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.
What stops us from prioritizing career? Not much, anymore, but that's thanks to feminism. At one point: lack of access to schools, to our own bank account, lack of public restrooms, sexist hiring practices, etc. But this is well known.
"The idea that women should participate in the market economy exactly like men" - this is exactly what I'm disputing, though. Moms are free to not participate while opportunities are opened up for other women to do so. Feminism's goal of making the once male-dominated workforce available to moms still helps moms more than it hurts, because as you say, men can become abusive or leave. What changes do you propose will change "financial pressures" for mothers?
If motherhood doesn't contribute to the economy, and takes women away from work, that's built-in--this is one of the ways in which I agree with traditionalists. How would you resolve that? Socialism? I suppose you could strike and refuse to give men children (they want them too, in my experience) unless you receive a guaranteed income, but most women seem to love babies and men too much for that.
I don't think socialism is practical, so the only mitigations I can see to helping moms participate in the workforce but not "exactly as men" are maternity leave, lactation rooms, etc., which feminism has brought us as well.
Thanks for the response! I believe mothers should receive financial support to stay home with their babies (money that doesn’t depend on the generosity of their spouses). I would love the year-long paid maternity leave they have in other countries, in addition to other financial incentives like a much larger child tax credit.
I also think we should support working from home and/or part time jobs that allow mothers to contribute without spending the whole day away from their children. Right now, few “desirable” jobs have a part-time option. Typically the pay is bad, and there is no health insurance below 30 hours.
Of course I support women having careers. I have a doctorate and a full-time job. But I would have loved more than 12 unpaid weeks with my baby. It has been hard, and we're stopping at one.
I’m not sure if you would consider those proposals socialism, but I believe it is good for society to support mothers. The declining birthrate is a problem for the economy, and today’s babies will take care of us all (directly or indirectly) when we aren’t in the labor force anymore.
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.
What stops us from prioritizing career? Not much, anymore, but that's thanks to feminism. At one point: lack of access to schools, to our own bank account, lack of public restrooms, sexist hiring practices, etc. But this is well known.
"The idea that women should participate in the market economy exactly like men" - this is exactly what I'm disputing, though. Moms are free to not participate while opportunities are opened up for other women to do so. Feminism's goal of making the once male-dominated workforce available to moms still helps moms more than it hurts, because as you say, men can become abusive or leave. What changes do you propose will change "financial pressures" for mothers?
If motherhood doesn't contribute to the economy, and takes women away from work, that's built-in--this is one of the ways in which I agree with traditionalists. How would you resolve that? Socialism? I suppose you could strike and refuse to give men children (they want them too, in my experience) unless you receive a guaranteed income, but most women seem to love babies and men too much for that.
I don't think socialism is practical, so the only mitigations I can see to helping moms participate in the workforce but not "exactly as men" are maternity leave, lactation rooms, etc., which feminism has brought us as well.
Thanks for the response! I believe mothers should receive financial support to stay home with their babies (money that doesn’t depend on the generosity of their spouses). I would love the year-long paid maternity leave they have in other countries, in addition to other financial incentives like a much larger child tax credit.
I also think we should support working from home and/or part time jobs that allow mothers to contribute without spending the whole day away from their children. Right now, few “desirable” jobs have a part-time option. Typically the pay is bad, and there is no health insurance below 30 hours.
Of course I support women having careers. I have a doctorate and a full-time job. But I would have loved more than 12 unpaid weeks with my baby. It has been hard, and we're stopping at one.
I’m not sure if you would consider those proposals socialism, but I believe it is good for society to support mothers. The declining birthrate is a problem for the economy, and today’s babies will take care of us all (directly or indirectly) when we aren’t in the labor force anymore.
I totally agree!