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.

Well again I think you're misunderstanding Sakura's point, HS.

We need to be very careful about the consequences of erasing the differences between women and men. Ideas about biological difference have been and continue to be used against us (eg all those bad science books about the male and female brain that are so popular at the moment), to keep us in our place. I see that you're arguing against Sakura's concerns because you see this as an oppressive form of essentialism. I'm still trying to work through this problem so I don't know the answers to questions like: if we reject the idea that we are essentially different from men, then on what basis can we fight our oppression? If we accept the idea that we are essentially different from men, how then do we avoid playing into our oppressors' hands? Or is this a false dichotomy and perhaps, therefore, we can fight on the basis of those real differences which are born not out of biology but out of many hundreds of years of oppression?

My understanding of Sakura's OP is that she is rightly suggesting that we tread carefully here. Thanks to feminists, men have been forced to make some concessions and now they expect us to shut the fuck up because the law says we're equal. But we still live in a woman-hating culture. It's as if the inferiority of women is embedded in the very bones of our society, and no amount of reforms within the structure of that society is going to erase that hatred because its woman-hating walls are still standing. You 'capitalist feminists' on this thread might never have been at the sharp end of that hatred yourselves and therefore perhaps you don't recognise that it is there. If you want to know what it's like to be at the sharp end, go and read the rape thread and have your eyes opened. And if you have been at the sharp end, as far too many of us have, then I wonder at how you've managed to maintain your (apparent) belief that the status quo is basically OK bar a little further tweaking.

To repeat Germaine Greer's words:

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

So what are some saying? Women are great at cleaning and child care so don't let men in, bar the door, guard your mops jealously because if you lost your pre-eminence as chief cook and bottlewasher women will have nothing left? Who as a feminist could possibly support that argument? The best way to help women into a fairer and more equal position at home and in society is what most of the working women on mumsnet do which is make sure they pick partners who aren't sexist, have fathers very involved with childcare and be perfectly happy to admit he cleans the bathrooms better than we do. Never restrain a man who mwants to iron or wield the loo brush byt never never ever say he's "good" or something special because he cleans his own house and looks after his chidlren and never ever say he's "helping you". He's fufilling his own duties.

These truths are just as appropriate for the nurse and porter on £20k each as the anyone more exalted and couples all round the UK do share things. I took a taxi and the driver was talking about his split shifts with his nurse wife - they work around each of their hours and both look after the children a lot. Things are going great. It's called the mancession because women are getting more power, men are being forced into the home through economic forces which are usually the best forces for change anyway and human beings which is what we all are at heart and more similar than different whether male or female, generally want fairness.

I also get disappointed if feminists won't stand up for male rights too. It would be if we gave men time off work which women didn 't get that you might then ensure more equity and helped fathers have more time at home for example.

ps.. despite having very different politics from Ms Harmon and not always agreeing with her, I do admire her and I think we are lucky to have her. There are very few people in public life who are seeking to stamp out sexism. Anyone who tries, whether male or female, should be encouraged.

Dittany Thank you! Had a discussion last night and a colleague who was voted into office on an equalities/non sexism ticket, was trying to tell me that it wasn't misogynistic to dislike Harriet Harman, but kept singling her out . Oh, and then he mentioned to DP if was going to teach DS guitar, I suggested that DP would teach both DCs, and muttered the m-word again. He acted all exasperated and said to, 'change the record...'

Am actually quite upset because he thinks he's a feminist.

Moles, to the Marxist feminists on the thread, my response would be what other system could you propose that would work?

Communism has been tried and has failed.

And even if it had worked, I wouldn't say that it was to the benefit of women.

Under Soviet Union communism, women were expected to go out and work. The Soviet Union prided itself on having equality for women, as women were so well represented in professional spheres. But Sakura's option to stay at home for as long as she deems her children need her wouldn't be a valid one. That's not feminism.

Chinese communism is extremely harmful to women. The one child policy is nothing short of evil. No one would claim that isn't opression.

So given the choices open to us, we have to make capitalism work. As yes, we're a long way from equality. No one is claiming that it's just a little tweaking. We're far from having women make up the numbers for 50% of everything. But the structures of our society are gradually changing and they'll continue to do so.

I think it's OK to criticise the existing setup even if you don't have a blueprint for an alternative type of society to hand. I freely admit that I don't have the answers, I'm no expert, just a random woman trying to understand the issues. The great thing about having this topic is that we now have a dedicated space to discuss these issues and explore different ideas. I've posted here because I feel the need to defend Sakura from accusations of anti-feminism.

Pedantic note: communism has never actually existed. The attempts to bring it about failed. Perhaps that means it could never work, I don't know, but no-one on this thread has argued for communism as a replacement for capitalism in any case. And although patriarchy and capitalism are intertwined, they're not one and the same thing.

I would never say someone wasn't a feminist as anyone can use the phrase they like but I do dispute the argument that keeping the home sphere for women and keeping men out of it is in any sense helping feminist goals. In fact it's a huge own goal. However let us debate everything.

For those of a socialist persuasion (I am not) in their defence I am not sure we have ever had true communism yet - it's not really been tried.

oops molesworth said exactly the same above. Well there we are. It's not my view that it would work however. We are man and woman, naked ni tooth and claw, clawing our way above the other species on the planet, fighting off the Neanderthals, spreading ourselves over the planet with the survival of the fittest and the weakest dying. It's a fun way to be and long may it continue which it will as it's human nature, not male nature, but human nature and it means our children benefit because we tend to help them rather than our neighbour's children or the children off the local sink estate.

What most needs to change is for women to assert themselves at home and not tolerate for one day sexist men at home. Every time you see sexism point it out as people do need the scales lifted from their eyes.

The new economic freedom is helping women. Women are brilliant businesswomen because of our years of managing homes and the desire to balance the books and protect our families (as indeed do many men). China has some great examples to girls in the UK of women who have built businesses and done well which they couldn't under communism. In Africa most people tend to think give small loans to women to start businesses, buy a cow etc and educate their daughters. Taht's the best way to help people. It's because we are at heart capitalists and that benefits most people best. Industry wants the best people - doesn't matter who they are. If you recruit from a narrow gene pool, old school or only working class or only blind people or whatever you cut off your talent source. Free market principles tend to ensure people don't discriminate as you draw from a smaller and less effective pool. Patriarchy and capitalism are indeed not intertwined.

'We are man and woman, naked ni tooth and claw, clawing our way above the other species on the planet, fighting off the Neanderthals, spreading ourselves over the planet with the survival of the fittest and the weakest dying. It's a fun way to be and long may it continue which it will as it's human nature, not male nature, but human nature and it means our children benefit because we tend to help them rather than our neighbour's children or the children off the local sink estate.'

What on earth are you talking about?

Dunno, but it certainly doesn't sound like much 'fun' to me

sorry - last post for Xenia. She will ignore it like every other posts I have made directly to her.

Yeah naked clawing isn't all it's cracked up to be Molesworth. I prefer a nice good book.

Is anyone actually reading Xenia's posts? I don't know where to begin with them, and as she won't acknowledge any posters except those that agree with her I have given up trying to engage with her. She also wrote this earlier, but it was at the end of a long rambling pontification so might have been missed...

'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.'

Er, oh-kay? That could be the fourth wave mission statement surely?

Capitalist Feminism or What's Wrong With Women? Stop Whinging!

I am in the weird position of disagreeing with both sides of the argument on this thread. I find the whole thing repugnant. It all seems to be about blaming other groups of women for the fact that men can't be arsed to clean their own houses, cook their own food, or spend time with their children when not at their paid job.

The feminist couple in all of this seems to be the taxi driver and nurse mentioned by Xenia. That seems to me to be a fairly typical way of doing things. People share childcare and work shifts around each other, and get other family and friends to help out - teamwork.

One point often made by Germaine Greer which hasn't been mentioned is that much of the work done by women doesn't need doing - either because they are doing work that adult males should do for themselves, or they are cleaning things that are already clean.

To return to this planet, I think Sakura raises an important point when she cautions us not to simply give away what parenting rights we currently have.

In my personal experience I have seen her fears in action. When I left my abusive ex, taking our one year old son, his last threat was to that he would take my child away from me. He tried physical force, slander, contacting social services to report me for a list of fictional behaviours, stalking me and more. He was allowed contact throughout and was just looking for ways to punish me, at the cost of our son's happiness.

Luckily I'm fairly articulate and it was obvious to everyone that he was the nutter in the scenario (and I mean no disrespect to nutters by using that term). But I now supervise domestic violence workers and many many women are still being terrorised by ex partners with similar threats. Sometimes the ex is successful. In one current instance the children have been placed with a father who has just been released from his 8 year sentence (for stabbing their mother). They were removed from the mother because of concerns about school attendance. Now we don't know the whole situation here (although I haven't changed or added to it) but I see time after time that men do well in child case conferences and women lose the care of children because they are unable to assert themselves in a meeting.

If we are not careful, we will find this happening on a social level. Men's rights will again be asserted (as they have been only a few posts ago on this very thread) and women and children's rights will be ignored once again.

x post MillyR - you're firmly on this planet

MillyR, I am totally in agreement with you. As far as I can tell, the best way forward is to share childcare and household responsibilities. Cutting men out and ringfencing the children and the house as our domain, hurts both men and women.

blinder, I'm not for one minute proposing that the children of violent or abusive men should should be placed with their fathers. Child residence arrangements should always be decided in the best interests of the child, no one else.

Happysmiley I agree that household duties shouldn't be the preserve of one sex. I also know that you aren't proposing that we house children with violent men. I haven't accused you of that.

I was illustrating the point that if we devalue the unique contribution of mothering, we make it more easy for men to assume control of it, which they attempt to do on a daily basis. Historically, for example, obstetrics has managed to assume almost control of pregnant women's bodies and babies' births in the Western world, and only recently have we started to claw back our rights and wisdom regarding childbirth.

As I said earlier, I have been accused on this topic of being unfeminist, to want to take take time out to spend with my child. There is a patronising assumption that women who mostly child-rear are downtrodden saps. Actually, I supported my DP financially for a while and he is now supporting me (mostly) but he also did all the mopping and hoovering today while I played with the baby. He does significantly more housework than me.

There is also a jaw-droppingly crazy claim on some of these threads that women who 'stay at home' are somehow letting the side down. But mothering is and always will be a significant part of being female. Executive feminists don't have the monopoly on political activism and they don't speak for me.

This thread is simply a comment on the trend of devaluing mothering, and where that might lead. I still don't understand what you are arguing with?

Mothering has always been part of being a woman, but the idea that anyone other than the extremely wealthy can have mothering as their sole occupation does not exist outside of the 20th century developed world. But then I suppose now that we live in a global economy, most people in Britain are extremely rich, when compared to all the women growing our food for us, making our clothes and medicines for us and living on 2 dollars a day.

If men did their fair share of domestic work, no woman would need to make mothering her sole occupation.

Thank you Milly, perfectly put.

MillyR I agree that it's an economic (mostly Western) privilege to mother full time but so is being an executive and no-one is complaining about that being unfeminist!

'If men did their fair share of domestic work, no woman would need to make mothering her sole occupation.'

Gah! You don't seem to be hearing the simple message that I don't have to do it: Iwant to do it. It has nothing to do with my DP not doing his fair share as you would know if you had bothered to read my post.

What is so hard to understand? Not everyone finds it boring to spend all day with a baby. I have waited for seven years to be able to play all day and I would do it all day every day for years if I could .