By Lauredhel on February 29, 2008
Feminist motherhood: the radical notion that children are people.
[After reading this, and this.]
Posted in gender & feminism, relationships, social justice | Tagged bigotry |
Article written by Lauredhel
Lauredhel is an Australian woman and mother with a disability. She blogs about social justice, reproductive justice, freedom from violence, the use and misuse of language, medical science, being disabled, her garden, and whatever else pops into her head.
Lauredhel also blogs at FWD/Forward (feminists with disabilities), scribbles at her personal dreamwidth journal Selective and Arbitrary, and co-moderates Hollaback Australia. She joined Hoyden About Town in 2007.
I hate people that subscribe to the “children are property not people” belief.
It starts with “you can’t tell me how to discipline MY child” and ends with the enabling of child abuse and molestation.
“children are property not people” also leads to mothers giving their baby girls names with no regard to what will happen to the school-aged kid and the grown woman because of it. I was named after the lost Russian Grand Duchess and there was a “Sunshine” and a “Princess” in the birth notices the other day.
Feminist motherhood: children are people, and so are mothers.
Human, not just economic agents.
Thanks for saying this. I was bugged by their dismissal of motherhood because, you know, it’s much better to have “disposable income”.
At least that’s what I understood from your quote above? Maybe it would be useful if you expanded on this to enlighten the young ones like me who cannot speak of feminist motherhood from first experience.
Mary Tracy9′s last blog post..Stuff Some People Hate
Yes.
Children understand far more than most adults give them credit for. They deserve far more respect than they receive. Children do need protection and boundaries, but all too often that is used to rob them of all autonomy whatsoever.
I always enjoy the conversations and other excerpts you post from your life, and that Bitch posts from her and PK, and several others, because it shows me that it is possible to have a loving, respectful relationship with a child, giving them the space to understand themselves and the world around them on their own terms. It’s indicative of an attitude toward parenting that I don’t see very often, and I hope to emulate when my time comes.
amanda w’s last blog post..Now I have another fibro to deal with.
I enjoy hearing about the lad as well. I used to enjoy posting snippets from the daily happenings with my own two when I first started blogging, but they’ve asked me not to any more (I very occasionally get an exemption). I miss it.
It’s definitely a combination of that and other factors. Firstly is the idea that children are purely economic units. I am bugged by purely economic analyses when applied to adults, and nothing changes when applied to children. That sort of detached economic analysis seems to go hand-in-hand, most of the time, with the glibertarian-white-dude mindset.
The other thing that rubs me up the wrong way is the bald statement “I hate children”. How is it acceptable, and amongst feminist/lefty crowds at that, to express hatred for a group of people in that way? “I don’t want to have kids, no way nohow” – sure, whatever. There’s a reason feminists have had reproductive justice as a core issue for a long time now. But reproductive justice is just that: the right not to have children, _or to have them_. And the right to have them also includes various safety nets to ensure that both children and their parents (usually mothers, of course) aren’t thrown into poverty, deprived of education and opportunities, or ostracised/isolated purely because they’re children/parents. Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation, for example, includes “parental responsibilities” as one of the factors that it is illegal to discriminate against people for.
Yet the vocal/self-obsessed childfreeers will spit out “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them!”, without a single thought to the fact that a society where people can’t afford to have children is a society that is badly broken. It’s the “MY tax dollars” mindset all over again.
And children are people. They’re little people, they often have poorer impulse control and self-protective behaviours than (some) big people; but they’re still people, still humans with human rights. The UN has a convention on their rights, FFS.
Brooklynite has blogged a bit on the analogy (imperfect, but with some worthwhile connections) between child-hate and hatred of people with disabilities. I’ll see if I can find the link, if anyone’s interested.
Erm, the “don’t have children if you can’t afford them” notion comes from the fact that children are human beings who have a right to a decent quality of life.
Sure, it’s over-simplistic, as is any blanket statement. Most cf-ers who are in a state of perpetual annoyance that I’ve seen are really just aggravated, down at the core, by children being treated badly. The “then don’t bloody well breed, for heaven’s sake” arguments generally proceed from that basis.
Helen: I see both sides of that argument. The particular threads I was referring to were very much in the “sucking up my tax dollars and annoying me personally” camp.
Until all types of contraception becomes free then this will be a recurring issue.
I take Helen’s point that some of the criticism is coming from people who want children cared for better, but you can’t legislate that people who spend their money on things other than contraception can’t have sex. This also ignores that children from families who ‘can (monetarily) afford children’ can also experience abuse and neglect.
I also have an issue with the “its my tax dollars people”, because in 20 years time when you are clogging up the public hospital system it will be my children’s tax dollars paying for you to be there. The benefits I get from being a mother are mine to enjoy, but everyone will benefit from my childrens’ taxes. I didn’t have children so they could be tax payers, I had them because I wanted to be a Mum. But the “sucking up my tax dollars” will still benefit.
Mindy’s last blog post..World’s Saddest Thing or Just Saddest Thing Ever?
You’ve lost me, Mindy. Are you suggesting that contraceptives work perfectly, and that poor women would all choose to be childfree if only they could afford this perfect contraceptive?
I’m predicating my argument not upon the idea that poor silly women don’t use contraception, have unwanted babies, and that therefore I suppose we should look after them. I’m predicating it upon the idea that the ability to make the choice to have children IS a basic aspect of human rights and reproductive justice (whether the conception was planned or not – this is irrelevant*). And that a society that makes having a family the cause of financial ruin for a large segment of the society is broken. Coercing one particular reproductive choice based on social class is NOT a pro-choice stance.
*Irrelevant to this particular argument, that is; obviously, another aspect of reproductive justice is access to all aspects of reproductive health care, including contraception/conception advice/assistance, abortion, prenatal/birth/postnatal care, etc.
Lauredhel’s last blog post..Turn-of-the-century futurism: ?Hot And Cold Air From Spigots?
Exactly. When they’re old and needy they don’t get back the tax-dollars that they put into the pot in years gone by, they get tax-dollars that somebody else is putting into the pot right then and there.
And if they never get old and needy, they should still contribute to society so that everyone has an adequate level of opportunity, health, education, etc. That’s what a progressive tax system is all about.
Lauredhel’s last blog post..Turn-of-the-century futurism: ?Hot And Cold Air From Spigots?
Absolutely. It was fascinating in your futurism post how it was simply assumed that a wealthy country would make health and education for the poor free as a matter of course, an obvious exercise in social justice. Some countries have done better than others with that assumption, but the author and readers of that 1900 article would probably be horrified to see the dismantling of the public benefits system in the USA in recent decades.
Sigh. I get so sad when I see this topic come up sometimes.
I think there is no feminism worth having unless it is inclusive. That includes all people, children, adults, parents, nonparents, everybody.
So any kind of zero-sum mentality makes me sad.
Feminist motherhood: Children are people, mothers are people, childfree women are people, all humans are people.
To complete my thought:
We’ve got lots of $$$ in this country — that isn’t the issue. Bickering about whether or not I should pay more taxes to raise anyone’s children, including my own, is silly, because that isn’t where the problem lies. That’s zero-sum thinking, divisive and a distraction. As another commenter pointed out, when we have a wealthy country where people can’t afford to raise their children, it’s BROKEN.
And taxing individuals isn’t going to make it unbroken. Ending corporate welfare would help a lot though.
Tigtog – the other thing that leapt out to me in that futurism article (I was sorta hoping a USAn blogger might pick up on it) was the assumption that the Union would gradually expand to include its southern neighbours. Contrast that with the OMGBorderProtection freakout of today.
Lauredhel’s last blog post..Turn-of-the-century futurism: ?Hot And Cold Air From Spigots?
No Lauredhel, I wasn’t suggesting that it was 100% effective, I was suggesting that when some people have to choose between contraception and say food, or ciggies, or alcohol, contraception may be on the bottom of their list, and that the bleaters about not having children if you can’t afford them should be all for free contraception in that case. I’m all for women of whatever socioeconomic level being able to choose when and if they want children and being able to obtain support if they need it. My previous comment didn’t make that clear.
Mindy’s last blog post..World’s Saddest Thing or Just Saddest Thing Ever?
For what it’s worth, every childfree person I’ve ever run across has been strongly in favor of free (taxpayer funded) birth control of whatever form desired for anyone at any time.
That’s a popular rant on childfree fora. Right after rants about how treating children badly is wrongwrongwrong.
I didn’t know that Helen, thanks for that. My rant is therefore unjustified.
Mindy’s last blog post..World’s Saddest Thing or Just Saddest Thing Ever?