Feminism Reversal

xoixo

In yesterday's Irish Times Magazine I read an interview with the French feminist philosopher Elisabeth Badinter. They spoke of her latest book in which she accuses feminism of reversing itself, because of recent hot issues such as the environment and the recession. She talks about motherhood and how babies are now a woman's main oppressor, no longer the man.

It was really interesting, and I remember not too long ago there was a long discussion in the Ladies Lounge about motherhood, why more and more women are not planning to have children and our own personal reasons for it.

So on that topic I thought I'd share the article, enjoy:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2010/0417/1224268258633.html

INTERVIEW: The French feminist philsopher Elisabeth Badinter has stirred up a new debate about motherhood in her latest, best-selling book

FEW FRENCH COUPLES have an aura quite like the one that surrounds the Badinters. In a way, sitting in their apartment overlooking the Jardin du Luxembourg, our bottles of Perrier on the table and the smoke from her cigarettes wafting towards the ceiling, this genial, preternaturally calm woman in the woollen jumper and the tracksuit bottoms could be your next-door neighbour. Yet her striking blue eyes – so familiar after her recent tour of TV studios and from the sleeve of the book that sits atop the French bestseller charts – are a helpful reminder of just who we’re dealing with here.

Elisabeth Badinter is one of the foremost feminist philosophers in France, the author of some groundbreaking work, an Enlightenment specialist and a teacher at one of the country’s most prestigious colleges, the École Polytechnique. Her father was Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet, founder of Publicis, one of the world’s biggest advertising firms. She remains its second-biggest shareholder. Lest her status be in any doubt, one of France’s biggest radio stations recently had an “Elisabeth Badinter Day”.

Later, Elisabeth’s husband Robert arrives home with a “bonjour, monsieur”, a friendly handshake and another moment of instant recognition. A historian, teacher and lawyer, he has little else to his name, unless you were to count his having been the celebrated Socialist justice minister who finally abolished the death penalty in France in 1981. You call to the Badinters’ ready to forgive them their airs and graces. What you get instead is a laid-back conversation, some fine company – and seething anger.

Elisabeth Badinter’s recent ubiquity is down to her latest book, Le Conflit: La Femme et La Mère (Flammerion, €18 in France), which has stirred an impassioned debate by taking three of France’s biggest preoccupations – the economic crisis, the environment and motherhood – and fashioning a rousing and provocative battle cry for a feminism she believes is in reverse. Released 30 years to the day after she published her major work attacking the idea of a maternal instinct, Le Conflit argues that a coalition of modern forces – from the environmentalists and their back-to-basics credo to breast-feeding activists, New Age feminists and doctors – are undoing the progress made by earlier generations.

In short, they are making today’s young women slaves to their own children. They have created a skewed ideal of the “good mother”, stigmatising women who don’t fall into line, and Badinter is angry about it. Her book is a call for women to reassert the right to make their own decisions about motherhood – to choose bottled milk, baby minders or no children at all if they wish – and to stop babies becoming the sole object of their lives.

Despite what the “ayatollahs of breast-feeding” or the peddlers of the “natural-maternalist ideology” might say, “we’re all mediocre mothers”, Badinter says evenly, her gravelly voice filling the room. “I’m 66 years old. I know one woman who was a Mozart of motherhood. And I’d say it’s as rare as a Mozart. She raised three children. She knew how to be a very good mother. Most of us do what we can, but we’re limited, and we’re limited because we have an unconscious, we have a personal story, the values of the society weigh on us and, very often, we don’t understand what our children need.

“A human mother is not a baboon. There’s no instinct that tells her, ‘that’s exactly what the child needs’. The child grows up, and we make do with our meagre means. Often, we make mistakes.” Although she follows the climate change debates closely and is grateful to the ecology movement for raising awareness about man’s responsibility to nature, Badinter is scathing about “radical environmentalism” and its attack on many of the tools – powdered milk, disposable nappies, nurseries – that freed previous generations of women from all-consuming motherhood.

“There are certain problems that are global in nature and call for a reevaluation of our behaviour. We owe that to environmentalists, and I think it’s very important. But should environmentalism become a moral code, or even a religion? Certainly not . . . The idea that it’s women who pay the high price of having a minor effect on nature – washable nappies and all that – non, non, non .”

Then there’s the medical establishment, which bears the brunt of Badinter’s counter-attack. She details studies that debunk the claims of pro-breastfeeding groups such as La Leche League and excoriates doctors and nurses for swallowing them unquestioningly and making women feel guilty for thinking any differently.

“I think our western civilisation is absolutely frozen with fear by the principle of precaution, which we’re applying in a radical and excessive way, and which has the effect of making motherhood seem like taking holy orders. The idea of telling women: ‘not a drop of wine, not a single cigarette’. It’s ridiculous.”

We live in a litigious age, she accepts, and doctors don’t want to take the smallest risk. “But, really. Do they take us for children or what? My generation, we smoked, we drank a glass of wine with dinner, and everyone had marvellous children.

“You mustn’t eat soft cheese. You mustn’t eat shellfish. You mustn’t do this, you mustn’t do that. They’d prefer you stayed at home doing some embroidery.”

A mother of three, and now a grandmother, Badinter is passionate, formidable, brimming with energy. When a point excites her, she lifts her arms and brings them down in an arc towards her heart. Later, when I listen back and translate our conversation, I notice that she speaks in long, fully-formed sentences, as if she has been crafting them for decades.

In a way, she has. When Badinter published her taboo-breaking book attacking the idea of a maternal instinct in 1980, feminism was much more cohesive than it is today. “Most women of my generation thought the same thing. There was a united front,” she says. But now feminism is in crisis, she believes, because it has split two ways.

The first generation, à la Simone de Beauvoir, took as their starting point the belief that men and women should be equal because they were essentially the same. Women could do everything men could do and men could do almost everything that women could; therefore, their roles and functions in society should be the same. A second wave, which originated in the US in the 1980s, stresses not only that femininity is an essence but that it’s a virtue and that what lies at its heart is motherhood.

“So there are two feminisms, and these two feminisms are in total opposition,” Badinter says. “The only theme on which feminists are in agreement today is one I find very reductive, and that’s the woman as victim. Voilà . The only thing on which we can campaign together is [the idea that] the woman is a victim. And for the past 10 years we only talked about women who were harassed, raped, beaten, murdered. I don’t find that a very good idea.”

In other words, the two feminisms cancel each other out and become inaudible. Then there are those women who would never think of calling themselves feminists, or those who think the men-and-shoes empowerment of Sex and the City is a token of progress. Could feminism be a victim of its own success? “I disagree,” she replies flatly. “In many cases, young women are feminists without knowing it or without claiming it. Young women find it’s a little out of date to call themselves feminists. Most of them say, ‘I’m not a feminist, but . . .’ and then you find they make feminist claims.

“But it’s very striking to see how in France the word feminism has dated. Young women of 30 years of age, they say, ‘that was for our mothers’.” Badinter bristles at the criticism some have levelled at her that she wants to turn women against motherhood. To support her case, she points to France’s birth rate, which at 2.0 children per women is significantly higher than Germany’s (1.3 children) and other European countries (Ireland’s is also one of the highest). And yet French women are consistently the most resistant to earth-motherhood and tend to return to work sooner after giving birth.

This exception française owes a lot, she believes, to the long-standing French tradition of farming children out to nurses or minders in order to let women get on with their lives. So, while the figures suggest German women have an “all or nothing” approach, and many end up deciding against having children for that reason, the French have learned to be women and mothers at the same time.

Le Conflit , perhaps more than any of her books, is addressed to women – a cri de coeur to resist the stifling pressure to conform to a single ideal of what’s natural and right. “Do what you want!” is how she sums up the book’s message, with a broad smile and a raised arm.

“Do what you want. The book is not a critique of motherhood, it’s a critique of a new model of intensive, exclusive motherhood that’s starting to impose itself in France. I’m asking the question: Is that not damaging to a woman’s personal interests, and damaging to her own life as a woman?” With that, her arm completes its arc and finally comes to rest.

What the critics say . . .

“Completely wrong,” said Cécile Duflot, the 35-year-old mother of four who leads the French Green party. “To hold environmentalism responsible for deficiencies inherited from a patriarchal world is both wrong and pointless.” Elisabeth Badinter was simply “not asking the right questions”.

Although many have cheered Badinter’s new book, her critics have been taking turns to dismiss her as out of touch and anti-mother. Others have been critical of her for omitting to consider greater threats to women’s liberty, such as domestic violence, prostitution and pornography.

One prominent woman Badinter cites disapprovingly in the book is Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet who, as ecology minister in 2008, proposed an eco-friendly tax on disposable nappies. Kosciusko-Morizet wrote that she was sympathetic towards Badinter’s critique of “maternalism”, or “the way society – that of masculine power – reduces the woman to her sole position as mother”. But eradicating a retrograde “naturalisme” and replacing it with a “progressive artificialism” seems “quite a jump”, the politician remarked, “but it’s true that I’m not a philosopher”.

“Since I’m interested in the position of women today and the difficulties they face, I’m working on a number of questions that preoccupy me more than breastfeeding,” she wrote. “I’m thinking . . . of the glass ceiling that blocks women’s careers, or of the current debates over the veil. This ‘feminist’ book doesn’t say a word about any of that.”

metrovelvet

Very interesting and some good points too. YEs environmentalism would have women at the washing tub all day and night. Although the weakness in Badinter's argument, imo is she shouldnt be criticising the environmentalists per se, but the culture that encourages us to presume that the MOTHER and not the father will be doing all the washing.

I do agree about the breasfeeding nazis.

But it comes down to the same old same old, women cant be trusted with their own bodies, and not even with their own kids. But all in all between what not to wear and how to clean your house and the self help industry people everywhere are trying to tell you how to live, and its the women who are eating it up. So, why are we so insecure?

LizT

Tbh honest, I think it's a load of bollix. I didn't read the whole article because I'm lazy, but does it not depend on the woman? For example, some women might be completely and utterly appalled by the idea of even having children, whereas for others, it's a life goal. It depends on many factors - personality, environment etc.

We're all different and therefore we will all have different outlooks on life. One of my friends who is 20 says she would have loved to be in the 50's and be the typical housewife, waiting on her husband hand and foot. She's like that with her boyfriend now. Feminism reversal - perhaps, but that's her view on life.

Xiney

Thing is - feminism has given women the right to choose what they want their lives to be.

If some of them decide to be stay at home mothers, breastfeeding and washing cloth nappies... well, then... that is their choice so go them, imo.

I just wish women could live their lives without looking down at other women for making a different choice.

LizT

Xiney wrote: »

I just wish women could live their lives without looking down at other women for making a different choice.

I think that's the problem. Most of seem to have this inherent bitchiness! Although I think some of it may also be due to jealousy. Let's face, no matter what decisions you make, you always wonder what would have happened if you went the other way. Well I do anyway!

I think you might be miss reading what the article is saying....a lot of women worry that they aren't good enough as mothers....instead of realising its not about being a good mother but its about being a GOOH ENOUGH mother....the information overload of modern society isn't helping...women feel under pressure to be the perfect parent..starting with breastfeeding as per the world health organisation guidelines...then there is the horror storied of the emotional damage a creche could do to your child..guilt at being a working mother...and so on...the article was just trying to say hang on a minute where is all this coming from...

metrovelvet

mariaalice wrote: »

I think you might be miss reading what the article is saying....a lot of women worry that they aren't good enough as mothers....instead of realising its not about being a good mother but its about being a GOOH ENOUGH mother....the information overload of modern society isn't helping...women feel under pressure to be the perfect parent..starting with breastfeeding as per the world health organisation guidelines...then there is the horror storied of the emotional damage a creche could do to your child..guilt at being a working mother...and so on...the article was just trying to say hang on a minute where is all this coming from...

Exaclty. The article is pointing out all this contemporary pressure to be perfect and if you are not what they deem as perfect then you are a bad mother/woman. Its the new stepford wives.

Xiney

Xiney wrote: »

Thing is - feminism has given women the right to choose what they want their lives to be.

If some of them decide to be stay at home mothers, breastfeeding and washing cloth nappies... well, then... that is their choice so go them, imo.

I just wish women could live their lives without looking down at other women for making a different choice.

no, no, I really don't think this is the point of the article.
She's talking about the pressures and how they can be made to feel inadequate for not doing x,y,z exactly as told.
It's even emphasised in the lines -

Le Conflit , perhaps more than any of her books, is addressed to women – a cri de coeur to resist the stifling pressure to conform to a single ideal of what’s natural and right. “Do what you want!” is how she sums up the book’s message

Xiney

yeah - exactly. Like women who put their kids into creches and bottle feed and so on - why can't women who want to do differently not look down on them and vice versa?

I think this goes beyond feminism really - it's a question of different life paths and accepting that other people will have other dreams.

Xiney

Xiney wrote: »

yeah - exactly. Like women who put their kids into creches and bottle feed and so on - why can't women who want to do differently not look down on them and vice versa?

I think this goes beyond feminism really - it's a question of different life paths and accepting that other people will have other dreams.

I'm confused if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the article now

Xiney

I'm disagreeing that the two "camps" or whatever you want to call it are on opposing sides necessarily - I think they just ARE because they want to think they're right and the other side is wrong. Which is wrong.

southsiderosie

The thing that makes me crazy is that so much of that pressure seems to come from other holier-than-thou mothers. I don't even have kids, and when I hear some of these sanctimonious women *I* want to tell them to **** off. Guess what: most kids will survive without hand-mashed organic peas or a $700 pram. And they will certainly live without their ridiculous mother hanging over then 24-7. As long as the kids are reasonably healthy well behaved, and mommy is reasonably sane, that should be good enough. Grrr...

IndigoStarr

I think that a lot of people forget that it isn't feminism, it's feminisms. Feminism means different things to many different people. Some women choose to stay home and mind children, while others choose to go out and work and some do both.

However, I do think that the modern media has completed fetishised motherhood. Women with careers are often depicted as dried up or "ball-breakers" and we're constantly shown images of perfect mothers, who aren't stressed or strained in any way, which I doubt is the reality of minding children.

There is choice, but one side looks nicer than the other in the eyes of the modern media.

pickarooney

The massive contradiction that is the woman is summed up neatly in her own words:

In a way, she has. When Badinter published her taboo-breaking book attacking the idea of a maternal instinct in 1980, feminism was much more cohesive than it is today. “Most women of my generation thought the same thing. There was a united front,” she says. But now feminism is in crisis, she believes, because it has split two ways.

The notion that all women should have the same thought process or risk the implosion of feminism is preposterous and completely at odds with many of the assertions she tries to make about freedom of choice. Her whole approach is moot given that, for example, breast-feeding in France has about a 50% take-up rate, exemplifying freedom of choice, which is surely what feminism, and every other -ism, is all about.

LittleBook

Eugh, more of this "be my kind of feminist or you're not a real feminist" bull, and extremist bull to boot!

resist the stifling pressure to conform to a single ideal of what’s natural and right

The most stifling pressure I’ve seen inflicted on women by so-called feminists over the past 20 years, has been the pressure to be everything … a career woman, a wife, a mother. Screw empowerment and personal choice, you have to want it all and be it all, just because you can have it all. And god help the woman who chose to stay at home with her kids, talk about betraying the sisterhood.

I wasn't even sure if the article was representing her views correctly until:

"Do what you want. The book is not a critique of motherhood, it’s a critique of a new model of intensive, exclusive motherhood that’s starting to impose itself in France. I’m asking the question: Is that not damaging to a woman’s personal interests, and damaging to her own life as a woman?"

Do what you want, eh? In Badinter's eyes, any woman who chooses exclusive motherhood is damaging her personal interests and her life as a woman. It's OK to be the woman who "farms" out her kids in order to "get on with her life" but not to be the woman who chooses to stay home with her children. Nice. :rolleyes:

Nevyn

I am a full time stay at home parent, have been for the last 9 years, most likely will be for another 5 and I am still a feminist. I don't see how rearing my children in a postive manner and teaching them that sexism is wrong and not to prejudge people by gender and that they can if they wish work towards doing what they want in life no matter thier gender as being non feminist. Infact I would say it's pretty damn important feminist work.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am a full time stay at home parent, have been for the last 9 years, most likely will be for another 5 and I am still a feminist. I don't see how rearing my children in a postive manner and teaching them that sexism is wrong and not to prejudge people by gender and that they can if they wish work towards doing what they want in life no matter thier gender as being non feminist. Infact I would say it's pretty damn important feminist work.

Just as long as your not picking up after a slob all day. And this is what they see. A woman doing everything.

I reckon my son will either be a really good man or a total sexist pig because all he sees is women doing things, cleaning his bum, picking up his crap, cooking his dinner, taking care of him and giving him love and attention and also disciplining him. He will either grow up to expect this or grow up to appreciate more what women do.

He sees men on tractors or fixing things or the surgeons.

Nevyn

If a man has grown up with a stay at home mother and is incapable of fending for himself then to my mind she has failed him as a parent.

I am aware that they need to see men and women in a range of roles, and I do try to make sure that they do.