Feminism and the terrifying dependency of children

[Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo - where you'll find a great conversation on these issues in the comments.]

For Australian women of my generation, many issues of structural gender inequality can seem far removed from their daily experiences and, thus, difficult to relate to. Many civil rights, which were only recently (and only partially) achieved, are easily taken for granted when you have grown up assuming access to them. For this reason, it is not uncommon for women to be shocked when confronted the ongoing reality of structural inequality when they become mothers and they suddenly find themselves falling into gendered roles and suffering from gendered disadvantage as a result. Given this fact, it is a shame that the dominant form of feminism in Australia – liberal feminism – does not deal particularly well with the structural inequalities faced by mothers.

Liberal feminism has failed to adequately respond to the realities of motherhood, because it has primarily focused on helping women to overcome their historic status as second-class citizens by becoming independent. This vision of equality has led to the struggle for a range of positive measures for women, including:

• the rights to education, to work and to receive equal pay;
• the right own property;
• the right to participate in public life by voting and running for political office; and
• the right to bodily autonomy, including the right to refuse to consent to sex and to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

All of these rights are important prerequisites to equality and all of them have historically been denied to women, particularly after marriage. The struggle for these rights is also an ongoing one, as they continue to be denied to the majority of women across the globe and remain under threat even where they have been achieved. Nonetheless, this vision of equality falls down when the reality of dependency enters the picture. For women who are, or become, dependent on partners, families or the State, liberal feminism's vision of equality through independence becomes unattainable.

The right to education, to work, or to participate in public life is of limited value, for example, when participation requires that you disencumber yourself from dependents of your own. Just witness the treatment of female politicians who have tried to breastfeed on the floor of Parliament or brought their toddlers with them to a last minute division. Similarly, the right to bodily autonomy is rarely articulated in favour of women once they have chosen to carry their pregnancies to term. It is rarely used, for example, to fight for the rights of women in labour to control their own experience of giving birth, nor is it often extended to promote the idea that they ought to be supported by the community in caring for the baby once it has been born.

As a younger woman, my vision of equality was shaped in good part by the liberal feminist concept of emancipation through independence. I recognised my privilege in being able to access to many of the civil rights made possible through the feminist movement and didn’t expect to experience any significant barriers to achieving equality with my male peers. In this context, the experience of becoming pregnant and the impact that it had on my life took me completely by surprise.

From the first stages of my pregnancy I was alarmed by feelings of dependency on my partner that I had never experienced before. As my pregnancy progressed, my sense of physical vulnerability increased and my capacity to maintain my equality through independence was repeatedly challenged. Finally, when my daughter was born, her utter vulnerability shook me to the core and I realised that I could no longer operate in the world as a wholly autonomous unit. I was encumbered by this incredibly dependent little person who needed me for her very survival. My understanding of myself and of what I needed from the world shifted completely, as did my understanding of the feminist project. I could no longer relate to the ambivalence of liberal feminism to the needs, indeed rights, of dependent women (and children).

This ambivalence of liberal feminism to the rights of dependent women is one of the reasons that it finds favour with some areas of right-wing politics. The individualism and market focus of the independence model of equality dovetails neatly with economic liberalism (or neoliberalism) and the belief that the market is the best arbiter and distributor of value. Single mothers, for example, are readily vilified as ‘welfare queens’ greedily bludging off the State.

Left-wing liberal feminists responds differently to the issue of single mothers and are more likely to support their right to government assistance. Nonetheless, this assistance is rarely framed in terms of payment for the unpaid work of caring for children. Instead, it is viewed as a safety net to assist women to survive until they can rejoin the path to equality through autonomy. This is because left-wing liberal feminism still envisages liberation through market participation and, thus, tends to focus more on the issues of affordable childcare and (occasionally) flexible work arrangements in order to support women to more easily become independent post-motherhood.

You can see this attitude towards dependence reflected in many of the Gillard government’s policies. Single-parenting payments, for example, are paid to single parents (the majority of whom are women) until the youngest child turns eight, but at that point they are forced on to the (inadequate) Newstart allowance in order to ‘encourage’ them to join the paid workforce. To their credit, the government is consistent in that it does subsidise childcare and is working to increase both pay and standards within the sector. It has also introduced new measures to protect the right of employees to request flexible work arrangements (toothless though this right may be at present). Nonetheless, under this approach, dependency is treated as a temporary, largely avoidable state. As a result this approach has little to offer in terms of framing a vision of equality for those who exist within this state of dependency.

In a recent article on so-called ‘Retro Housewives‘ Alexandra Carlton quotes Anne Summers as being ‘exasperated by the domestic revival.’ According to Carlton, Summers is scathing of young women for walking away from their rights to ‘keep their jobs, to have equal access to promotion, and to be paid the same as men’ in order to become ‘yummy mummies.’ Similarly, Clementine Ford argues that ‘giving up everything to devote oneself to unpaid domestic work is self-sabotage.’

However, staying home to care for your children is only ‘self-sabotage’ if society is organised in such as way as to penalise you for doing it. Vilifying women for choosing to do so also fails to account for the reality of maternal desire and the very real needs of children. Focusing on the individual ‘choice’ of these women (who represent a very small percentage of society) also fails to account for the fact that staying home to perform unpaid domestic labour is the only realistic option available to many women, given the fact that affordable, accessible and high quality childcare, and working conditions that are flexible enough to make use of this care, remain a more of a dream than a reality for most. In this context, equating equality solely with autonomy will always result in a very large group of women being denied access.

I’m acutely aware that these arguments will be met by a chorus of claims that I am being sexist. What about fathers? Don’t these issues affect them as parents just as much as they affect mothers? This argument is put forward by Leslie Cannold, for example, who argues that ‘baby leave is not a women’s issue,’ because men should (and want to be) doing half of the unpaid childcare work.

However, this argument contains two separate assumptions, both of which are problematic. The first is that autonomy is the only path to equality. The second is that the dependency burden that goes along with parenthood can and should be equally shared. My major argument is with the first assumption (and I have partially set it out above), but I think the second also has flaws – primarily because it is fundamentally grounded in the first, but also because it denies biological realities.

Maternity leave is a women’s issue because it is women who get pregnant; who carry their children inside their bodies; birth them; and who are able to breastfeed them. The vulnerabilities and burdens that go along with these biological realities cannot be shared equally. Using the language of gender neutrality in relation to these realities only serves to obscure the highly gendered inequalities that currently result from them. Similarly, the value accorded to care work and the rights accorded to people in the midst of this dependent status are also women’s issues because the reality is that it is overwhelmingly women who do stay home to care for children and who do bear the burdens of dependency. Furthermore, when given the choice, many women still want to bear these burdens and there is no reason that this choice should have to equate to ‘self-sabotage.’

As Julie Stephens* has pointed out in response to Cannold,

a feminism promoting gender neutrality (in the name of equality) denies the bodily experience of women after they have given birth. Though a boon to the productive workplace, the breast pump may not necessarily protect the emotional needs of women and babies. To deny that baby leave is a women’s issue, to decouple ‘maternity’ from ‘leave’, is also to conceal human vulnerability and dependence. It reproduces what Iris Young has called ‘the normalising but impossible ideal’ that we are autonomous, unencumbered self-sufficient individuals, somehow beyond human dependency.

A further issue relates to the idea that the inequalities currently associated with performing unpaid domestic labour – particularly including caring for children – will somehow be erased if men take up half of the burden. People who perform paid care work, such as nurses, childcare workers and age-care workers, are also discriminated against and undervalued by society. Not coincidentally these are also professions that are dominated by women. However, it is rarely argued that the women who work in these professions have ‘chosen’ to be discriminated against and that their only path to equality lies in convincing men to take up careers within their sectors. Instead we understand that they are entitled to equality regardless of the number of men in their ranks. That even a highly feminised workforce should still be treated with respected and accorded equal value. Similarly, while a more equitable distribution of the burden of care work between men and women is a laudable goal, it doesn’t actually resolve the underlying inequalities and discrimination faced by those who do carry those burdens. It only serves to entrench this discrimination when we blame women for the inequalities they face, because somehow it isn’t a valid choice unless it is one that is also chosen by men.

What if instead of limiting our vision of equality to one of emancipation through independence we articulated one that accounts for both dependency and maternal desire? Such a vision would have to decouple our understanding of value from the market and acknowledge that the path to self-actualisation might sometimes entail willingly encumbering ourselves. It would also have to move beyond individualistic first generation rights to recognise our need for community support and our obligation to support others. Above all, such a vision would respond to the needs of all women, rather than only those who are willing and able to disencumber themselves and strive for independence.

For many Australian women, motherhood is a wake up call that confronts them with the ongoing reality of gender inequality in our society. Wouldn’t it be great if feminism was also there to greet them with a vision of equality that acknowledges their present reality?

*[Via blue milk]

Transgressive breastfeeding and the rules of the public sphere

In case you missed it, there has been some controversy in Australia over the last few days over the issue of public breastfeeding.

A mum in Queensland was breastfeeding her baby at a public pool while supervising her two elder children. A staff member approached her to say that another family had complained, because they were offended by her breastfeeding. She then asked her to move to a private area of the pool or cover up. The mother, rightly, refused and said that this demand was illegal discrimination. Nonetheless, the pool attendant insisted and so the mother ended up taking her three children and leaving the pool in tears.

On Friday, a morning television show, Sunrise, decided that it would be a great idea to debate the issue of whether breastfeeding in public is offensive and whether the pool did the right thing. [As an aside: do we often debate whether someone breaking the law and discriminating against another person did the right thing? Why is this OK when it comes to breastfeeding women?] One of the hosts of the show, David Koch (or Kochie, as he is apparently called), expressed the opinion that the pool had done the right thing and that if women are going to breastfeed in public then they ought to “be classy about it.” Later on Twitter, he explained that it was “just common courtesy” to “be disceet” when breastfeeding.

I have to admit that I have been enraged and baffled by these comments and by the comments of the many, many Australians (both male and female) who have come to his defence. However, an article in The Punch today has made a couple of things clearer to me.

As far as I can tell, the argument being made for why women ought to “be discreet” while breastfeeding in front of other people is that breastfeeding is a “private moment between Mum and baby” unlike when those same breasts are being publicly displayed for the male gaze. As Anthony Sharwood argued in his disturbing defence of David Koch’s “keep it classy” comments, this “private moment” shouldn’t be thrust into the public sphere because then it becomes a “spectacle” - a “public exhibition of motherhood.” He goes on to argue:

“Public breastfeeding has become, for some Mums, the last frontier of showy parenthood. What started as a private, intimate thing has become its exact opposite. … Women can breastfeed in public in western societies. Hooray for them. Now maybe we can just wind this thing back a notch and think of the rest of us.”

Despite his absurd and highly offensive accusations that women deliberately make a public spectacle of themselves by “flopping their boob” out in public, Sharwood, like Koch, never actually dares to articulate why us breastfeeding mothers need to “think of the rest of [them].” 

What is it about witnessing a breastfeeding pair that is so offensive to these people that it needs to be keep out of their sight?

What I think it is interesting is that Sharwood is very clear that this is not about the so-called “male gaze.” He is not offended because he views these breastfeeding breasts as sexual objects. In fact, as he proudly states several times in the opening paragraphs to his ‘article,’ he loves ogling at sexualised breasts. They are great. (Phwoar yeah, bring it on baby.) No, it would appear that the issue is precisely the opposite; these breastfeeding breasts that are apparently being thrust in his face (or, as he charmingly describes, flopped on to the dinner table) are not available to the male gaze. They are private breasts and shouldn’t be out in public.

It was here for me that this whole debate took on a disturbing level of clarity. You see, according to Sharwood (and his ilk), mothering is an ‘intimate’ and ‘private’ activity that should not be taking place in the public sphere. If somehow it does stray into that public sphere then it really ought to be careful not to become “a public spectacle.” This means that if for some reason a mother of young children does have to leave the house (which, by implication, is a transgresssive act in itself), then she should take every measure to ensure that her ‘private, intimate’ work of mothering young children does not take up public space, because it does not belong.

The public sphere is the world of men and people who can act like men; wage-earning, independent, unencumbered adults who pay their own way, speak the language of adults, move in adult ways and (crucially) obey the unwritten rules of the public sphere. This public sphere, and its unwritten rules, was created for men when women did stay at home and did do their “private, intimate” work of mothering in the private sphere.

We like to think that feminism has created a more equal society – one in which men and women are both welcome in the public sphere; in which both men and women’s issues are relevant to the public sphere. However, if you scratch a little deeper, it becomes clear that liberal feminism has only taken us so far. Women now have the right to join the public sphere, but the rules have not been significantly changed. The rules that were designed for men may have been slightly loosened so that women can obey them, but only if they unencumber themselves of their overt femininity.

Acts of overt femininity, particularly those involving small children, are still in clear breach of the rules. Breastfeeding is offensive because it thrusts the act of mothering into the public sphere. This is problematic, because not only can men not breastfeed, but they are also not parties to the act. Display your breasts for the “male gaze” and you are participating appropriately in the public sphere, because men are part of the transaction. They are, however, explicitly absent from the transaction of breastfeeding and that is precisely the problem. Ergo it is a private, intimate act between two creatures of the private sphere and if you dare to bring it into the male, public sphere then you had bloody well better be discreet about it.

I have been wondering for days now what “discreet” even means in the context of public breastfeeding. I now realise that what it means is that the woman in question must show through her body language that she knows that she is in breach of the rules of the public sphere. The specific position of her body, or her cover, is not really the issue. The issue is the body language of apology (I think the code word being used is modesty). She needs to show that she is sorry for taking up public space with her private activity. Then it would be OK. Then she could be excused.

Being proud or even nonplussed about breastfeeding our babies is an issue, not because we are being public exhibitionists, but because we are (even if we didn’t realise it) openly challenging the rules of the public sphere. We are being unapologetically, overtly female it what is still, essentially, a male space. That is what is so offensive – the brazen transgression of these long-standing, unwritten rules.

[As a final aside, it has also dawned on me that this is probably also at the heart of the ‘debate’ over whether small children should be allowed to be children in cafés, restaurants, etc… and why so-called “mommy blogging” is the object of such derision.]

Birth plan - a response to Mia Freedman

When I was pregnant with my first child I tried to do all the right things. I got a spot in the public Birth Centre and discussed my preference for a water birth with my midwife. I also attended the birth preparation classe (although I did leave one class before the subject of medical pain relief was discussed, because I'm scared of needles and figured that wouldn't change anytime soon). Besides, I told myself, labour only goes for a few hours, how bad could it be?

My midwife gave me a video of a water birth to watch to prepare for my own, but I felt uncomfortable with the intimacy of it all and never watched it. Instead I guzzled parenting books and focused on the long term - the task of parenting the baby I would be birthing.

It was early in the morning and 11 days past my due date when labour finally started. I was so over being pregnant and so ready to hold my baby that I greeted the pain warmly. I told my partner that my contractions had begun and we started to record them so we'd know when they were regular enough to justify going into the Birth Centre. Hours passed.

It was another 12 before we went into the Centre (arriving at 8pm) and 14 more before my beautiful baby girl was born. The pain and utter exhaustion shocked me. By 2am I'd been moved 'upstairs' (into the hospital) to have an epidural and collapsed into a grateful sleep. (My fear of needles quickly became irrelevant. I would have let them chop off my leg if they'd promised it would help).

When it was time for me to push they dialed back the epidural enough so that I could squat on the bed, but I couldn't feel my contractions and so timing the pushes was tricky. After two hours an obstetrician came in to check and told me that the baby's head was starting to swell. She was posterior and firmly wedged in my narrow pelvis. He recommended an emergency c-section or high forceps delivery. I chose the latter.

It took an hour for him to stitch my third degree tear, but I honestly didn't care as I was holding the most beautiful being in the world and high on the adrenaline of meeting her.

In the weeks that followed the pain did start to matter. It made it impossible for me to lift my newborn baby. Walking was also a challenge. Even sitting hurt. Worse still Lily had awful reflux and would bring up most of her feed in great gushes of breast milk, or scream in pain for hours when silent reflux came instead.

We were finally referred to a cranio-osteopath who found a deep indentation on her skull where the forceps had squashed her little head. It was pressing on the area of the brain responsible for assisting the body to digest fat and partly responsible for her reflux. After two treatments the projectile vomiting stopped.

My memories of the labour were raw for a long time, but I told myself there wasn't a lot I could have done differently. I told myself that posterior back pain and the length of the labour were not something I could have prepared for and I felt better.

That all changed when I fell pregnant again. Suddenly thinking that there was nothing I could have done made me feel powerless and worried. I didn't want to go through that again - particularly not the aftermath. Labour may only last a day, but the first few weeks of a baby's life are too precious to be dedicated to surgical recovery and pain.

The first thing that I did was to admit that actually I had totally failed to prepare for my first labour. I'd read almost nothing about it. I'd decided against medical pain relief (despite constant well-meaning advice from others to order it immediately) but had failed to inform myself about alternative coping methods. I'd basically stuck my head in the sand and hoped that it would just go away.

Then I started reading. The best resource that I found were Ina May Gaskin's books on birthing. The stories of other women's labours gave me inspiration for how I wanted mine to go. They also made me realise that I wanted more support. My partner had been amazing the first time around, but there were things that I didn't want to ask of him and others that he didn't know how to do. So we hired a doula who knew how to guide me through the birth process and could show me a whole range a ways to cope with my contractions and fear.

My experience of birthing Charlie was completely different to my experience of birthing Lily. Sure, some of that was due to the fact that he was my second, but far more significant was the fact that I had a plan. It wasn't a rigid script that had to be followed. It was a story that played out in my mind and carried me through the process.

With Lily's birth I was a passive agent in the process. I didn't prepare and came out the other end sore and bruised. It was like joining a marathon and forgetting to do any training beforehand. You can imagine how hard that marathon would be to run and how much you'd hurt the next day.

With Charlie's birth I decided to train first. I attended prenatal yoga and I trained my brain to relax into my contractions. I also gathered a support team around me. As a result the experience of the birth was genuinely exhilarating and, yes, empowering, and I carried that feeling of strength and joy into mothering my children.

I'm dismayed that anyone would describe me as a Birthzilla for planning to have a positive birth experience. I'm also flabbergasted that they could imply that it would have been better for my children if I had kept my head in the sand and handed over all agency to the hospital system. This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.

Why do so many people think that women lose the right to control their bodies when they fall pregnant? Anti-choice activists are the worst offenders to my mind, but those who seek to control what pregnant women do with their bodies or how they birth their babies are buying into the same dangerous logic.

Making a plan for how you would like to birth your baby should not be controversial. To say that exercising choice over your body is a first world indulgence is highly problematic. It's even more galling when it's written by a highly privileged woman who is well-placed to expect the system to treat her with dignity and respect. That is not the luxury of all women in our country.

He's wearing pink socks!

I went shopping the other day with Charlie and while we were waiting in a checkout line the woman in front of me struck up conversation.

"How old is your baby?" she asked, as Charlie started his charm offensive.

"4 months," I said.

"Is it a boy or a girl?" she asked. (Wouldn't it be nice if there was another pronoun? 'It' just sounds so odd.)

"He's a boy. Charlie," I replied, hoping that by giving him a name we could move on to talking about him as an individual, rather than as a gender class.

"It's hard to tell," she said, pausing for a moment. "Do you have a girl as well?" she asked in a knowing tone.

"Yes," I replied.

"'Cause he's wearing pink socks," she said.

I felt like saying, "He was wearing a pink jumpsuit earlier today and his penis didn't even fall off!" But instead I just smiled nervously, hoping that our conversation was now over.

Remedial feminism needed

My mum dropped over the other evening and Lily asked her where her partner was.

"She's still at work," replied Mum.

"Why," asked Lily.

"She's not on holidays like you," replied Mum. "Today was a work day for us."

"Ladies don't work," said Lily.

"What!?" I said. "Of course they do."

"Mama doesn't," said Lil to Mum.

"Yes she does," replied Mum. "She works at home looking after Charlie and you, and she works on her PhD. Some people work at home looking after small children and other people work outside the home."

"You know T? Well, her papa looks after her at home and her mama works in an office."

"And who looks after M and E?" I asked.

"Matt," replied Lil.

"And what does Claire do?"

"She works with papa," replied Lil.

...

And so it went, but oh my goodness! I can't believe she said those words!

First of all, why "ladies"? I always call women, women. Where does she get "ladies" from? It's such a horrible restrictive word.

Secondly, bloody invisible PhD, you're always causing trouble.

Thirdly, argh. I'm totally going to have to get a job (once Charlie's bigger).

[And I still don't want to talk about the Pink Disney Princess Lunchbox.]

Challenges of feminist mothering

[Image credit: http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Unbound-Parody-Obsession/dp/0934678898
BTW: Have you seen this book? It's really quite funny.]

The other day Lily informed me that girls like pink and boys like purple. I challenged her on that and she wavered a little, particularly when P announced loudly how much he LOVES pink. However, within minutes she was telling P that girls couldn't skateboard it was only for boys.

%*#%^#?!??!

We asked her who told her that and she mentioned a little girl that she goes to preschool with. I hate the power of patriarchy to infiltrate everything.

Of course we spend the rest of the afternoon telling her that she could learn to skateboard when she gets a bit bigger and I demonstrated that her female dolls house people could do some "mad tricks" on a miniature skateboard. She was very keen on them jumping over benches.

Nicole from another mother has been doing a great series of posts on being a "bad mother" (you know: "human") and her latest one on being a "failed feminist" reminded me of wanting to post about this.

I have to keep reminding myself that my mother managed to instill feminist values in me despite the very patriarchal culture that I grew up in. However, as she keeps pointing out, things have actually gotten worse since then in relation to young girls. The gender divide in clothing, toys & accessories is far starker than it was in the 70s & 80s and the whole sexualisation of girls has added a whole new layer of challenge. I think I am going to have to do some more work on finding a supportive community of other feminist parents to spend more time with...

Fun Bags?!?

News.com.au are reporting that a sub-editor of a British baby magazine, Katheryn Blundell (who they have oddly described as a 'baby expert') recently wrote an article in which she describes breastfeeding as "creepy," stating that she chose to formula feed her baby because she wanted to keep her "fun bags" in shape.

Let me just trot out the disclaimer here and say that I truly do support freedom of choice for women in relation to how they feed their babies. However, calling breastfeeding "creepy" and highlighting the importance of breasts as sexual objects in a mainstream parenting magazine goes well beyond making a personal choice. It actively contributes to the culture of shaming women who choose to breastfeed their babies (or would like to) and it contributes to the narrative that men have the right to expect that breasts be kept for their sexual enjoyment only.

Just look at some of the comments attached to the article:

Matt of Brisbane Posted at 10:33 AM Today: "As a man I support this woman's decision to keep her fun bags in tit top shape."

Mark of Potts Point Posted at 10:46 AM Today: "At last, someone with common sense. "Fun bags" should be for everyone, not just the babies!"

And the result? Well the result in Britain is that only 1 in 100 British women breastfeed their babies for 6 months. Just one percent! I find that really sad. Imagine how this contributes to a vicious cycle in which breastfeeding is framed as a fringe activity, and imagine the pressure that would follow for women to "choose" not to do it in such an environment.

It is not only babies that benefit from breastfeeding. Breastfeeding produces powerful hormones that for most women increase their sense of well-being - providing a valuable boost in the sleep-deprived haze of new motherhood. They also promote bonding with your baby, which is not only positive for the baby, but can again make the intensity of the demands on your time (and body) feel so much easier to deal with.

Taking a more global perspective, creating a culture in which breastfeeding is seen as 'primitive' and formula feeding is seen as modern and desirable is extremely problematic. In many many countries the water supply is simply not safe enough to feed babies formula without risking their health and, what's more, having to pay for formula (when the free breastmilk runs out due to lack of use) means that many poor families will have to go without food and medical treatment for the rest of the family. However, women in these countries do turn to formula due to the deliberately manufactured belief that it is healthier for their babies, because it is the 'modern' thing to do.

If you don't think that Blundell's comments could contribute to this manufactured belief then read this comment:

Alicia Browne of NSW Posted at 10:43 AM Today: "I bottle fed my boys from day 1 & 100% support bottle feeding. Both boys couldn't be any healthier & I will be bottle feeding any future children I have. Not only do I support bottle feeding but I also promote it. I would also like to say to all those "breast is best" supporters, your narrowminded ideas are prehistoric & are dying out (might be why you feel you have to scream so loudly about it & force your ancient & uninfomred views on other people)."

Thanks Alicia.

So, Australia finally has a woman for PM

Yay.

I really want to feel happy about this and, I must admit, on some level I do. It really is nice to know that no matter what happens now Australia will have had a woman at the top – and one that doesn’t fit all the typical patriarchal requirements too. Deveny is right; no matter what else, it is nice to know that it is possible.

But, honestly, I feel deeply ambivalent about this. So much of the how’s and why’s worry me and I am really not particularly impressed with Gillard herself.
First the how’s and why’s: to me this very sudden change of leadership was motivated by all the wrong principles. It was personality-poll-driven; it was Murdoch media-driven; it was big mining-driven; and it was partly driven by the NSW Labor Right. I’m worried about the implications of all of these motivating factors for the future of Australian politics. I do not think that any of them represent an enrichment of our democracy.

Next to Gillard herself: I am comforted by the fact that she has a progressive left-wing background. However, during her time in Parliament it is not these progressive values that seem to have been reflected in her behaviour. Her statements on asylum seekers are nothing short of appalling. While I never liked the substance of the ETS, I don’t see anything positive about the fact the she was part of the team that advocated for it to be shelved. And, the way that she dealt with the MySchools negotiations was unimpressive. She was unnecessarily confrontational and unyielding in her so-called ‘negotiations’ with the Teachers' Union and never appeared to actually listen to their perfectly valid concerns. This doesn’t give me a lot of faith in her so-called ‘consultative-style’ that everyone is saying will contrast with Rudd’s admittedly non-consultative approach.

All that said: I will be so very happy to be proven wrong. I’d love for things to improve.

At the end of the day, however, this isn’t my win (so to speak). I am not a supporter of the Labor party and thus their internal affairs are less connected to me than they might be for many others. My main concern in the upcoming election is how well the Greens go. I want a viable, truly progressive, third party alternative for Lily. I’ve given up on the other lot, and a change of leadership hasn’t made any difference to the way I feel.

Half-arsed feminism

Did you see this article in the Australian last weekend? (I must confess that I didn’t. I saw a link to it on Rachel Power’s blog.) It’s an interview with French Academic Elisabeth Badinter, author of “Conflict: The Woman and the Mother.”

Badinter argues that a new “idealised concept of motherhood that elevates concepts of masochism and female sacrifice to unforeseen levels […] is making women across the world feel horribly guilty […and] threatening the gains of decades of feminist struggle for sexual equality”. She blames breastfeeding for keeping women tied down; co-sleeping for depriving couples of their romantic relationship, and especially their sex life; and an excessive focus on healthy natural pregnancies for an emerging tyranny of controlling the bodies and behaviours of pregnant women.

As a solution to this problem Badinter champions what she describes as a ‘nonchalant’ or ‘mediocre’ approach to pregnancy and motherhood; arguing that there should be no pressure on mothers not to smoke and drink during pregnancy; to breastfeed their babies instead of giving them formula, or to avoid placing young children in the care of others in order to resume their intellectual and social lives (and, in this context, she specifically mentions nannies and state-provided childcare, because “Of course men are deficient”).

Now, here’s where it gets tricky…

I must state upfront that I agree with Badinter’s argument that this current obsession with forcing women to live up to the ideal of the ‘perfect mother’ is regressive and is setting women back a long way in terms of our ongoing struggle for equality. I loathe the repeated attempts to control the bodies of pregnant women, to guilt trip mothers who choose not to breastfeed their babies, or to make women who make use of childcare feel inadequate. However (and there had to be a however, didn’t there?), I really think that Badinter is being fundamentally lazy in her analysis of both the roots of the problem and the solution. She is succumbing to what I call “half-arsed feminist analysis.”

Feminism, at its core, is a critique of patriarchy. It is a critique of a social system that is completely designed around the needs of men (or, at least, some types of men…). The most obvious problem with a social system that is completely designed around the needs of men is that women are going to come off second-best. Our needs are necessarily going to be sacrificed in order to ensure that men get priority.

Where I think that Badinter gets it completely wrong is that in her analysis it is the children – the babies, in fact – that are cast into the role of ‘tyrants’. Now let’s be honest here: if any group under a patriarchal social system comes of worse than women it is children. Children are not the powerful group under patriarchy. In fact, it would be very difficult to imagine any social system that could really allocate such a level of agency and power to babies. They are, after-all, incredibly vulnerable and powerless by nature. This being the case, it is absurd to attempt to solve the problem of women’s subjugation by downgrading the status of children. To do so is the equivalent of victims finding someone weaker than themselves to pick on in order to make them feel better. It might work, but it is fundamentally wrong. It is also a half-arsed solution to the real problem and the bullying will still continue.

A truly feminist approach to the problem of patriarchy is to tackle the system itself. The fundamental problem is the fact that our social system is designed around the needs and priorities of men (not women, and certainly not children). Therefore, any real, lasting solution can only come from actually challenging the way that the social system is organised. The only lasting (and morally responsible) solution has to come from fundamentally reorganising society.

Now, of course, this is not a simple task and it is not one that will be completed quickly. It has and will continue to take many generations. In the meantime it is quite true that women will continue to suffer from inequality – that is fundamental to the design of patriarchy. Part of the result of this is that when women have children they will be inadequately supported. Many will find it difficult to breastfeed those children while continuing to engage in the world in a way that feels fulfilling and rewarding. Many will find it challenging to provide the kind of family-based nurturing care that babies need in order to really thrive while still maintaining their own sense of identity and still striving to fulfill their own dreams.

This is absolutely unfair and absolutely should change. However, it is not the fault of children and a lasting solution should not involve their sacrifice. A lasting solution should involve reorganising society so that the needs of children can be met without such overwhelming sacrifices from their mothers.

What about those mothers who are caught up in the present arrangement? What about those mothers who are faced with the current reality and want a faster (albeit temporary) solution to their own challenges with pregnancy or motherhood? Well, personally, it is here I do have to agree to a limited extent with Badinter. I do think that these women should be given the latitude to work out their own solutions to these issues. I don’t see why they should have to be martyrs to the cause. It is not their fault that society is arranged the way that it is and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty for not being willing to shoulder all of the burden that it currently places on women (and, especially, mothers).

Let’s not pretend that this is a real solution though. Let’s not pretend that babies and children aren’t currently the sacrificial lambs in this struggle. Most importantly, let’s not lose sight of the real solution by letting patriarchy off the hook and conveniently casting society’s most vulnerable members into the role of ‘tyrants’.

That’s just dishonest. And it’s lazy.

The vessel

When I was a child my mother was heavily involved in the anti-nuclear campaign that was very strong within the Australian Peace Movement at the time (the 1980s). One story from those years that has always stuck with me was the experiences of another woman in the movement who decided to try to form a strategic alliance with the pro-life (ie anti-abortion) movement.

A number of people in the anti-nuclear movement had expressed concern that perhaps these people were not the best allies, but this woman believed that, given the overwhelming threat to human life and the very survival of the planet posed by the nuclear arms race, it was worth making bridges wherever you could. I can understand where she was coming from.

Anyway, what do you think happened when this woman approached several pro-life groups about joining the anti-nuclear campaign?

They weren't interested. Not remotely.

The woman in question was understandably surprised. These people put themselves out as being so overwhelmingly concerned with the sanctity of human life that they were campaigning (often violently) for the state to force women to carry to term unwanted (and in some cases dangerous) pregnancies. It was understandable that this woman would think that these same people would be natural allies in the anti-nuclear movement. How many more lives are threatened by nuclear weapons (particularly when you place yourself back in the 1980s into the context of the Cold War)?

Through the course of her conversations with these people it dawned on this woman (who was really very well intentioned, but perhaps a little naive) that the people in the pro-life movement (particularly the central organisers) were far less concerned about the sanctity of human life than they were about controlling women's bodies. It was control rather than life that was at the core of their cause.

It strikes me that this overwhelming concern with controlling women's bodies is an incredibly pervasive one and one that underlies so very many issues that crop up for women in public policy debates. This is particularly so when those women are 'mothers', but it also applies very strongly to the bodies of young women. Look at the politics of female beauty, the politics of female sexuality, the blaming of rape victims (for placing their female bodies in vulnerable situations), and the politics of breastfeeding, just to name a handful.

Over the weekend I attended a baby shower and several of us pregnant women chose to have a bit of champagne while toasting the woman in question. It naturally led to a discussion of the issue of drinking while pregnant. We discussed the complete lack of evidence for the claims that tiny amounts of alcohol cause harm to the unborn child (thanks Blue Milk for the link), and how frustrating it is that despite this fact so many people feel entitled to police the behaviour of pregnant women in relation to their consumption of not only alcohol but also any foods that might in some way pose a risk (soft cheese, fatty foods, caffeine, etc).

This conversation (and others that I have had like it over the last few weeks - everyone in my life is pregnant right now for some reason!) was still in my mind when I saw an ABC news report yesterday entitled, "Mums-to-be ignoring booze rules." The article cites the shocking fact that,

The results reveal that 90 per cent of respondents think alcohol should be avoided while pregnant, however a third of all women surveyed admitted to consuming at least one drink while pregnant or breastfeeding.

One drink while pregnant or breastfeeding! Call in the police.

Then I made the mistake of reading the comments... The litany of mother-blame and the blatant entitlement to control women's bodies that is expressed in those comments is disturbing, but oh so very familiar. Honestly, by the time I'd finished reading through it all I felt too exhausted to blog about it. I am so over this.

But here I am anyway. Maybe someone will read this and bite their tongue next time they want to tell a pregnant woman that she shouldn't put something in her month. Guess what? It's her body! It is not a baby vessel that is collectively owned by society. And, guess what else? She is a grown adult that is perfectly capable of making informed decisions about what she does with her body.

Yes, there are issues when you stray further down the continuum into substance abuse etc and this does create real tensions between the rights of unborn children and their mothers. However, until the over-all focus of this debate is free from the overriding agenda of controlling women's bodies I don't think that we can have a sensible conversation about those more extreme (and frankly very rare) instances.

Taking responsibility

[Warning: really long post ahead.]

Blue Milk (yes, I do read other blogs, sorry for being repetitive) wrote a great post the other day on the dangerous language of victim blaming that is so evident in media reporting of rape cases. In response to her post some guy decided to chirp in with a helpful 'distinction' between blame and responsibility - arguing that while victims should shoulder none of the blame, some of them ought to bear some of the responsibility for rape. You know, if they drank too much or whatever...

In response Blue Milk wrote another post in which she tried to explain why this was so very unhelpful, particularly given the fact that our culture already places far too much responsibility on women in terms of expecting them to ensure that they protect themselves against rape. It was a great post – ultimately concluding with the statement: “Rape stops when rapists stop raping.”

However, disturbingly, the guy in question didn't appear to get the point at all, because he came back (over and over again) in the comments with that same line about distinguishing between 'blame' and 'responsibility' and with the argument that responsibility can be accorded to victims of many crimes when they fail to behave in a responsible manner...

I read through the comments this morning and felt compelled to add another, but then it got ridiculously long and so I thought that it might make more sense to post it over here. Excuse the slightly tangential nature though. You see this guy’s comments and the all-too-common attitude that they represent made me think about the way in which this gendered double-standard of ‘taking responsibility’ plays out in the courts and how much it disadvantages women both in their roles as victims and even in their occasional role as the perpetrators of violent crimes. And in the interests of moving away from the issue of rape for a moment in order to take a broader perspective (and to demonstrate how this attitude permeates more than just the issue of sexual assault) I thought that I would highlight the example of homicide.

Under the common law serious crimes, including physical assault (or battery), rape and murder, a perpetrator's level of responsibility for the crime can be diminished where the victim is found to be partly responsible. This can happen when the perpetrator successfully makes use of the laws of provocation and self-defence (or diminished responsibility).

Unsurprisingly, when you know anything about our culture and our legal system, these laws have historically been developed only to take into account the responses of ‘the reasonable man’ (which should actually read ‘reasonable white man’) - meaning that they are designed around scenarios like a man being provoked into a fight or forced to physically defend themselves in the heat of the moment. They have traditionally failed to take into account the very different experience of women who are usually not physically capable of defending themselves in a one-on-one fight with a man, etc.*

The impact of these laws on women has been incredibly unjust. As just one of many possible examples, let me explain how this has affected women who have found themselves trapped in domestic violence situations.

In the early 1990s Patricia Easteal did an amazing study called "Killing the Beloved" [pdf link here] in which she researched a large number of cases in which one partner of a heterosexual couple had killed the other. In the overwhelming majority of these cases their had been an existing situation of domestic violence. In almost every single one of these cases the man had been violent towards the woman, while occasionally this violence had been reciprocated.

Where the man had gone on to kill his female partner (and this represented over 80% of the cases), it was often because he had caught her in the act of trying to leave the relationship or he was furious with her for having left him (combined this made up around 25% of the cases). In other cases it was simply an escalation of his previous violence.

"The vast majority of male perpetrator killings were preceded by histories of physical and emotional violence. The latter was exemplified in the ownership-type of jealousy which was acted out in some of the relationships and through the final act. Both physical and psychological battering did not usually cease in these cases when the couple separated; in fact at least the latter appeared to become greater."

In many cases the man was able to successfully use the law of provocation to diminish his responsibility for having killed his female partner (either in the charge classification stage or during sentencing). Here are a few examples of some of these cases:

1. In Easteal’s ‘Project case number 32’ the male perpetrator killed his ex-partner due to his jealousy over her new relationship. He saw her and her partner together, went inside, got a rifle out of the safe, and shot both her and her partner. He was able to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter by relying on the law of provocation. The words of the judge in this case highlight the absurdity of distinguishing between blame and responsibility: "Provocation in this case is relevant to the state of mind and the lack of control by the accused rather than any blameworthiness of the victim."

2. In Easteal’s ‘Project case number 25’ Fred killed his ex-wife Maria during a custody dispute. Fred was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter (rather than murder) because he was 'provoked' by Maria - both because he was jealous than she had found another partner and because she had requested greater access to their daughter. It's worth noting that Maria was from the Philippines (where Fred had travelled to 'get a wife'). In analysing the sentencing remarks, Easteal notes: "The victim came across in the judge's comments as a manipulative person from another country who had harmed a naive Australian male."

3. In Easteal’s ‘Project case number 72 Tim killed his partner Samantha "by placing a rifle under her chin and pulling the trigger." (She was on the phone and he thought that she was making a drug deal.) His sentence was reduced to take into account the fact that he had been ‘provoked’ into murder by the fact that his partner was a drug addict.

"The defence of the prisoner was that he was provoked by Samantha's drug addiction. The judge expressed his agreement that the deceased had been heavily addicted to drugs, 'The prisoner said that living with a junkie was hell'."

Easteal concluded: "Once again the character of the victim appeared to play a role in the judge's decision making. She had been a drug addict, not a 'virtuous' and 'good' woman."

4. In Easteal’s ‘Project case number 59’ the male perpetrator killed his partner (who was 8-months pregnant) by stabbing her 39 times. He was able to plead to the lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder because he had been 'provoked' by the victim telling him that their 2-year old child had been fathered by another man. (Just as an aside: he also killed the 2-year old child.)

5. In Easteal’s ‘Project case number 64’ the male perpetrator killed his partner by stabbing her 12 times. He was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter because he had been 'provoked' by his partner's infidelity. The judge commented:

"It was your wife who pursued him and that pursuit culminated in a brief adulterous encounter. I accept and I find that you were angry and humiliated by this."

He went on to describe the defendant's character and background as “impeccable, with an honourable and distinguished career in the army.”

In looking at the sentencing remarks, Easteal concludes that overall:

"although a few males were found guilty of murder in situations where their wife or estranged wife had been less than the cultural ideal of female virtue, overall, the nature of the victim did mitigate the sentence. Throughout the remarks, there was a clear indication of just what that ideal involves or more accurately, what it is not. Leaving one's husband, having an affair, not taking care of the child(ren), nagging one's husband, lack of appreciation for the husband's work on behalf of the family were all not manifested by the ideal woman. Thus, one of the few consistencies in sentencing and/or determining whether to allow the defendant to plead down to manslaughter was the nature of the victim and her degree of compatibility with societal norms.” [emphasis added by me]

This is the result when you try to accord some of the 'responsibility' to the victim of a crime. The result is that the perpetrator is accorded a diminished level of responsibility because some of it has been transferred to the victim. Now the commenter on Blue Milk’s post (and people who share his attitude) might think that they are not making a legal argument. They might think that they are just arguing for an ethical standpoint or for 'common sense'. The fact is that the law is entirely shaped by the attitudes of society (particularly its most powerful members - white middle class guys like the commenter in question), especially when these crimes are tried under the jury system.

Attitudes that accord some of the responsibility to the victim are the reason that victims get put on trial in rape cases and the reason that so many rapists receive relatively low sentences. They are also fundamentally sexist, no matter how much these people claim that they also hold men partly responsible when they act in a way that makes them more likely to be a victim of crime. Considering the relative positions of men and women in terms of their basic levels of vulnerability to crime, it stands to reason that it is impossible to be remotely equal when you try to dish out responsibility for someone allowing themselves to become vulnerable to crime. Furthermore, when you analyse the criteria being used to judge people's relative levels of responsibility, you realise that it is a criteria that is completely based on the 'male norm'. For men, it takes an awful lot to stray from this norm into 'irresponsible' territory, whereas for women it is virtually impossible to live up to the standards imposed. In order for female victims to be considered blameless they have to act in accordance with society's idea of the ideal woman. And even then they are far from safe.

Our culture already accords far too much responsibility to female victims for crimes that are committed against them. By and large the main action that made them vulnerable to those crimes was the 'irresponsibility' of remaining female within our patriarchal culture. At first blush it might seem reasonable to point out that there are some actions that women can take in order to reduce their risk of being raped (or, less tactfully) that some rape victims should bear some of the responsibility for their crime. However, the fact is that these comments and the attitudes that underlie them are contributing to the culture of holding women responsible for the completely unacceptable behaviour of men, and in doing so they are directly contributing to diminishing the responsibility that is accorded to those men who commit crimes against women

----

Just to emphasize the incredibly gendered dimension of societal attitudes around victim blaming, what do you think happened in those cases where the female partner had killed her violent male partner?

Easteal found, "Females who kill their partner usually do so to stop a long, and frequently escalating pattern of violent conduct against themselves and in some cases their children." In many case she killed him because she believed that it was her only option for survival. You may ask, why didn't she just leave? But please re-read the section above where it documents the fact that many female victims are killed by their partners precisely because they were trying to leave or had left. This is a well-founded fear of many victims of domestic violence.

"The female offender homicides were also almost all preceded by the victimisation of the women in their homes and were generally precipitated by the victims at (or near) the time of the killing."

Additionally, you might argue that these women should have used to the law rather than 'taking it into their own hands'. However, in an overwhelming number of the cases described above (where the female was killed by their violent partner) they had attempted to use the law to protect them (either by obtaining an AVO or reporting previous incidences to police, etc) and in all of those cases the law had utterly failed to protect them from their partners or ex-partners. (And then there are all the other well-documented reasons why it is so difficult for victims of domestic violence to leave the relationship, including issues of economic dependence, fear of losing custody of children, lack of social support, family pressure and the impact of ‘battered women’s syndrome’, etc.)

Now, you'd think in these situations that the female perpetrators would be able to successfully use the law of self-defence or provocation. After all many of them had a well-founded fear of being killed by their partners (and in some cases they had just found out that their violent partners had been raping their children), and surely being regularly subjected to verbal and physical assault ought to qualify as provocation (especially if nagging does!). Umm... no, that's where you'd be wrong.

Here are just a couple of samples of what the judiciary think about this argument:

“What has been made clear in all of them [prior cases] is that matrimonial discord, even violent discord such as was exhibited regularly in the present case, can never be an excuse for the victim to take the life of the aggressor.”

---

“It has been made very clear by the courts that the taking of a human life, even within the context of domestic violence, will not be viewed with leniency. Not even extreme domestic discord can ever be an excuse for the victim to take the law into her own hands and to extinguish the life of the aggressor.”

In almost every case the female perpetrators were not able to successfully rely on either the law of provocation or self-defence because these laws only apply when you act in the heat of the moment. For provocation your blood needs to be boiling (so to speak) and for self-defence you need to act while under direct physical attack.

This makes sense for men. If another man provokes you, or they are attacking you, then you are capable of fighting back on the spot. However, if you are a female, then frequently you will be at a serious physical disadvantage. Fighting back on the spot is likely to get you killed (see above). So, the only viable option available to you is to continue to put up with the abuse (and, in many cases, wait to be killed yourself) or to plan your attack more carefully. You need to attack while your violent partner (who has, perhaps, threatened to kill you if you try to leave, etc.) is facing the other way, sleeping, or passed out drunk. Or you have to poison him. However, if you do any of these things then you are 'acting in cold blood' and therefore are less likely to be successful in using the laws of provocation or self-defence to diminish your responsibility for the crime of homicide.

Self-defence is particularly difficult for a woman to argue successfully:

"Both in the US and Australia, there are three components of the self-defence law that may be problematic for battered women who kill: requirements that the threat was imminent, the responding amount of force equivalent, and the obligation to retreat or try to escape from an attack. The perception of imminence and severity of the assault plus the individual's perception of how much force is requisite to counter it must all be reasonable."

Additionally, any successful use of the law provocation to reduce your charge from murder to manslaughter may actually lead to a woman receiving a longer sentence, as it will be concluded that it strengthened their intention to kill.

Take for example the case of Judy who had experienced years of severe violence from her partner, Nathan, and eventually killed him by grabbing a rifle, closing her eyes and shooting:

"Judy had been anally raped a number of times by Nathan and thought he was about to do so again. Further, he had threatened, according to the judge's remark, 'that she would not leave the house alive if it was the last thing that he did'"

Judy was still charged with murder, found guilty of manslaughter, and received a custodial sentence of 2.5-3.3 years.

Or take Sue's case, where the judge found:

"There was therefore clear evidence of cumulative provocation in the face of prolonged physical and emotional abuse and of immediate provocation arising out of the events of the night before the killing during which she was struck over the head, abused, locked in a cupboard . . . urinated upon . . ."

However:

"The taking of human life is the most serious of all crimes . . . on the other hand it is quite impossible to overlook the extreme violence inflicted and the fact that both an axe and knife were used on the deceased while he was lying in bed."

Sue received a minimum custodial sentence of 5 years.

*[I should note here that this situation has been partly ameliorated over the last 15 years and a good deal of the reason for this has been the impact of Easteal’s study.

In the eye of the beholder (breastfeeding)

This morning Blue Milk tweeted a link to a post by Heather at the mommypotamus which deals with extended breastfeeding and some of the myths that surround it (primarily in the West). It's a good post and worth a read (including the comments). Heather was responding to some concerns raised by a friend of hers around the issue of her breastfeeding her toddler. She devotes this particular post to just one of these myths:

"Extended breastfeeding could cause homosexuality."

You know, I thought that I'd been exposed to a fair bit of the hysteria around extended breastfeeding, but I have never even heard this particular brand of crazytalk before. (Maybe my own family situation can partly explain this gap in my exposure.) Anyway, I felt compelled to deal with a few of the underlying assumptions behind this particular concern, because they have been buzzing around my head all morning:

Obviously the first assumption contained in this particular myth is that there is something wrong will your child growing up to become gay (or being gay and growing up to express their 'gayness,' etc). My first instinct here would be to say: Why? What on earth could possibly be wrong with your child being gay? What are you afraid of?

I can imagine that some people would argue that they are concerned that their child would be exposed to discrimination if they were to gay and that this is why they hope that their children will stick with the heterosexual 'norm.' I wonder if those same people would argue that black people should avoid breeding so that their children don't suffer from racism? Perhaps people should also avoid having girl-children so that their children don't suffer from sexism? Wouldn't it be more productive to try to fight discrimination so that our children don't have to be exposed to it? Also, isn't it more realistic to do our best to raise them to be resilient enough to deal with the inevitable ignorance and bigotry that they might encounter?

Of course, I know that other people are concerned about their children becoming gay because they think that there is something wrong or unnatural with homosexuality. Frankly, however, I have nothing to say to those people on the topic except that they have some serious issues to deal with and I would rather not share them.

The second assumption contained in this myth is the idea that breasts are primarily sexual objects. Yet again I find myself with the impulsive first instinct to simply cry out WTF? Are people honestly so incredibly ignorant of basic biology to believe that mammary glands evolved for the pleasure of the male (and, for those accepting of homosexuality, female) gaze? Do they really believe that we have managed to successfully continue as a species by virtue of the attractiveness or soft touch of female breasts? Infant mammals need to suckle on their mother's milk (through her nipples!) in order to live. This is one of our defining characteristics as mammals - hence the name "mammary glands". The relative attractiveness of these glands to adult members of the species has a fairly minimal to irrelevant impact on species survival.

OK, so yes in making this argument I have to contend with those people who believe that we are somehow markedly different from 'animals'; who think that humans and animals are actually separate groups rather than one being a subset of another - because we have evolved 'beyond' other animals and are now able to do things differently.

First, I disagree with the idea that just because we can now survive without something natural by substituting it for something human-made means that we ought to - that this is somehow a positive progression. An overwhelming amount of our supposed 'progress' has only served to make us more unhealthy and unhappy and has ultimately threatened the survival of not only our own species but every other species on this planet. I have absolutely no faith in the supposed superiority of our shift away from nature.

Second, even if you think that our capacity to move away from our dependence on nature and on our biological instincts is something that should be fostered, it does not follow that these practices are no longer 'natural'. They remain natural, you are just arguing for the superiority of something that is completely unnatural.

Another concern that I have for the assumption that breasts are primarily sexual objects is that this view is completely and utterly constructed by patriarchy. (Leaving aside lesbian relationships, because that is a separate topic and shouldn't confuse this one) Who wins when part of a woman's body is defined in terms of how much it pleases (or pleasures?) a man? Not women that is for bloody sure! Essentially this view is premised on the idea of men owning women's bodies.

I believe that one of the big reasons that extended breastfeeding (and, in fact, all breastfeeding in public) is viewed with such suspicion and hysteria is that it is an act of direct rejection of this claim of ownership. When a woman breastfeeds her child (particularly in public) many people are constructing or receiving the message:

"My breasts do not belong to men, they are mine and I will use them in a manner that is directly threatening to your desire to see them as sexual objects. I will use them to nurture and nourish my child and to increase a non-sexual bond from which you are excluded."

Or, if they view the child as a sexual being* (particularly once the breastfeeding child gets older than 12-months or so), they may alternatively be constructing the message as:

"Although my breasts are primarily sexual objects, I am excluding men from owning them because they belong solely to my child who is taking their own incestuous pleasure from them."

Of course, I'm not arguing that many women are deliberately sending out these messages (I highly doubt that any woman has ever deliberately sent out the second one!) or that many people are actually conscious of constructing it in such a way, but I do think that this is what happens. Why else would people view such a natural and healthy act as somehow suspect and disturbing?

It would be so nice if we could just laugh at these ridiculous attitudes. Sadly, we can't be so complacent. You see there are serious impacts of people having these crazy ideas. The most obvious is that many women will wean their babies before they are ready because of the incredible societal pressure to do so and to take up their anointed role as sexualised yummy mummies. This is unfair on both women and babies who could both benefit significantly from continuing their breastfeeding relationship until it concluded naturally due to the pressure-free preference of one or both parties.

It also means that many women who do breastfeed have to constantly suffer from a lack of societal support for what can be an exhausting and time consuming job. They are seen as misguided in their decision to do it and, perhaps, self-indulgent, and so many people feel entitled to deny them social support for what they are doing, by not:

• creating better leave entitlements so that mothers can spend more time breastfeeding their babies,
• creating safe and comfortable spaces in workplaces where mothers could breastfeed or express,
• creating childcare arrangement in or close to workplaces so that breastfeeding could continue easily after a mother has gone back to work,
• creating welcoming and comfortable places in public where mothers can breastfeed their babies,
• providing support to breastfeeding mothers such as a cooked meal, or helping hand or even a glass of water,
• you get the idea...

However, that doesn't even touch on the most serious risks that are posed by these dangerous attitudes. The assumption that breastfeeding is a sexual act can also lead to women being ejected from public places or off plane flights for simply feeding their babies. Far worse, it can also lead to women having their children removed from their care and being criminalised and incarcerated. As Heather mentions in her post this exact scenario took place in 2002 in Dallas Texas. In that case a couple had their children summarily removed by authorities after a photo lab developed a photo of their 12-month-old breastfeeding and reported it to authorities. The couple were then arrested on criminal charges of "sexual performance of a minor." They were then found guilty based on no other evidence than the photo in question. In 2002!

This is why these ideas of not just crazytalk; they are downright dangerous.

*And, of course, this particularly attitude leads naturally into a discussion of the sexualisation of children, but that is quite evidently a post for another day at this stage...

Discrmination by another name...

[To give you some context as to why I am writing this: see this post at Bitch PhD (and particularly check out the comments), this post at Feministe (and, oh my goodness, check out the comments); this post at Blue Milk; and this post at Student Activism.]

The funny thing about in-built privilege is that so-often the bearers of said-privilege really have no idea that they are exercising it or that they have come to feel themselves entitled to it. Instead, they justify it with all sorts of excuses and by reference to the prevailing status quo - as though 'the way things are' are, by definition, 'the way things ought to be'.

A few examples (past & present):

White privilege under Apartheid South Africa
(This continues to be exercised everywhere, don't get me wrong. It is just easier to point to blatantly obvious examples.) This privilege consisted in part of carving out 'white only' spaces and having draconian rules for when and how black people (and people of other colour) could enter such spaces.

Another less overt form of discrimination (and one that continues in most places in the world) is that many white people treat people of colour with less respect than they treat other white people. They talk down to them or overlook them altogether. This can mean that they receive a message that they have less value than white people, that they do not have their needs taken into consideration, and even that they will not be served in a shop, etc.

This is discrimination, pure and simple.

Male privilege under patriarchy
Historically, and still in many places and cultures, this privilege consists of carving out 'male only' spaces and occupations into which women might only be admitted if they conform to the bahavioural standards established to conform to the dominant-adult norm (i.e. act as though they have someone at home taking care of the house/children/etc; do not discuss their children/family obligations/'women's issues' etc; quit if they become pregnant/married; think & act in 'male' ways; etc). "Obviously" some occupations and spaces have remained off-limits because they are "clearly" unsuitable (having been established around the needs of the dominant-males). This might include anything from men's clubs, to voting, to governing, to military or front-line positions, etc...

Another less overt form of discrimination is that many men treat women (particularly women of a particular age, weight, appearance, etc) with less respect than they treat men. They talk down to them or overlook them altogether. This can mean that they receive a message that they have less value than men, that they do not have their needs taken into consideration, and even that they will not be served in a shop, etc.

As a feminist it is fairly easy for me to label all of these attitudes as discrimination, pure and simple.

Able-bodied privilege
While sometimes this is exercised in a very blatant manner, with people openly excluding disabled people from accessing certain spaces and (particularly) occupations, most often this privilege is exercised in a more subtle manner. Many many public spaces have been constructed in such a way that many disabled people have difficulty accessing them and/or difficulty in making use of them (i.e. shops & restaurants without ramp access and with insufficient space to fit a wheel chair, parks with stairs, offices located on higher levels of building with no lifts, a whole range of places that do not have accessible toilets, etc.). All of these spaces have been constructed around the capabilities and needs of able-bodies adults and we take this status quo for granted. In fact, many people view requests for alterations to be unreasonable or even as an expression of privilege!

Another form of this less overt form of discrimination is that many people treat people with disabilities with less respect than they treat able-bodies adults. They talk down to them or overlook them altogether. This can mean that they receive a message that they have less value than able-bodied people, that they do not have their needs taken into consideration or even that they will not be served in a shop, etc. (This may sound familiar by now, but, of course, it plays out in different ways and in different contexts than it does for able-bodied people of colour or women).

All of these practices and attitudes are discrimination, pure and simple.

And then we have children...

Adult privilege within our culture
This consists of carving out 'adult only' spaces into which children may only enter if they adhere to behavioural standards established to conform to the dominant-adult norm (i.e. adhere to a particular decibel level; remain seated rather than moving around; keep all emotions firmly in check; think & act in 'adult' ways, etc.). "Obviously" some spaces will remain off-limits because they are "clearly" unsuitable (having been established around the needs of the dominant-adults). This might include anything from cinemas, to a certain class of restaurant, to theatres, community meetings, or any of these "after a certain time of day", etc...

Children also suffer from less overt forms of discrimination. Most public spaces have been constructed in such a way that children have difficulty accessing them and/or difficulty in making use of them. Often it will be difficult for them to use the toilet without assistance and the sink will be too high for them to wash their hands. Their feet will dangle from the chairs and their natural inclination to stay mobile and to explore their environment will be constrained by tightly packed tables, low-level breakables, or a general atmosphere of intolerance. All of these spaces have been constructed around the capabilities and needs of able-bodies adults and we take this status quo for granted. In fact, many people view requests for alterations (most often made by parents, rather than children themselves due to the lack of agency of most children) to be unreasonable or even as an expression of privilege!

Additionally, most adults will feel entitled to treat children with less respect than they treat (able-bodies) adults. They talk down to them or overlook them altogether. This can mean that they receive a message that they have less value than adults, that they do not have their needs taken into consideration or even that they will not be served in a shop, etc...

Once again I'm going to go out on a limb and label all of these attitudes as discrimination, pure and simple.

Update: I had intended to point you in the direction of Anji's excellent Adult Privilege Checklist at the end of this post and I forgot. Hopefully, some people will still wander over there now...

...

In case you just want a small taste of it, here's a few samples of some of the comments at Feministe and Bitch PhD (all emphasis is mine):

I think there should be more of a social expectation of parents to consider the adults around them. I think that parents should not only expect to be talked to when their child acts up, and they don’t respond, but also expect to apologize to the stranger they may have upset or disrupted.
...
In fact one parent asked me, when I told her to discipline her child if they should stay home until their child behaves, and not go out. I say yes! Most likely they made the choice to have that child, and a part of making that choice is the responsibility that comes with it.
...
[Question:] "Tell me would, would you tell a disabled person to leave a restaurant because they were being to loud or making you uncomfortable?"

YES. If a disabled person was in a restaurant banging silverware on the table, or yelling at the top of their lungs, then YES it would not be bigoted or prejudiced or whatever of me to be both annoyed by it and to request that person leave the restaurant.

There are certain restaurants, I think, where it’s more “family friendly” and this kind of behavior is tolerated (I’m thinking of places like Red Robin.) But a fancy, quiet restaurant? Not acceptable, whether it’s a disabled person or a child.
...
Part of the “interacting with society” you think is so important includes getting told off, coldly glared about, and snidely whispered about when you behave like an idiot. Consider our contempt for your children just another useful learning experience for them.
...
I don’t like being around kids, the same way I don’t like being around loud, obnoxious people who monopolize conversations and can’t talk about anything except themselves, and I make no apology for that. If your child can behave like a reasonable human being [read 'adult'] in public, then good for you. But I get really, really tired of watching parents let their kids run amok while shrugging off the damage with “S/he’s only a chyyuuld.”
...
I, for one, would not tolerate a grown adult behaving that way [screaming for a drink] in a public place. Actually, not many people would. So if you’re really going to try to equate children with adults when deciding where and when they should be allowed in public, then you really ought to consider the social responsibility that that expectation creates. As an adult, I would NOT get away with things that children do in public for very long. So if you want your toddler to be considered the same as me, an adult, then your toddler should be responsible for behaving in an adult manner.
...
I don’t mind children in spaces like restaurants, as long as the children are well behaved. This largely is the responsibility of the parents (and largely the parents’ failure when the kid is a monster). […] I have zero patience for or tolerance of children who don’t behave.
…
I have never been and never will be fond of kids or want to be around them much. That has nothing to do with being feminist or antifeminist. It has to do with the fact that I don't like kids any more than I like peas. I do not want to hear children screeching in an expensive restaurant at 9:00 at night, when they should be in bed. I've seen parents bring their children into bars at night! I am civic-minded and I accomodate other people's children in appropriate situations as much as possible, but don't tell me that I have to start dressing more modestly because your sisters have children now (my now ex-boyfriend).

Now I think I need to have a lie down.

Naked Motherhood - part one (the horror hours)

I started pre-natal yoga classes the other week and I picked up this book called Naked Motherhood by Wendy LeBlanc.

Oh how I wish that I had found it before I had Lily; before I even decided to get pregnant. Honestly, I could have been so much better prepared.

In the book Wendy LeBlanc explores all those 'hidden truths' about the experience of motherhood - from the fact that pregnancy can often unexpectedly knock you for six, to the fact that so many women are so unprepared for the reality of labour that they wind up traumatised, to the myth that your life will go back to normal within a few months of the birth, and so on...

In researching for this book, LeBlanc surveyed and interviewed a diverse group of women around Australia and so her conclusions are not based solely on a small circle of friends or her own experience. Instead she provides a wealth of examples, in addition to statistic information to back up her findings. And some of those findings are pretty telling:

• 43% of mothers surveyed expected to be exhausted during the first twelve months of their first baby's life
• 90% reported an impact on coping; 63% in the severe to extreme range

• 67% of women surveyed expected their sleep to be interrupted by their first babies
• 84% reported an impact on coping; 63% in the severe to extreme range
• almost no-one expected these interruptions to go on for more than three months
• all expected their babies would sleep for long periods of time throughout the day

Logically I knew that babies woke up often during the night and that my sleep might be interrupted while Lily was very young. I was nervous about this, because I have always been very attached to sleeping and felt that I 'needed' at least 8 hours every night in order to function. I figured that after the first few months we would work out how to settle her easily and that I would have the chance to sleep during the day, 'since babies sleep so much'. Ha.

Lily slept for a maximum of 40 minutes at a time during the day until she was about nine months old (and for most of those she was attached to me) when she finally started sleeping for about 1 hour & 20 minutes twice a day (for a short blissful period). Often it would take me over an hour to settle her beforehand. She slept for no more than 3 hours at a time at night for almost 3 years. For long periods she would wake up every 40 minutes for a feed. Sometimes she would have only just come off before the 40 minutes was up and so only 5 or 10 minutes would elapse between feeds. To say that I was exhausted almost feels like an understatement. Sometimes I felt as though my very sense of self had been shattered.

I was utterly unprepared for this.

Another thing that LeBlanc covers is the 'horror hours'. Again if I had even heard of these I had not listened. As she puts it:

Studies have shown that the average baby cries for three hours per day, the majority of which occurs between the hours of 6pm and 9pm. These are the 'horror hours'.
At this end of the day the mother is tired too. She may have been on duty for twelve hours already. Still there are hours stretching ahead filled with walking and consoling and feeding and cajoling before she can sit down and relax-or sink into a blissful sleep herself. By five in the afternoon a mother may feel she has given every inch of herself throughout the day and now has not a drop of giving left in her. Yet, somehow, she must go on giving of herself until either her partner arrives home to relieve her or her baby sleeps. [p.43]

Lily had reflux when she was born and this gave her terrible heartburn that got worse as the day went on. By the time it got to about 5:30pm she was exhausted and in pain and would start screaming. At first we had absolutely no idea what to do. We tried everything. We walked her, bounced on the swiss ball (something that often worked at other times), rubbed her tummy, gave her a warm bath, sang to her, rocked her, fed her, etc... and she just kept screaming.

I hate the sound of babies crying. It breaks my heart and I want to stop it by comforting them. But this feeling is nothing compared to how I felt about my own baby. I would have done anything to make her feel better. I felt like I was a complete failure as a human being (and, of course, as a mother) because I couldn't make her feel better. It felt as though the sound of her crying was ripping me apart. Again, I never expect to be challenged so completely.

(Eventually, we did discover that if I put her in the hug-a-bub (sling) just before the horror hours and sang her to sleep then we could walk around outside and keep her asleep for the duration of the horror hours. We started an evening ritual of wearing and walking Lily around the city and didn't go home until after 8:30pm when we knew that if she woke she was less likely to scream. AND she grew out of this stage at around 2 months.)

So, yes, those would have been useful things to prepare myself for (if I had been willing to listen), particularly because LeBlanc shares a wealth of sensible suggestions for dealing with all of these issues.

However, what I like the most about this book is the way that she uses it as an opportunity to tackle another huge facet of motherhood - the fact that it brings you face to face with the ugly side of TEH PATRIARCHY.

To be continued in Part Two (I had really better go to bed)...