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.

sorry for the bad sentence syntaxing! My English is regressing so if I write quickly without concentrating I make mistakes.

I feel I must add that none of this should undermine the work of women like Xenia, or my own mother, who broke into spheres previously dominated by men and are striving to dismantle patriarchy from within. This is also very important for feminism.
But it is not more important than motherhood and the women who care for babies and children; therefore women who choose not to care for their own babies ( not the legions of women who are forced to leave their babies in order to work under this capitalist system, but those who choose to) should be aware of the wider issues. And some of them may be doing it purely for the kick and power of the work with a host of poor women cleaning up their shit at home, but they can't call themselves feminist.

dittany and I may have different political views but the base of all feminism was always and remains equal rights for men and women under the law. I was as much behind the huge bits of litigation in the NE of England giving cleaners wage parity with dustbin men which shook up the public sector so much as I support the right of women to practise medicine.

What I would never support is (a) ghettoising women at home as may be S suggests above so they retain one area of pre-eminence - nappy changing - let the men in the home and I will go off and do much more interesting things (b) disbanding meritocratic structures - most women want to "get on", help their children get on - that is our species - it's why just about every political structure we've ever tried to set up has always turned out much the same. It's how people are made and it works well. It doesn't matter if there will always be someone better off than you are as we all know, even I, that having more wealth doesn't make you happier.

I also disagree that it is a "return" for women that they tend to get their children after divorce. Far far too many women fight very unfairly and deny fathers rights after divorce. Feminists should be fighting against unfairness to men on divorce as much as for women's rights. If you love your children and they love their father why would any woman want to keep the two apart?

There have always been both left and right wing capitalists but they are united on some issues particularly ensuring lack of equality at home and obviously equal rights under the law for men and for women. However saying being a housewife is wonderful, should be paid what men are paid for full time work etc etc is certainly not traditional feminism and helps keep women down. By saying women can only survive in their supposedo ne area of pre-eminence (housework/childcare) if it is segregated off and made hard for men to take it on, does women down. Women are just as brilliant bank managers, consultants, doctors etc as men and they are out there now doing those jobs. After the last market crash in the 20s my grandfather who was on the Council was reported in the local press as wanting women doctors when they married to resign so work remained available for men in difficult times. We cannot have that kind of thing - the assumption women's money is pin money and only men work properly and have real jobs.

dittany, I completely agree with you when you say that wealth and poverty are engendered. It's true at all levels of society. A man is more likely to have wealth in our society than a woman with equivalent education, qualifications and background.

There are two causes of this. One is that as nooka says, we don't live in a true meritocracy. There's plenty to be done to resolve this and I'd hope that feminism was about trying to remove the gender related barriers to success that people face.

But the second cause of this, I think the main one for a significant majority, is the fact that historically women have been forced, and now they are strongly encouranged, to do all the unpaid work at home, while men go out and earn money. Over the last fifty years, we've managed to show men how to cook their own dinners, iron their own shirts and clean their own houses. And we expected them to start doing it. Perhaps now we can show them how to look after their own children.

Tortois's point above about the 2nd shift is very valid. Of course, we tend to given up paid work when we're expected to do a 2nd shift at home. So why can't men be expected to make career sacrifices to staff the 2nd shift. Of course they will only do so reluctantly because they'd have to give up their in-built advantage to create personal wealth, but it gives women the opportunity to even out the wealth gap and I think we should take it.

Sakura, I notice you have avoid answering my detailed questions.

So how bad does a mother have to be before your society would finally recognise that the children would be better off with their father? Why should child custody arragements be decided in the best interests of a mother rather than the child itself? Surely in cases of seperation and divorce, it is the children that society should look to protect, not the mother?

Re the income redistribution aspect of your social policy, I think you'd need to do a lot more work on costing it, but that's an aside and let's forget that for a minute and pretend that we live in a utopia.

I notice that you didn't answer my very specific question of what a SAHM would be expected to do to earn this allowance. It's an important question because society tends to attribute value, not on how much we actually pay people, but how much value we perceive to get from them. Take the example of a nurse or an NHS manager. We all know who gets paid more, and we all know what we would like more of, and they aren't the same thing.

I don't think simply paying a salary to SAHMs would up their value, I think they would have to been seen to be doing something for it, over what WOHMs do for their children anyway. That's why I think you would have to introduce some form of monitoring (objectives and appraisals to use work terminology). If you can't demonstrate what they add above and beyond WOHM parents you'd just be causing resentment amongst WOHM parents who would be asked to subsidise it.

Think of the example of single parents. They are the only part of society that the goverment pays to stay at home with their children, yet they don't have more value in society for it. If anything they are vilified. Why? Because people think they are getting "free" money for doing what other parents do anyway.

Sakura, I can see your point about "manwork" (eg doctor, chef) currenly being valued and "womanwork" (eg nurse, cook) currently not being valued. But I don't think that the solution is that women should ringfence babydom as a man-free zone and claim special rights over it. Surely, the solution is to remove all thoughts of sex-orientation and make all jobs simply "peoplework".

I think thst this argument between capitalism and socialism is a bit fallacious. I do my job because (a) it suits my abilities and personality-type (b) I therefore enjoy it and (c) I get paid to do it. I get paid more than the average because not everyone has the same (a) as me. I gave up one of my clients the other day because I decided that the enjoyment / pay balance had tipped the wrong way. As a capitalist, I had no problem in making a hard-headed choice to drop the work because it wasn't paying its way. But I would never do such a thing to my children: they are not something that you drop when times get hard.
Some people prefer altruistic jobs (education, health etc) where they get a buzz from helping others. They are willing to accept lower pay because they get added 'remuneration' from the feelgood factor. I think that parenthood is the ultimate example of this where you get zero monetary pay buy immense personal reward. It is disingenious to ask for pay for something (that has been entered into freely) from which you get such personal satisfaction. That is wanting your cake and eating it.

I think that parenthood is the ultimate example of this where you get zero monetary pay but immense personal reward

I think Sakura's point is being missed here.

In 1999 Germaine Greer said:

"In 1970 the movement was called 'Women's Liberation' or, contemptuously, 'Women's Lib'. When the name 'Libbers' was dropped for 'Feminists' we were all relieved. What none of us noticed was that the ideal of liberation was fading out with the word. We were settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a condition of self-definition and self-determination. The aim of women's liberation is to do as much for female people as has been done for colonized nations. Women's liberation did not see the female's potential in terms of the male's actual; the visionary feminists of the late Sixties and early Seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men." (emphasis added)

She goes on to say:

"If the future is men and women dwelling as images of each other in a world unchanged, it is a nightmare."

"the base of all feminism was always and remains equal rights for men and women under the law"

No, it isn't. It's the ackknowledgement that women are as human as men are, irrespective of whether they're really all the same or different. Equal rights under the law is simply a result of acknowledgement of their humanity.

What Molesworth said.

I don't think Sakura is under any obligation to set out a template for a new society.

I also think sneering at the job of child-rearing as merely "nappy-changing" is deeply anti-feminist and contemptuous of the work of nurturing the next generation. If men did it, you can bet your life it wouldn't just be called nappy changing.

"Take a look at the men who are leaving all the childcare and domestic work up to their partners"

But who oppresses womankind in this scenario - is it the man who leaves the domestic work to his woman, or the woman who accepts this role?

This is the problem. Society only values scarce resources. As long as there are enough women out there who will do the domestic stuff for free then it will never be valued. It is only now, when birthrates are falling (i.e. women have 'gone on strike' from childbearing) that society is really thinking about this.

You cannot expect that society will pay women parents to do something that they were going to do anyway. You might as well ask society to fund everybody's hobbies.

Yes I did read that Michael Young article. I notice that he carefully aimed his fire at Blair/Brown and ignored the embarrassment that is the embodiment of his theory, namely John Prescott.

Yes, I did read the article.

I also looked up the definition of meritocracy in the dictionary.

meritocracy: A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

He seems to be arguing that such a system would be right.

But that the current system doesn't work because the elite have pulled up the drawbridge.

Fine, so no new news there then. We don't live in a real meritocracy, and we should try to rectify this. (Incidentally, if we're talking politics, Labour have actually made the situation worse, but let's leave that to one side.)

I don't agree with Ms Greer. Unrealistic ideas that people can be "free" and not work and not support themselves and all women are lovely and will share everything out amongst other women in some kind of socialist idea is now how people are made. However forcing men to change nappies and not being such an idiot as a woman you tolerate even for one day after reutrning to work a second shift where a man does not do his share is where the real battle ground is.

If you look at successful women with large families you will often find they are in marriages where they have no sexism at home. I don't think the battleground is realyl the work place. If you bring in the work, if you're the best in your field, if you're brilliant whether you're black, one legged, a lesbian or female or male you'll be wanted. The battle gruond is in domestic relationships - the thread after thread on mumsnet where men go off to play golf every weekend whislt the wife does 10 hours of child care when she doesn't get similar time off or the couples where someone thinks because he has a penis he should not be picking up from nursery at 6 - that's the battlground and surprise surprise where the women earn very little and rely on the men for money they have little power in those individual relationships.

Yes, I do think much domestic work is boring. I accept someone has to do it. If a couple both work and cannot afford to get someone else to do it if they've sense they split it 50/50 as huge numbers do.

It would be a very dangerous road to go down as a feminist to say the only thing women are any good at is caring for babies and washing clothes so let's keep men out of there, let's pay women huge sums for taking on this exalted role and then we'll all be happy because it's natural for women to care serve and clean and for men to go out into the big bad world and earn money, a very very dangerous position. Most women would be more than happy to share childcaer and cleaning with their other half and as I said above most women and men in all tges as times as soon as they have money and power subcontract that type of thing out for some of the time. Just because you dont' dust every inch of your house yourself doesn't mean you're not committed to your spouse and children. Just because your husband or wife or granny or nnay has the baby 8 - 6 during the week doesn't mean you're not a brilliant parent.

Feminists can do more good saying hey loads of we women would quite like it if all 3 potential prime ministers were female and there were interviews with Mr Sam Cameron about what he wears , we want to see more women in senior positions, we want pictures of boards of plcs where most people are female, we want much more positive role models for daughters and interviews with women who enjoy their work and have happy families .

One issue is how many women seem to whinge. What's wrong with them> Eat better. Get exercise. Have more sex. Lose weight. Take prozac if you have to but stop whingeing. Life is huge fun whatever you earn and whatever you do. Just smile a bit more. it's not a veil of tears... the via dolorosa.

I'm not sure you can argue that just because he has coined a term, he has copyright on it. Meritocracy is a word in common parlance and the dictionary definition is probably a better reflection of what most people mean by it rather than just one man's definition, who happened to use it first.

Re the concept giving up areas where we have dominance without having concessions from men in other areas, I don't believe that we will gain ground elsewhere unless we are willing to share responsibility in the home. Tortoise put it better than I can above, so I'll cheat and just use her words:

But it is when some women are saying that women are better than men at this (and there are plenty of quotes above to that effect).

And it is when some women are saying, well yes, you can look after the children now, but god forbid should we ever split up, the kids will stay with me even though you took on the role of primary carer. Again, that's what Sakura seems to wish for.

I'm not sure I would have fallen for it if men had said to me, well you're fine to come to work and hold down a professional job, but don't expect us to give you anything in return, a wage for example.

Expecting men to take on these responsibilities but not the rights that go with them, isn't exactly going to cut it, is it?

Dittany -- slight hijack, but am trying to find threads where Harriet Harman has been discussed re: is it misogyny to intensely dislike her? Am failing totally...

Of course, I know that and it's plain and simply wrong, but the principle stands. If you take on responsibility you should get the rights that go with it. If you get none of the rights, you have no incentive to take on responsibility.

Re how much ground we give, I think we've held back quite a lot for ourselves. It's clear that the law dictates that if one parent (regardless of sex) is primary carer, the children stay with the primary carer. But in most families where care is split, the assumption under the law still seems to be the children stay with the mother (unless they are older and can decide for themselves). So I still think women have the upper hand on this.