The “three-century struggle for progress,” writes Mary Harrington in Feminism Against Progress, “has culminated in a political effort to eliminate all meaningful sex differences through technology.” This effort, which she says extends to biological as well as temperamental differences, “dresses in feminist garb.”
Lots of things dress in feminist garb these days. But I dispute that the “elimination of sex differences” was ever feminism's goal—its recent alignment with the late-capitalist enterprise of “gender medicine” not withstanding. In terms of temperament, interests, or ambitions, enough individual women simply are similar to men, even if women as a group differ on average from men as a group (via overlapping normal distributions). Feminism’s goal of “freedom” for women, which worries Harrington in “the cyborg era,” is to allow existing women of all kinds—lesbians, childfree women, androgynous women, manual laborers, women in STEM—to pursue meaningful lives free of coercion or harassment. It is not to prescribe such “unfeminine” behavior for other, more phenotypical women—they need not give up their children or their teaching jobs, start smoking cigars or turn to polyamorous orgies. That wouldn't constitute “freedom,” after all.
I hear frequently that some sort of tension exists between feminism and motherhood, and/or that such a tension was pronounced in the second wave. But I've yet to find satisfying evidence showing how exactly that played out. I suspect that feminism's never had it out for moms, but that one of two factors is responsible for that perception. The first, as I hint at above, is that mothers take other women's disinterest in children personally. The other has to do with strategy. Any political movement has to prioritize its aims, focusing on some before others. That could mean helping women condemned for their choices sooner than those who choices find wide societal support.
Even in this world of falling birth rates and rampant individualism, parenthood is still the norm. This Time article from a few years ago puts the number of women who've given birth at 86%. This graph indicates the birth rate was even higher during the second wave. Consider, too, that the 14% remaining includes the involuntarily childless. So those women who don't want kids are very much in the minority. We're still pressured by parents, grandparents, and extended family. We're frowned at and worried over and reminded of our declining marriageabity and fertility. It is we, not the majority, who crave the catharsis of gathering in a room with feminists—some of the only people who understand—to defend our choices, decry our haters, and rant about how mind-numbingly boring we find conversations about formula preparations and car seats. These purges are not meant to cause offense, but I know from experience that nearby mothers can feel maligned by them. Nor is the proper purpose of feminism the elimination of offense—despite the messaging of its postmodern factions.
The argument for gay marriage once pitched to conservatives goes like this: My gay marriage will not prevent your straight marriage. We have the same situation here. Women with traditional or “feminine” interests, including motherhood, needn't feel threatened by opportunities for women without these interests. If the campaign for certain choices feels to a particular woman like an indictment of other choices, I argue that she has forfeited the autonomy feminism wants for her. Instead of looking to feminism, or any other organization, for guidance on how to live, she should look to herself. It’s up to every woman to learn who she is and what she wants. But once she knows, a successfully feminist society will have removed any obstacles to her pursuit of it.
This is my problem with the new, tradition-leaning “feminism” recently pitched in so many books and podcasts. There's nothing wrong with preferring marriage, children, and the picket fence, and I'm more than sympathetic to criticisms of modern excesses of all kinds. But freedom encompasses the freedom to be traditional. Tradition, however, has not similarly accommodated freedom.
Well said as usual! I find Mary Harrington challenging and interesting but ultimately I need to assert my needs as an adamantly childfree woman. Feminism in my youth showed me I didn’t have to be a mother, or feminine, and I cherish that.
I think you are too focused on social approval rather than on the burdens facing women who become mothers. Feminists aren't "against" having babies, of course, but I’m sympathetic to MH’s argument that the movement’s priorities have been (inadvertently) bad for mothers. In particular, the idea that women should participate in the market economy exactly like men, and that sex differences should be deemphasized in favor of this goal.
It’s true that women face social pressure to have kids, especially from their parents and relatives, but I don’t see it from the feminist movement. Feminists are extremely pro-freedom: birth control, abortion, professional achievements, financial independence from men. And they have largely won. If you want to prioritize your career and not have kids, what is stopping you? It’s easy to prioritize your career. What more can feminists do for you? (Aside from continuing to support legal abortion, which they are.)
Meanwhile, women who want to be mothers find it difficult to prioritize pregnancy and childbirth because financial pressures force us to keep working. Low-earning careers are often the most difficult for women who are pregnant, while high-earning careers require brutal work hours that eat up our fertile years. So maybe you’ll prioritize kids after making partner, or getting tenure, or finishing residency.
Some women are able to stay home with their kids, even in 2023 when one income is rarely enough.... but it comes with risk -- to the family as a whole (if the husband loses his job) and to the woman if he leaves or turns out to be abusive. Every option comes with costs.
Of course, feminists say they want paid family leave in the US, but the lack of momentum around this issue speaks for itself, and that's the most we can expect from feminists today. Motherhood and care-giving are treated as valid reasons for time off work, not as valuable contributions to society that should be supported and incentivized.