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.

So is the situation of women in the developing world a feminist ideal? Because I am sure there are millions who would love to be with their children rather than hundreds of miles away working in a factory or nannying for some high flying executive.

I see that money buys you choice - in Britain money will buy you the chance to SAH or go to work.

But the decisions are still made within a capitalist, and essentially patriarchal, society.

Yes there are things you can do to mitigate your circumstances - try to share care with DP for example, but what it boils down to is that government and businesses are unwilling to finance family friendly policies such as they have in Sweden.

If I could have had a 5 year career break I would have snatched it with both hands. But it wasn't available.

Xenia's experience is fascinating and she is quite inspirational in some ways, but her circumstances are rare and therefore kind of skew the debate, I think.

To go back to this Germaine Greer quote that's been mentioned more than once now:

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

Yes, I agree. But that's precisely why I want to help to change our society (or the bits of it I can reach) into one where my male partner will want to share childcare equally, be able to do it in terms of his work, and be respected for that decision and not denigrated. And at the same time I want the same for me. That's changing the image of what is a male role or a female role, right there.

I have already seen this happen with friends of mine, and I want it not only for my own purposes but as part of modelling it for others. I don't want to (and will not) distrust my partner because men as a group act in their self-interest - he's not a generic man, he's himself. I don't want to lump all men together either - it's not like it's my saintly partner who is elevated beyond all others, or something. There are other such men out there, and not only do I want to believe this is the case, I think I have to believe it otherwise I'm never going to get stuck into trying to help things to change.

blinder, it's not women like you that I worry about, I believe you when you say you made a genuine choice. I believe Sakura too. I don't worry about her either.

I do worry about many other women who don't see that they have a choice. I worry about my friend the hairdresser above, who I know would love to go back to work. Why doesn't her husband want to make any career sacrifices? Why must she bear the full burden?

Most of the men I know, talk a good game and yes, they do a good share of the nappy changing and the drudgery, but they don't do as much as their (usually) working wives. Most use their time with their kids to do the fun stuff (play, take them to the park, to the football, whatever) whereas the women do the dull stuff (dentists appointments, sorting out the packed lunches etc). It's not always the way, but often.

It's taken me a while as an educated woman, working in a male dominated environment and taking no shit from the men at work, to realise that I needed to let my husband do more at home. I needed to let him for my own sanity. And I say let, because as soon as I stepped out of the way, he just picked up the slack. No questions asked. No arguments. He just sorted out what needed to be done. Maybe not the way I would have done it, but he did it none the less.

Now, I'm lucky obviously. Many men won't do that. But we need to make them. We can't legislate for what goes on in the home, we have to do it ourselves individually. And as Xenia says, don't go near the men that won't with a bargepole. They'll soon learn that women aren't their just to pick up after them and their children.

One of the things which always irritates me about these discussions, is the implication that women who put up with shit men are to blame for the fact that the men are shit.

"If we don't put up with it, blah di blah" utterly ignores the cultural context in which men and women live and blames women for the systemic sexism in our society. It's yet another reason why sneery feminism is so disliked by a)other feminists and b) women who don't define themselves as feminist - it looks down on other women as stupid, silly, doormats etc. I've read lots of comment on MN along those lines and it does get my goat.

HB, I'm not blaming women who put up with shit men at all. But I don't see any other way that we can deal with this other than to show women that there is another way, that they don't have to put up with it.

The problem is that we can't legislate against shit men in the same way as we legislate against shit employers.

Instead, we need to give women the tools to deal with men like this, to stand up to them and to leave them if they need to.

No I accept that you're not blaming women, but I do think we need to be careful about how we phrase stuff so that it doesn't sound like yet another smug Xenia-ism (I'm as guilty of this as anyone).

And what are the tools? The rhetoric about making men do their fair share etc., has been around for 40 years and you're still getting women of twenty five taking it for granted that men who wipe down a surface are "helping" rather than just functioning as an adult.

Blinder, people on this thread have said that they think the behaviour of executives is unfeminist. As, I have said, I don't agree with either side of this debate.

Yes, I am sure that those women out picking crops for us would like to be at home with their children, or they would like their children to be in school rather than out picking the coffee harvest for us.

I think this thread is about who does the work required to make life possible, and indeed pleasant, and what power those people have - in terms of economic power and influence. We need radical social change to resolve those issues.

I don't agree with Xenia that capitalism provides a long term solution to our unjust and unsustainable world, or that being an advertising executive or a pornographer is a justifiable societal contribution.

But neither do I believe that mothering as a full time occupation is a fair contribution either. But the truth is that most mothers who have no paid job don't just mother. Most mothers are also cooking, cleaning and washing for some lazy man. And huge numbers of mothers who do just mother do so because society has organised working patterns in such a way that it has made it impossible for the adults in the family to work and have children.

I think people need to think realistically about how much work is needed to have a reasonable quality of life. Imagine if there are 20 families, and you have to grow your own food, tend animals, make and repair your own buildings, learn and practise medicine, teach people, create art and culture, make clothes, get energy sources for heating and cooking, make furniture. Do you really think it is possible to have such a society if all the women with children, or even all the children with young children say that all they are going to do is mother? Now think of our society, and all the people (often men) paid to do non-jobs and all the unemployed people and all the SAHM who clean up for the lazy men with their non-job careers. Who do you think is doing all the work required to keep our society going?

We do need radical social change, and while being a mother is better than being someone who does a non-job, solely mothering has no place in a radically different, and more just and sustainable world.

But that is just my opinion. If anyone has an actual solution as to how we can organise a just society along such lines, I would really like to hear it, and I keep asking for people to suggest solutions. But they would rather sling mud.

And saying that you have chosen to solely mother does move this firmly back into the category of choice feminism, unless you can explain how solely mothering is advantageous to women as a group. I think possibly that can be explained, but you need to spell it out, because I feel I am missing your point (possibly my fault and lack of understanding).

HB, I don't think there any easy answers. I think we do have to keep saying it, and saying it and saying it again, until we drive the message home.

Any maybe we hope that with the passage of time things will change. I know my DH does more at home than his father did. We nedd continue to tell our sons know it's not women's work and they need to contribute. I don't see any other way.

Also (and I am aware that I am moving into rant mode) as SAHMs are doing huge amounts of work other than mothering, why don't we reorganise society so that some of the more influential and stimulating parts of work in our society can be done with children around? That certainly is possible.

Rather than seeing this as mothers doing more work in addition to mothering, we should look at this as being about women doing different work in addition to mothering.

HB, also think it helps that men are starting to see the benefits of doing things for their children. They are starting see being an active parent as fun, not a hardship or as mundane. That more than anything is why some men are starting to step up.

Being a good father is also something some men have lost but many still maintain. Where the mother is home and the father bears 100% the burden of supporting the family often the consequence is that he has to work late and over time because of the family's consumerism/desires for things. Where they both work both can be better parents and children benefit from having a man around too.

I was told I had not answered some questions. I think they were just that some of my posts were not understood. I was making a very clear point that women and men are competitive and the fittest survives and that working, capitalism and doing the best for our families can be fun as well as interesting.

The most common situation in the UK is a family where both parents work (more parents with children under 5 work and always have done than don't work) and as we all know the average wage is £20k a year. We hope most people pick work they enjoy. It is much better women take part in the economic part of society rather than being like Afghan or Taliban wives secreted at home allowed only to engaeg in domestic tasks. It is a wonderful thing that women can practise medicine, stand for parliament, join the army or whatever. Feminism has done so well for women. It was only in 1928 that in the UK they got the vote on equal terms with men. We just need to keep up the good work.

What we don't need is women retreating home saying male work is awful and exploitative and instead I will wash his socks and worship at his feet in my 100% female little ghetto because that's the only place where I can shine because I'm female. Horrendous thought.

Most women have always and will always work and the sensible ones know to avoid sexist men and ensure that having a penis doesn't mean they can argue they don't know how to work the washing machine.

ho hum more sneery-feminism from Xenia.

'What we don't need is women retreating home saying male work is awful and exploitative and instead I will wash his socks and worship at his feet in my 100% female little ghetto because that's the only place where I can shine because I'm female. Horrendous thought.'

Xenia are you directing that comment at me? Try to answer a direct question with a direct answer.

MillyR, much food for thought in your posts and some interesting suggestions and ideas which I need to go away and digest.

Re: mud slinging, I daresay I'm one of the ones (or maybe the only one) who has slung mud on this thread. As a working class woman I don't take kindly to being told by Xenia that I'm lazy, stupid and the 'lowest of the low'. I've said that I don't recognise her idea of feminism, but that shouldn't be taken to read that I think women executives as a group are antifeminist: I certainly don't think that. I realise that reacting angrily isn't making a positive contribution to the thread. Am now ignoring any such posts.

MillyR, maybe it's because we are so rich as a society that we can pay for all the non jobs you talk of. Poorer societies aren't so much into the advertising executives or the pornographers either, same as they don't have the SAHMs.

HB, another way to get men to pull their weight is to make sure that they see real examples of SAHDs. There's nothing like seeing alternative set ups to make people realise that it is possible.

Think it was comix that said on the other thread that she has a friend who is a SAHD and it has inspired her to see that different approaches are possible.

Molesworth, I don't mean to sound superior or accusatory. I am sure I have done plenty mud slinging on threads and I regret it. I don't know what the answers are and I really want people to come up with some good solutions.

I just get frustrated when it starts to feel as if we're all fighting each other when so many of our choices (whether we are in paid employment or not) about how we organise our lives are really a kind of 'choiceless choice' as talked about on other threads. And there isn't any getting away from imperfect choices in our current society, for most women. I hate it that we all pretend things are better than are if you stay at home or if you work, simply to justify the choice. Because it is not individual women who should be have to justify why these choices lead to so many difficulties - it is society as a whole.

I do think it's fairly simple. From about 1880 to abotu 1970 we were needing equal rights under the law and in the years since by and large there is nothing like the discrimination at work there was. Great. I'm pleased.

However women still take no the second shift at home too, many of them, not all. I would like to see that as a new battleground. I listened recently to a recording of myself on You and Yours about 20 years ago talking about these issues. If then men could pull their weight I don't see why so many years later you still get some women with men who don't. I am afraid I do think some of these women need to take some responsbility. We are not helpless things totally dependent on men for money surely. Why can some of us ensure we simply don't have pathetic men who do nothing and others enable that behaviour? I just don't understand some musmnetters. If their husband is going to disappear for 7 hours of golf on a Saturday why on earth doesn't she just leave the 4 children with him at 9am the next day and go out for a 6 hour hike? He's not going to kill them. Are these women scared of the men? I just don't understand why they let these things happen?

Yes, of course I completely agree with your latter points Milly. Our choices are severely constrained and as far as I'm concerned feminism isn't about criticising other women's choices.

I prefer to think of this as 'debating' rather than 'fighting' though, because to call it 'fighting' makes it sound like the content of the discussion is trivial bickering when it isn't. Yes we all want to find solutions, but those solutions are going to depend on how you define the problems, and we don't all agree on the nature and the extent of those problems. My feeling about Sakura's OP is that she was raising this very issue, that 'equality feminists' have a particular understanding of the problems that in turn lead to certain kinds of solution which other 'types of feminist' might consider dangerous because their understanding of the problems is different.

Ok Milly

I am a SAHM and it ain't all cupcakes and bunting. It is about housework, wiping bottoms, ferrying to school, nursery, feeding and occasionally sitting in the park having a rueful chat with other women about lack of sleep, lack of money..and sometimes politics etc..

Some days I get out of bed and feel happy I am taking the kids to the park and we will have a nice day.

Other days I feel like screaming. It isn't all that different to the way I felt about work.

And it isn't fulfilling - which is why I am studying for a new career - but it is enough for our family right now, while the kids are little.

And DP does alot round the house. But is also knocked out by working long hours to pay the bills. And that's how it is. And is in many homes across Britain. It's not perfect, but we love and respect each other and frankly, if I didn't think I would be working in a few years, I would seriously hit the gin. And the valium.

And am supposed to writing up my qualitative analysis. Only 1000 words to go before I am woken at 5am by the baby

I think that the evolution of feminism into many strands is great and reflects the huge progress that has been made, as Xenia has alluded to. I also have no problem that some of the strands oppose each other. That's good because fundamentally there is a huge diversity of thinking on how to organise society. Most (but not all) of those theories have been expounded by men - if there is such a diversity of thought amongst men then of course there will be similar diversity amongst women.

I hate the idea that all women are the same, that we should naturally band together in our thoughts and actions, and that we should all be fighting men just on the basis of their gender. One of the really important battles (I was going to say victories, but sadly this one is far from being won) for feminism is surely to have women recognised for their individual strengths (and weaknesses) rather than as stereotypes that constrain and bind us.

There are many battles ahead IMO, I just don't personally feel that protecting the domestic sphere is one of them. I am more than happy for my (currently SAHD) dh to take that burden, I see it as liberating for both of us that we can play to our strengths, and I hope that society moves more in that direction, so that both men and women can where ever possible have fulfilling lives. That should mean that women in the boardroom or men at home are equally normal and accepted. I'd also like to live in a society where the two are not mutually compatible (ie being an executive shouldn't mean you never see your children, and staying home for a while shouldn't mean you should never be able to have a career).

MillyR said:
"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"

First of all, thank you for acknowledging in your first sentence one of my main points of this thread: that mothering is part of being a woman (who have children). BEcause the reason I began this thread was to establish this point. THere are a lot of misguided women saying that mothering is incidental to being a woman, or a lifestyle choice FFS. That men should get a 50% stake in custody because men and women are "the same". OR even worse, that choosing to do this job yourself rather than delegate it to someone else, be it daycare, a relative or a nanny, is a non-choice. Look at the accusations hurled at me in the beginning of the thread.

Secondly, please don'T direct me towards history and other sexist societies to further your point that mothers don'T need to be with their children. I am looking towards a future where the power balance of society can be restructured for the first time in history in favour of women. MOthering has traditionally received so little status that who wouldn't choose to do something else? I would like to see changes made so that it received the status it deserves, always has deserved. Finally, iN the past work was physical (milking or whatever). Thesedays most work is desk-work and you really can't have children around if you want to concentrate on doing your job properly.

Thirdly, even the idea that I am advocating that women who want to be with their children should only be doing that is a misnomer. I am not arguing for that.
For those of you who aren't with your children full-time, social isolation is a huge part of the difficulty of being a SAHM these days. [ I actually run a small business with a friend- a cram school, teaching English- and I bring my baby along. I'm also a translator and I get online work sometimes, but as I said, that kind of desk work is very difficult to do when you have children around so I have to wait for them to sleep first. ] So this idea that women should be exclusively looking after their babies is a misnomer and is not really the point of the thread TBH.
I am arguing for respect for this work. And, as GardenPath said in the beginning of the thread, I'm arguing for mothering not to be treated as an "aside" or something you do temporarily before going back to your "proper" job. I'm arguing for mothering to be regarded as the most important job and for other work to be regarded as incidental.

To the people like nooka who think that this work is not denigrated by society, I want to repeat that the only reason you think that is because you have your other work and therefore another idenity to fall back on. I am a translator, a writer and a teacher, but when people ask me what I do I tell them I'm a mother, because that's what takes up most of my time and that's what I define as being my main job. The other jobs I do are incidental.
Next time someone asks, try it! At the next dinner party you go to tell them you're a SAHM.Or fill out a form and in the space where it says "occupation", write "mother" and watch the confusion on people's faces. Motherings not a job, it's just one of those things that happen. Somehow. Right?