I agree that the more we attempt to reach beyond biological reality the more we realise how fundamental it is. Most women will have children. If they breastfeed (which is recommended by health bodies the world over), that entails being with your baby 24/7. If you breastfeed optimally for your own health as a woman (substantially reducing…
I agree that the more we attempt to reach beyond biological reality the more we realise how fundamental it is. Most women will have children. If they breastfeed (which is recommended by health bodies the world over), that entails being with your baby 24/7. If you breastfeed optimally for your own health as a woman (substantially reducing future cancer risk) and the babies health this entails being with your baby 24/7 for at least 12 months. If you have two children we are looking at a period of up to 3-4 years when a woman is caring and nurturing round the clock. In that time she will be economically dependant. This is where the male role stems from- to be a provider and protector. Feminism does have to answer for the fact that this reality is not disclosed to young women for fear that this circumscribes what women want for their lives. In our atomised individualised state we’ve lost connection with this reality and are forced to learn it anew in every generation.
You're overstating this somewhat. My child wasn't fully weaned until he was three, and we never used a bottle, but I was nevertheless able to return to full time work after eight months. This is because (a) children start eating solids in addition to breast milk after 6 months or so, and (b) my husband was taking care of my child for the latter half of the first year, and we lived close enough to my work that he could simply bring our baby in for me to breastfeed sometimes.
The reality of caring for an infant as a mother should certainly be taken into account, when considering differences in life trajectories between the sexes. In particular, pregnancy and childbirth are personality-changing experiences to some extent. But it's important not to go too far in the other direction, either. I appreciate acknowledgment of what motherhood is like, but I'm wary of overly categorical statements about it.
Yes agreed. Also even if biological/procreative demands do shape male and female roles it doesn’t mean they should be predominant when we try to define men and women. But I am aware that our attempts to give women equality of opportunity should not erase the reality that women rather than men choose to return to work part time rather than full time after birth. It is startling how gendered this is- the world over esp Scandinavia. Finally pandemic lockdowns revealed just how patriarchal most domestic arrangements are. In UK women undertook the vast portion of childcare and housework even where male/female income was equal.
It should also be pointed out that getting married, and having kids, are two of those big life events where everyone else seems entitled to show up with their opinions, baggage, and bullshit, in an attempt to ‘help.’
Threading the needle of ‘doing the best you can,’ in a variety of areas of life,’ very rarely seems to line up with paying ‘due respect,’ to the ‘wisdom’ on offer.
I think feminism does have an answer, one that is loudly promulgated and that is increasingly popular amongst young women:
Children are bad, dont have children. Thats the only premise under which feminism (anti-patriarchy) works so its only logical (and observably abundantly true) that anti-natalist attitudes are being preached.
I don't think it's fair to say that feminism as a whole preaches anti-natalist attitudes or that children are bad, although there are some more extremists in the movement who might.
The feminist movement as a whole suggests that women should know and be able to talk openly about the *work* that goes into childbirth and rearing, acknowledge downsides as well as the upsides, and be able to make the choice of whether to have children for themselves. What effect this knowledge has is dependent on the individual woman...
I agree that the more we attempt to reach beyond biological reality the more we realise how fundamental it is. Most women will have children. If they breastfeed (which is recommended by health bodies the world over), that entails being with your baby 24/7. If you breastfeed optimally for your own health as a woman (substantially reducing future cancer risk) and the babies health this entails being with your baby 24/7 for at least 12 months. If you have two children we are looking at a period of up to 3-4 years when a woman is caring and nurturing round the clock. In that time she will be economically dependant. This is where the male role stems from- to be a provider and protector. Feminism does have to answer for the fact that this reality is not disclosed to young women for fear that this circumscribes what women want for their lives. In our atomised individualised state we’ve lost connection with this reality and are forced to learn it anew in every generation.
You're overstating this somewhat. My child wasn't fully weaned until he was three, and we never used a bottle, but I was nevertheless able to return to full time work after eight months. This is because (a) children start eating solids in addition to breast milk after 6 months or so, and (b) my husband was taking care of my child for the latter half of the first year, and we lived close enough to my work that he could simply bring our baby in for me to breastfeed sometimes.
The reality of caring for an infant as a mother should certainly be taken into account, when considering differences in life trajectories between the sexes. In particular, pregnancy and childbirth are personality-changing experiences to some extent. But it's important not to go too far in the other direction, either. I appreciate acknowledgment of what motherhood is like, but I'm wary of overly categorical statements about it.
Yes agreed. Also even if biological/procreative demands do shape male and female roles it doesn’t mean they should be predominant when we try to define men and women. But I am aware that our attempts to give women equality of opportunity should not erase the reality that women rather than men choose to return to work part time rather than full time after birth. It is startling how gendered this is- the world over esp Scandinavia. Finally pandemic lockdowns revealed just how patriarchal most domestic arrangements are. In UK women undertook the vast portion of childcare and housework even where male/female income was equal.
It should also be pointed out that getting married, and having kids, are two of those big life events where everyone else seems entitled to show up with their opinions, baggage, and bullshit, in an attempt to ‘help.’
Threading the needle of ‘doing the best you can,’ in a variety of areas of life,’ very rarely seems to line up with paying ‘due respect,’ to the ‘wisdom’ on offer.
I think feminism does have an answer, one that is loudly promulgated and that is increasingly popular amongst young women:
Children are bad, dont have children. Thats the only premise under which feminism (anti-patriarchy) works so its only logical (and observably abundantly true) that anti-natalist attitudes are being preached.
I don't think it's fair to say that feminism as a whole preaches anti-natalist attitudes or that children are bad, although there are some more extremists in the movement who might.
The feminist movement as a whole suggests that women should know and be able to talk openly about the *work* that goes into childbirth and rearing, acknowledge downsides as well as the upsides, and be able to make the choice of whether to have children for themselves. What effect this knowledge has is dependent on the individual woman...
True! Even ‘political lesbianism’ wasn’t anti-natalist.