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.

HB, of course, it's not always easy to build up a new business and it's especially difficult in the current climate but I would like to think that they both have an equal chance. Obviously he may be a much better gardener than she is a hairdresser but I've seen neither of their work, so I wouldn't like to comment.

Re the childcare cost analysis, for the hairdresser they are almost certainly making the choice it on the basis of her income (his is very large and they could certainly afford to pay for childcare if they decided to split it). For the garderner, the decision of what to do hasn't been made yet (baby not yet here) but I know him well enough to know that he won't give his job unless there really is no other option.

Yes, I believe we are all born very different from each other at all times and in all places on this planet and you will always get some who are better than others, some who are the leader of the pack, some who are the also rans. They are all equal under the law in my view even though not all societies have had that rule but I still acknowledge their differences. Societies dopn't work where dustmen are paid what doctors are. It's been tried and failed. We are lucky to live in a capitalist society with teh opportunities to do well or if we choose to live a life of poverty chastity and obedience in a religious order or live on a commune or whatever we choose but pecking orders emerge even in communes because that's very natural.

This does not mean I look down on everyone with a lower IQ than I have nor that I kiss the feet of millionaires or worship no income nuns - I value everyone but I do think these differences are here and feminism has nothing to do with having to be communist or socialist.

Nor is it opposression that someone earns more than someone else. It's just natural and if money doesn't make you happy then the poor should be rubbing their hands in glee at how much less they earn anyway - and comforting themselves that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich person will enter the kingdom of God. Lucky poor to be in that position you could argue.

"HB: "Most of us are struggling towards a vision of a society where every human being, male or female, not very bright or genius, are entitled to have dignity and a good life. Tolerating the idea of a servant or slave class is simply beyond the pale for me, it's not at all fun. "

See, for me, feminism is rooted in these principles: acknowledging the worth of every human being and fighting for freedom from oppression.

Xenia, you are arguing that oppression is natural. Your feminism is one which is only concerned with women securing right to join men (who currently occupy that position) in their rule over the oppressed (AKA 'the lowest of the low'). Your view of the 'lowest of the low' is that they are in that position by virtue of their low IQ or their lack of hard work. I find this offensive and repugnant and not compatible with any form of feminism I would want to be associated with. "

The mistake you make is in thinking that we live in a meritocracy where the best rise to the top.

We live in more of one than some places. Plenty of the best do indeed stay at the bottom but that will be inevitable. There's a lot of luck in things too but that doesn't make it all unnatural or morally bad. It's how mankind is made.

If "plenty of the best do stay at the bottom", why do you continually refer to them as 'the lowest of the low' and explain their position in society as the consequence of either stupidity or laziness?

On the whole those who work hardest and have the skill sets employers need and make wise career choices etc do better than those who don't. There are always some who had damaged childhoods or no personal skills or just bad luck who find it difficult to obtain work which is well paid. But my basic premise works for all societies - we pay what people are worth. The market works on the whole and the market works better than other systems. All hail the market.

If all the carers and food producers stopped work right now, how long would it be before society could barely function?

If advertisers and hedge fund managers all stopped work, how long could society continue?

Society is far more dependent on carers and food producers than advertisers and hedge fund managers.

But who gets paid most?

The market cannot be infallible, the banking crisis showed this, but also, why do we assume that a group of people fueled by individual greed should be worth more than those who act out of love/compassion/need to serve the common good?

Well, quite Miggsie.

So are you saying that you disagree with any intervention into the market then Xenia?

(by the state, I mean)

'On the whole those who work hardest and have the skill sets employers need and make wise career choices etc do better than those who don't.'

Xenia what do you mean by 'do better'? Do you mean 'get richer'? Because happiness and wealth don't correlate.

Also, those who 'work hardest' are frequently the classes which are stuck in poverty because the fruits of their labour are enjoyed by their employers.

I am very well educated, intelligent and plentifully equipped with 'skill sets'. I have worked extremely hard, especially when I was doing self-funded post-grad study as a single mum to a toddler.

Now I work less and love my life. It is fascinating for me to spend all day with my baby daughter. According to your narrow view of success I would probably rank quite poorly. But success for me is about enjoyment of life. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money, prestige or ambition for me.

I think your views about humanity are quite callous and arrogant. Molesworth is completely right about your views being hard to reconcile with feminism.

'All hail the market.'

as a carer with post gr5ad quals on carer's al;lowance?

Do you mind if I don't, thanks for the invite anyway though.

Thank goodness for a good loving DH who recognises we are a family unit and that one must care if the other works and both roles are essential to moving forawrds EH?

I am CEO of the organisation I work for, DH is a senior manager in his. He and I have alwaysshared all the childcare and household responsibilities 50/50. Neither of us works silly hours, coming home after bed time day after day like many 'corporate fathers', we are both flexible and employ no after school childcare.

What's in it for him? The breadwinning burden is not all on his shoulders and yet he feels no financial disadvantage, he also thoroughly enjoys being a truly involved parent, sharing the school run and after-school trips to the park etc.

What's in it for me? The same. And my career has not suffered - or not more than his.

I still don't think a clear argument is being presented either in terms of what we want to see valued, and in how we would organise such a system.

While Sakura has now said that some women need to work in positions of power, I would like her to explain whether she thinks women doing other jobs are doing something worthwhile or fulfilling.

In terms of SAHM being paid, the only fair way of introducing such a system would be to give waged parents the same amount of money.

Don't know if you've noticed, Xenia, but the free market you so vociferously advocate has just brought about the collapse of the world economy.

All the discussions about free market economics are a bit off topic, but I would like to point out that whether we like it or not, command economies (ie communism) don't work. Almost all attempts at introducing command economies throughout the world have failed and the very few that remain are close to collapse.

So the only feasible choice we are left with is a variation of a free market system, with varying degrees of state intervention. People will disagree about how much intervention is right but the essential fact is that do have to work within some sort of capitalist system. And in a capitalist system, money will determine how labour is allocated.

But that isn't to say that something that costs more is worth more in the sense of its value to society. That doesn't just apply to labour, it applies equally to commodities. Expensive diamonds or free air anyone, which would you prefer? As someone said above, love is free.

MillyR, I agree with you. I haven't seen any coherent argument about how such a society would be organised.

I do hope that Sakura comes back tonight to answer some of my detailed questions about the social policies that she would introduce.

Sakura may not have a blueprint to offer, I don't know, but Xenia's argument isn't exactly holding water either!

Trust me Moles, if it was Xenia's thread I'd have plenty of questions for her too, but given it's Sakura's, I'll stick with quizzing her

Fair dos, HS

I am simply saying not all feminists are communists.
Secondly that society values things in money temrs which is why cleaners are paid a lot less than CEOs because it's harder to be the CEO or surgeon. This is reality. It might annoy some housewives but it is so.
I don't think it is a good feminist choice to perpetuate sexist roles for men and women. Some women do. I described the two types of feminists above - those who want male hierarchies removed and presumably everyone living happily on very little in harmony (which doesn't work as men and women have the same instincts to better themselves) and those who want equal rights under the law and fairness for men and women at home.

Most parents I know who work are like BW. I know huge numbers of full time working fathers and mothers who rush home to be with the childre, do whatever they can to be at bed time etc. We like our families and want to be with them but that doesn't mean we have to advocate housewife as desirable role of choice and encourage our daughters into the wonderous role. It's dull unpaid and boring and most adults prefer to have families and work too.

And once again you magic away the masses of working class men and women who presumably don't fit into your category of "most parents I know" but whose work underpins your position of privilege. Your perspective is narrow and self-serving, Xenia, and, once again, this lack of concern with the oppression of women makes your brand of feminism incomprehensible, to me at any rate.

Thank god, dittany - I just didn't know where to start. Or whether to laugh or cry.

I don't think that you can really say that meritocracy is a bad thing per sey, as the alternatives aren't terribly workable - either everyone is equal (which they aren't) or advancement/status is based on something else, usually power or money on the basis of inheritance. It is however certainly fair to say that the UK is currently not very meritocratic, as social mobility (never that great) has seriously stagnated. I do agree about the barriers to success for many people (male and female) and that the attitude of "I've made it and so should you" is both unattractive and divisive.

However the drive to do well, succeed, do great things, achieve fame etc are important and should (in general) be enabled and valued. Personally I'd rather that the success had at least some worth to society, but that's to do with my own value system. I suspect that I was brought up with quite paternal values, as I think those at the top (for whatever reason) have an obligation to everyone else.

happysmiley,
I don't advocate communism and never have. I speak Russian and have lived in Russia so am not unaware of the failings of communism. (Although you will find a number of Russians hanker for the days of communism when, although everyone was poor, nobody was destitute. If you go to the suburbs of any major city in Russia now and see the beggars lining the streets and the proliferation of prostitutes under a free-market system you will begin to see their point).

So I are talking about socialism here. Using the fruits of a capitalist system (where individuals can use their talents and strive for self-realisation through their work) and redistribute this money to wherever society believes it should go. Right now society belives taxpayers money should go into funding illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or giving bonuses to bankers. I don't subscribe to this masculinist interpretation of what is "important".

So feminist have to strive to imbue motherhood with value. One way, of course, is to get MEN to look after the children. Then the perceived value of childcare will rise and money may begin to flow in that direction.
But that's a deal with the devil.

FIrst of all, if the only reason the work counts is because men are starting to do it then that is a continuation of the devaluation of what women do. I told Xenia on another thread that she had better hope too many women don't go into her field of work because then the work will be regarded as a soft option and ultimately devalued by society. (Teachers and clerks used to be respected jobs when men did the work. NOt so since the field became feminised). MAths is considered a female subject in Japan (you know for all the book-keeping they have to do!), whereas literature ( a soft subject in the UK) enjoys a high prestige. Men are inherently more creative, right?

Secondly, and this is the point of the thread. What is beginning to worry me a lot now is that if men do take over child-rearing then women will also be disenfranchised there as well. As I said, men play dirty- history shows us this. I am worried at what I've read on these posts about men and women being the same and therefore men should have equal rights over access to children in a divorce and somesuch. RIght now, mothers are still regarded as being important for their children. IF we go on devaluing their work that may be taken away from women too without any obvious returns.

I mentioned an alternative universe hell on another thread where child-care finally somehow gets the recognition and pay it deserves. But by the time it does women will have been convinced that the work is irrelevant. I can imagine men enjoying the priviledge of being paid to stay with the baby while the woman goes out to the office to work for peanuts. that is what I mean when I say motherhood is a woman's birthright. Don't let them take that as well.