Seems Feminism is to be blamed for the latest bout of navel gazing. A little while back in the US Rush Limbaugh was lambasting Feminism for selling women a bum deal when it comes to children and career. Now it’s the turn of the UK. Courtesy columnist Oliver James, for Times Online.
Recently, Britain has been slammed as having the least happy children. Bottom of the league. Probably because their parents work and stick them in childcare instead of staying at home with them. There is even talk of naming and shaming “bad parents” on a website. Ugh. Sounds not very nice at all.
Now, why, you may ask should I be interested if parents are named and shamed? Well, we don’t live in a vacunm. And for the most part I am always very interested in what’s going on the childed world, because, even though childfree people may seem poles apart from parents and kids, in terms of interests, whatever happens in the parent arena has some impact, however subtle on childree people and childfree living.
Anyway, what got me in this article was the fact that Oliver James (who has been advising Downing Street for over 10 years, without them paying him a blind bit of notice it appears) is lamenting the fact that Labour, having bought into the Feminist mantra of parents-must-go-out-to-work, have failed to raise the status of the parental role. Instead, according to Mr James, Labour actively embraced what he calls the “affluenza virus” values – placing importance on money, possessions, appearances (physical) and fame. What was needed, he said was
“a concerted effort to raise the status of the parental role; being a stay-at-home mother has a lower one than that of streetsweeper. What was needed was more flexible working hours to enable parents to share the care of their children and to help men to get more involved. But Labour, instead, pursued policies that encouraged more parents of young children to enter the workplace and put the demands of their careers before the needs of their children.”
Now he may be right as to the status of the parental role. Stay at home mothers aren’t as respected as their working counterparts – and I don’t think that’s particular to the UK. I think it’s wrong that any role, be it mother, father or non-parent, isn’t respected.
But from a childfree vantage point, what WE hear is that there is nothing more lofty than being a parent. Or specifically being a mother. Once you become a mother though, it’s like the respect all but disappears. Except when it comes to “family friendly” policies, where parents are the benchmark.
James advocates (there it is again) more flexible working hours. Specifically to get men to be more involved. From where I sit, here we are again suggesting raising the role of one group of people over another. In this case parents would, yet again, be seen to be more important than, say a childfree woman or man. And, as a woman who actually sat down and worked out the implications of having/not having kids on working, I am fed up to the back teeth of the constant whining of parents for more and more special treatment because they have children.
Equality in the workplace? Not.
And for this Oliver James blames the “wimmin” the Feminists, he says, who were and are, hostile to women being at home when their children are small. I am not a Feminist. But I had thought that it was more a case of them feeling that women had choices and could go out to work, rather than insisting that they go out to work. But I could easily have missed the plot.
My issue is with so-called family friendly policies isn’t flexihours. It’s that they are only meeting the needs of a particular group of society, often at the expense of another.
If you are fortunate to have a spouse or partner who makes enough to live on one wage, that spouse/partner is unlikely to be asking for part time or flexible hours. And I know many working parents who do not ask for, nor do they work “flexible hours.” It all reeks of the “you are a bad parent if you go out to work when your kids are small.”
But no, it’s the Wimnins, and the Feminists who are harming “the childruns”
He goes on to say that:
“Real feminism requires us to reevaluate the roles of both men and women. Of course, that means women having careers as men do — but not at the expense of their role as mothers.”
In other words, get your priorities right.
“Likewise, it entails men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children and investing less in their careers — at present, by far the most significant pillar of identity for both sexes in the English-speaking world.”
I bet he said this with a straight face too. Meanwhile, while mothers stay at home, they will be expecting father to bring home the bacon… lots of it since there might just be only one salary for them all to live on. Good luck doing that on part time sorry, flexible work hours…
Hang on! Could James possibly be thinking, (again) that we should be emulating the Scandinavian countries? Where it is quite possible for mothers to stay home when their kids are small because they get generous allowances to do so – as do fathers. He mentions a couple of Scandinavian countries as examples. As usual he fails to mention the large tax burden citizens of those countries pay for the social structure they have. There is no free lunch.
And of who pays for this? We all do, but childfree people more so. Because we will be supporting the choices of those who’ve chosen to re-produce – whether we like it or not.
There of course has been no mention of being childfree as a possible option.
What a surprise.
Blind Feminism has hurt our children
Technorati Tags: Feminism, UK, parents, childcare, workplace
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Likewise, it entails men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children and investing less in their careers — at present, by far the most significant pillar of identity for both sexes in the English-speaking world.”
ok, they expect men to look after their kids, ok, thats not really a problem, but where is the division of labour, if a man goes out to work, he is earning for the family, then to expect him to look after the children if the wife stays home, it seems unfair. (now if a man is at home and the woman works, that would be unfair too)
a lot of it is the governments idea, if 1 person wasnt working then the economy wouldnt grow as much, so what they need to do is push everyone into working, so more tax is paid. look at the house prices, you need 2 incomes today before you can start to have a house, unless you have the easy option of having a kid and the government bends over backwards for you.
i think there is a confusion about what today is the definition of feminism, and what it was in the past, the original feminists were more for equality, everyone is equal, which i have no objection against.
but then came the anti male ones, the men are defective women, all men are rapists, the ideas of dworkin and Valerie Solanas, and the other rabid anti males. now in todays feminists, theres a larger group who want it all, they want to work, they want to have kids, they want, they want, they want, at the expense of society in general. feminism or 3rd wave the most recent form, is part of the problem, the i want attitude, the i need attitude, look at the divorces, more women apply for divorces, why well its seen as an easy out, get the man to pay for it all, (there are always exceptions) thats modern 3rd wave feminism for you, we want it all NOW, regardless of cost.
this is part of the childed world, and a few of the cf world as well, the idea that women deserve more because of this, thats the most dangerous form of feminism, i dont call certain people feminists i call them equalists, people who want total equality, not just what they can get out of it.
now these are my opinions, and there are always exceptions to every group
You know, more than the rest of the article I think I have issue with this sentence. I’ve heard it a lot, and you know what? I think it’s absolute rubbish. I was one of those kids; I spent literally ten years in childcare (from age 2 to the end of primary school). Crèche, after-school care, holiday care… you name it. I never really enjoyed it, but I also went through various phases of not enjoying, say, school; something that I imagine is common to most children, yet no-one is seriously suggesting that we pull kids out of en masse because it might make them ‘unhappy’.
This is what I think the real issue is; it’s going nothing to do at all with childcare so much as it’s an attack on working women. Because that’s exactly who it’s targeting; women are still expected to be primary caregivers. Men are only ‘encouraged’ to be ‘more involved’ (prior to going to day care at age 2, my primary stay-at-home parent was my dad).
@mercurior
Careful, your lack of understanding of feminist thought is showing. It’s funny how equality feminist are seen as the ‘friendly’ feminists. I suppose it’s because the message they’re pushing is non-controversial, as far as these things go (men are the standard, let’s be like men). Difference feminists, on the other hand, are reviled because they dare to push the line that maybe being ‘exactly like a man’ is not where women should be at, that maybe women need to find their own identity. It’s actually equality feminism which has given us the problem of women and work; men aren’t mothers, so equality feminist has no room for it.
Incidentally, the line “all men are rapists” was originally a kidding-on-the-square joke. Don’t find it funny? That’s the point. There are a lot of things in pop-culture feminists don’t find funny either.
thats the problem, feminism is blamed, when its only a small but powerful group, that ruins it for the rest of them, now as a man, i see so much anti male feeling, under the banner of feminism, that any good that occurs is destroyed by these selfish women.
its the entitlement minded feminists who ruin it for every other feminist on the planet, thats the problem, the solution is to make these people realise that they cant just take take take. this is why they say blind feminism, its that vocal yet tiny but powerful minority corrupting the ideals of equality
@Dee – Thanks for your comment – I wanted to think about my response.
I didn’t read it as an attack on working women, but it is very much critical of working mothers (who by default are working women) so it probably is just that. Women working has less to do with the “affluenza virus”, than necessity. In England and in Canada you need two good incomes not to struggle. With a child or more you probably need nearer three.
Having said that, I do feel that a certain section of feminists sold women down the river – by making them believe that they could have it all career, stable children, happy relationship – and me-time. And the way to this was equality in the workplace.
And that, in my opinion is simply untrue. If it was true, I might have had kids myself
. Women are short-changed because they have kids and yes, are expected to be and often want to be, the primary caregivers. Men are still not expected to be the primary care-givers, as you say. They are expected – by society, their partners included, to work hard, get a top earning job/career with prospects, and top pay that can support wife/partner and multiple children AND take on half the child-care. And people wonder why they aren’t more involved!
Asking for (and even getting) shorter hours, flexi-hours and other entitlements isn’t equality at all and that’s the problem.
Women do need to find their own identity, yes. The answer is not by being like a man. Sadly it seems that identity is still rooted in childbearing and childcare – and often this is self identification by women themselves.
Which from my a childfree perspective helps no-one move forward.