harassment the beauty industry and sexualisation of children are all areas that feminist agree on AFAIK. Calling for respect for motherhood and how it comes about (pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding) and then respect again for the people who carry out childcare (usually women) and proper financial backing by the government is also a very important part of feminism.
But it is a part that is being overlooked in the race to get seats in the boadroom. Seats in the boardroom are important but are in no way more important because they are a measure of male, patriarchal values. If you 'sleepwalk' into believing it's more important then you collaborate with men in the oppression of women. Because all women are never going to get a seat on the boardroom. that is a fight that only some women can fight (middle class).
Meanwhile a lot of other women may not even have a man or he may have run off or not even know he's a father, or they may be delegated to working in Tescos and putting their children in daycare because motherhood is not valued properly by society and doesn't reward them for this work.

So I think to be able to call yourself a feminist you have to value motherhood and the people who do this work, whether you are a mother or not or whether you care for or are interested in babies and children or not.

I am very worried that some women are going around saying that women are just walking wombs and the fact they gave birth to their children does not entitle them to first refusal in a divorce case, because men and women are the same. Oh yes, apart from the womb, of course!

nooka, I mean that being a mother- pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding is an uniquely female experience, whether you are ambivalent about motherhood or not.