Freckles & Doubt (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
freckles_and_doubt) wrote2010-03-05 03:31 pm
freckles_and_doubt) wrote2010-03-05 03:31 pm
put that baby spell on me
So, a friend is going through the "OMG do I really want to have kids?" thing, and it's making me think about the issues in a state of profound political annoyance. Because the truth is, there is enormous cultural pressure from a large number of sources which is exerted on women to make them think that child-bearing is not only desirable, but inevitable. It's just what women do, because (1) hey wow, human race, continuation, yadda yadda, and (2) besides, it's absolutely the ONLY experience which will ever complete you as a female person, and further besides, (3) it's selfish not to. I wholly and utterly support any friend of mine who feels the need to have children, it's a great thing and I rather enjoy the resulting small thundering herds. I am equally and entirely outraged that any friend of mine, of my generation, born and raised under Western culture, should feel that she has no actual choice in procreating. I also absolutely reject all of the above reasons for doing it.
So, my own personal and philosophical proclivities deal quite neatly with (1). The human race needs fewer babies, not more, we live on a horribly overpopulated planet which is on the brink of ecological disaster, and apart from the need to cut the population, I'm not entirely convinced there's going to be a world worth living in for any offspring of mine. And I really don't buy the traditional response to same, which is "oh, but you're an intelligent educated woman, the world needs more of that kind of person, it's your duty to procreate" - it's a horribly self-congratulatory argument, don't you think? The world at large, particularly the madly-procreating bits of it, needs more education, not more self-righteous Westerners. I do my bit for that every year when I make another cohort of students read Sheri Tepper.
On (2) I'm particularly aware of the whole thing because my dad's just died, and it was one of his hobby-horses. He was an animal scientist and horribly prone to biological essentialism: as far as he was concerned, my body and hormones and what have you would never allow me to be happy without bearing children, and I don't think I convinced him otherwise before he died. We used to get into quite enthusiastic feminist debates about it, in which I'd be all outraged that he was mentally classifying me with his bloody cattle. Because, really, Papa, you don't have a uterus, you know? and here I am telling you that I'm actually perfectly happy without all the childbearing schtick, and am not feeling a lack, and why the hell should your sense of my identity be more correct than mine? Also, men are equally genetically programmed to hunt and fight and all the rest, and they quite happily sublimate it into capitalism, sports and political arguments, so why shouldn't the parallel work for women? Such maternal urges as I have (and I do have them) are apparently contented with a weird combination of teaching, student advising, cats, cooking huge meals for friends, and abstractedly patting on the head any offspring-of-friends who happen to rocket through my ambit.
See, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that motherhood is an amazing experience, a life-changing one, a particular aspect of being human that you can't access any other way. I know a large number of very happy, fulfilled mothers (starting with my own), and I love watching them celebrate that experience. There's a part of me that's a bit wistfully sad that I'll never have that, but I also don't believe it's the only way to be happy, or fulfilled, or to have a meaningful life. So in answer to (3) I have to ask: how many famous women activists, writers, scientists would not have achieved what they did if they were also raising a family? Is their choice somehow selfish or incomplete? Should we by this logic be faintly despising Jane Austen?
But, you know, it hit me yesterday: really the bitch about this whole cultural expectation of parenthood is its gender-exclusivity. "Of course you'll have kids" is ultimately a thing that the male half of creation does to the female, or conditions the female to do to other females: it's another way of controlling and defining female sexuality. There's a far lesser tendency to look pityingly at men who've chosen not to become fathers. And that's a purely Victorian survival, a result of the nineteenth century's ridiculous need to idealise Womanhood as either Virginal or Maternal: a complete refusal, in other words, to think of women in any terms other than those defined by their sexuality. Somewhere deep in the antediluvian slime of that belief system, women who have sex but not children are not Mothers, but Whores. It sucks. We should be more enlightened than that.
But the sad truth is that we're not, that those attitudes are embedded firmly in our technically post-feminist culture; a woman choosing to have kids, or not, is bombarded on all sides, from family, friends, the media, literature, with a horrible and heavy weight of expectation which says she ought to. This means that if she's like me and doesn't have the maternal urge to any imperative extent, she's faced with the choice of having children and vaguely resenting it, or not having children and being vaguely resented. This is why, I've realised, I have a minor and sneaking sympathy with even the particularly ugly and frothing extremism of some of the online childfree movements: they're extreme because they have to be, because you need some pretty serious momentum to break free of all the weight of expectation. If your society is a bit insane in this area, there's a reasonable chance you'll become a nut in sheer self-defense.
A lot of my own personal ability to basically pull a sign at societal expectation and defiantly be happy in the teeth of it is purely circumstantial: I'm not in a relationship, I don't have a broody would-be-father looking expectantly at me, and my biological clock is apparently digital. Even if all of the above weren't true, my slightly despairing sense of our horribly crowded world would probably still weigh in quite significantly. I'm lucky to be reasonably clear-cut. I truly and deeply sympathise with anyone who isn't, and is trying to negotiate a space for themselves while being tugged in all directions.
So, my own personal and philosophical proclivities deal quite neatly with (1). The human race needs fewer babies, not more, we live on a horribly overpopulated planet which is on the brink of ecological disaster, and apart from the need to cut the population, I'm not entirely convinced there's going to be a world worth living in for any offspring of mine. And I really don't buy the traditional response to same, which is "oh, but you're an intelligent educated woman, the world needs more of that kind of person, it's your duty to procreate" - it's a horribly self-congratulatory argument, don't you think? The world at large, particularly the madly-procreating bits of it, needs more education, not more self-righteous Westerners. I do my bit for that every year when I make another cohort of students read Sheri Tepper.
On (2) I'm particularly aware of the whole thing because my dad's just died, and it was one of his hobby-horses. He was an animal scientist and horribly prone to biological essentialism: as far as he was concerned, my body and hormones and what have you would never allow me to be happy without bearing children, and I don't think I convinced him otherwise before he died. We used to get into quite enthusiastic feminist debates about it, in which I'd be all outraged that he was mentally classifying me with his bloody cattle. Because, really, Papa, you don't have a uterus, you know? and here I am telling you that I'm actually perfectly happy without all the childbearing schtick, and am not feeling a lack, and why the hell should your sense of my identity be more correct than mine? Also, men are equally genetically programmed to hunt and fight and all the rest, and they quite happily sublimate it into capitalism, sports and political arguments, so why shouldn't the parallel work for women? Such maternal urges as I have (and I do have them) are apparently contented with a weird combination of teaching, student advising, cats, cooking huge meals for friends, and abstractedly patting on the head any offspring-of-friends who happen to rocket through my ambit.
See, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that motherhood is an amazing experience, a life-changing one, a particular aspect of being human that you can't access any other way. I know a large number of very happy, fulfilled mothers (starting with my own), and I love watching them celebrate that experience. There's a part of me that's a bit wistfully sad that I'll never have that, but I also don't believe it's the only way to be happy, or fulfilled, or to have a meaningful life. So in answer to (3) I have to ask: how many famous women activists, writers, scientists would not have achieved what they did if they were also raising a family? Is their choice somehow selfish or incomplete? Should we by this logic be faintly despising Jane Austen?
But, you know, it hit me yesterday: really the bitch about this whole cultural expectation of parenthood is its gender-exclusivity. "Of course you'll have kids" is ultimately a thing that the male half of creation does to the female, or conditions the female to do to other females: it's another way of controlling and defining female sexuality. There's a far lesser tendency to look pityingly at men who've chosen not to become fathers. And that's a purely Victorian survival, a result of the nineteenth century's ridiculous need to idealise Womanhood as either Virginal or Maternal: a complete refusal, in other words, to think of women in any terms other than those defined by their sexuality. Somewhere deep in the antediluvian slime of that belief system, women who have sex but not children are not Mothers, but Whores. It sucks. We should be more enlightened than that.
But the sad truth is that we're not, that those attitudes are embedded firmly in our technically post-feminist culture; a woman choosing to have kids, or not, is bombarded on all sides, from family, friends, the media, literature, with a horrible and heavy weight of expectation which says she ought to. This means that if she's like me and doesn't have the maternal urge to any imperative extent, she's faced with the choice of having children and vaguely resenting it, or not having children and being vaguely resented. This is why, I've realised, I have a minor and sneaking sympathy with even the particularly ugly and frothing extremism of some of the online childfree movements: they're extreme because they have to be, because you need some pretty serious momentum to break free of all the weight of expectation. If your society is a bit insane in this area, there's a reasonable chance you'll become a nut in sheer self-defense.
A lot of my own personal ability to basically pull a sign at societal expectation and defiantly be happy in the teeth of it is purely circumstantial: I'm not in a relationship, I don't have a broody would-be-father looking expectantly at me, and my biological clock is apparently digital. Even if all of the above weren't true, my slightly despairing sense of our horribly crowded world would probably still weigh in quite significantly. I'm lucky to be reasonably clear-cut. I truly and deeply sympathise with anyone who isn't, and is trying to negotiate a space for themselves while being tugged in all directions.
no subject
For a start, in this discussion I'm not really referencing the Tepper planet-raping bastards schtick (which I don't see as such, but I'm not going there now) - I'm referencing her ongoing concerns over overpopulation and the basic stupidity of the human race with regard to same. P-R B or not, everyone should read the overpopulation message, IMNSHO.
Also, please note that I did say "a far lesser tendency to look pityingly at men who've chosen not to become fathers" - of course there's a cultural imperative there, I'm arguing that it's just not as strong as it is towards women. In the kind of male gathering you describe I'd imagine there's a whole raft of pressures, and it's probably just as bad from family. Have you ever, though, had the experience of being looked up and down by a chance acquaintance who's catching up on your life, and have them say, "Unmarried and no kids? Shame, what happened?" Friends and family may feel they have a stake in your reproductive function, but I sometimes think the whole bloody world feels they have a stake in mine just by virtue of my sex.
Finally, it's the most difficult thing in the world to be a feminist and try to talk about gender discrimination and cultural bias to an enlightened, intelligent, thinking man. Because you do think about these things, and are completely not the problem, and I think it makes it somehow more difficult to persuade you that (a) yes, other men can really be as unthinking and biased and problematical, and (b) there are ways in which your empathy for women may not be complete because you do not experience the subject position in the way that women experience it, and therefore may find it difficult to believe it exists. Men have been in power in our culture for a hell of a long time. No matter how many strides we've made towards equality we are still not equal, and our attitudes are conditioned by that inequality whether we like it or not. I don't think it's unfair or unhelpful to point that out. I think it's essential. Also, I still rather like men :>.
no subject
To your question, have I been pitied by a chance acquaintance, I'd have to say No, not in a direct, verbal way. I've sensed at times it's been thought but not verbalised, out of polite consideration for my feelings, but that's maybe me being paranoid.
The over-population debate, as expressed by no-child movements and guilt-wracked spawners of a sprog or 3, is something I'm a little suspicious of. I'm wary of just reducing it to an arithmetic problem. Is the human population as a whole living unsustainably? Yes. Is this purely as a result of too many people? I don't think so. The Hebrides had much larger populations than they do now, with a vibrant culture. For anyone really agonising over this, the people of Jura would love to have you boost their population!
Agreed, my last paragraph was poorly thought out and unnecessary. I shall try to express myself more clearly next time we're juggling G&Ts.
PS. Finally got my login working!
no subject
Chance acquaintances are unlikely to pity you directly because it's not culturally OK to do that to a guy. It is, in my experience, completely culturally OK to do that to a woman. There's a cleaning lady I used to work with in the English dept. who does it to me every time we meet, as her second question - how are you? no babies yet? I'm seriously considering a collapsible axe.
Your last paragraph wasn't poorly thought out or unnecessary, I just disagree with you :>. As, in fact, I do on the overpopulation thing. Yes, we're living unsustainably, but there are also too many of us, and as a result we're losing things - species, environments, values, quality of life - that I think impoverish us radically as a race, and ultimately threaten at least our civilisation and possibly our survival. I commend you for hopefulness, but I can't share it.