"Because breeding is defined as a natural act (which it is, but bare with me here), women are expected to blossom in pregnancy, or to at least be stoic when they don’t. Their sacrifices - physical, emotional, career - are also continually undervalued."

What a Martyr!

"This is not the result of feminism - this is the continued impact of a patriarchal culture that remains fundamentally unchanged at its core." PUKE!

Our western culture is based on a productive economic model, ever since the industrial revolution first took people off the land and into factories, where people needed to earn money to survive, instead of growing their own produce.

For every captain of industry who profited, so then did his wife and daughters.

Life after children is never the same as life before children. Life after children means experiencing the joys and challanges of being a parent. Children don't care about feminism, liberalism, patrairchy, politics or religion.

Children want to be loved and fed, played with and taught. They want to be dependant and independent. They fight and argue and hate you one minute and love you to death the next.

Nice article, Cristy. As a bloke and (grand)father I've long been aware of the inequitable demands made on women when they become mothers.

JamesH: "For every captain of industry who profited, so then did his wife and daughters."

Written like a true patriarch!

Great article Cristy. I share your view that feeling this way doesn't mean that feminism has been any less valuable. Also your experience was essentially mine. Ambivalence towards the implications of childbearing is a major taboo. It doesn't mean I love my child any less.

JamesH....kids do care about politics, religion, feminism, patriarchy and liberalism. And Lego, Thomas the Tank Engine, Play School and the park. All of these things are part of their world. To argue that kids have no understanding of the community they share with adults is pretty condescending.

Come on James. I'm aware of your views on feminism and the rights of fathers from earlier posts, but surely you acknowledge there are some pretty difficult situations for women going back to work after pregnancy.

What of the high costs of childcare?
Do you deny that in general there are higher expectations of women as parents than of men?

That comment CJ Morgan picked out from your post is pretty telling, whether you intended it that way or not.

But then, I suppose you'd say it's the men who are the victims right?

The loss you express so well in your article has been felt and denied and addressed by countless women. That you not know about this is one of Australia’s great mysteries! Many women have labelled our society “patriarchal”. Some of us have found that, in doing so, we put the initiative for action clearly in someone else’s court. We blame and go back to our isolation. That is not the answer. Neither is resignation. There is another way.

Motherhood is a source of great power. It is “biological”. It is “natural”. It is also unique. For each child there is one mother and one father and one pregnancy and birth. We inherit our identity from our parents: their social, economic, political, cultural and physical being influences our own. Every single human being in the world has been given birth to by a woman.

A pregnant woman is a power of nature. With emotional support and education she will change her family’s diet to improve health, clean up a singles flat and turn it into a home, exercise, and deal with an abusive partner. With emotional support and education her partner will support his pregnant wife. The only thing absent in Australian society is “how to”.

Where do you go to learn? In Australia, women have been working to educate midwives to educate women to live healthy lifestyles. Midwife literally means “with woman”. It is the role of a midwife to be with a woman throughout her pregnancy, birth and early motherhood. She is a special person in a young mother’s life. See http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au/ for details.

Fear is a very powerful force. But motherhood is more powerful. Cristy, come join us to make life better for ourselves and our daughters and sons. Motherhood is a personal journey. As you’ve found, it is also a social one. To begin it you must seek appetite, health, wisdom, beauty, joy, friends, loyalty and peace. Then you get to change the world

Great article Cristy. It's not often that women write things like this without feeling the need to speak in a wry, humourous tone, probably to offset the suggestion that pregnancy is a 'wonderful' experience.

I wrote a paper once on the idea of pregnancy being a disorder. The idea behind it was that the romanticisation of pregnancy ignored the reality of swollen feet, aching breasts, swelling bodies and instead focussed on the supposed glow that a woman gets from using her body to its fullest potential (read: the interpretation that pregnancy is the most amazing thing a woman can do with her body). Once the baby is born however, the woman morphs into a non-sexual entity - she leaks, drips, aches and sweats. By becoming a mother, she loses her sexual identity as a woman in the eyes of society. Worse, the sacrifice is expected to be okay because she is now experiencing the most glorious job of all.

James, given that you've never been pregnant, you might want to reserve your criticism of Cristy given that her article basically describes how she feels.

Good article Christy, and you are quite right that motherhood has been somewhat devalued in society (in practice more so than in sentiment) when it should be held and treated as one of the most important and vital roles, as it is crucial to the growth and persistance of the society itself.
I would venture that the reason for any undervaluing of the job of nuturing our future successors is more the emphasis on economic growth and industrial productivity that our society favours, rather than any latent sexism or antiquated patriarchal culture that you suggest exists. Then again perhaps this economic emphasis indeed stems from patricarchal mindsets of the past that falsely placed more importance on the role of provider than the role of nuturer?
Whatever the causes, more should be done in our society to officially restore the importance and esteem of nurturing and give it the proper status and rewards it deserves in whatever suitable form that may take.

Great article, took me back to my own pregnancies 16 and 19 years ago.
Without wanting to concern you unduly but on the belief that forewarned is forearmed, may I prepare you for the fact that it gets worse before it gets better - though it does, eventually, get much, much better.
Every woman I have ever known finds that her self esteem plummets when she becomes a mother. If it falls low enough, she may find herself experiencing post natal depression, which didn't happen to me, thank God, but did to many of my friends.
I don't quite know why this occurs, but it does. Partly it is because far more than giving birth to a child, you give birth to yourself as a mother - a brand new person, and it is hard to have high esteem for someone you hardly yet know, even if she is walking around in your old body. Partly it is because you kind of disappear behind the pram you push. I disappeared to myself. I'd walk into a shop and not know what sort of clothes to buy because I didn't know how I was supposed to look now, I didn't know what sort of magazine to buy -Vogue etc were no longer interesting, but the Women's Weekly didn't appeal either. Half my friends disappeared, work dried up and I struggled to fill the endless day. I adored my daughters and (secretly) resented them at the same time. Yet, I wouldn't have missed the experience for the world and now that I have gotten to know the me who is a mother (amongst a whole lot of other things) quite well, I esteem her very highly indeed. As, no doubt, will you. But, like most that is worthwhile, the journey that is motherhood is both transforming and one of the hardest things you will ever do.

I am sorry to say, but this article is nonsense. James and Donnie above have more sound views on the issue; if it even is one, as the writer frames it: "The real issue for me, however, is identity." Huh?

I fail to see how Rivezblahblah can NOT see motherhood and pregnancy as an issue of identity. I can only assume that it must be a man, because any woman would recognise the sharing of her body and the subsequent constant devotion of her time an issue of changing identity.

Ena, that comment was extraordinary. It's rare to see mothers talking about things like that. I wish that there was more open discussion about the more identity-based difficulties in mothering, rather than the usual humour driven drivel used as a vehicle to cover what it is most women probably want to say.

Brooke Shields gave a fabulously frank and open interview on Oprah about her own post-natal depression. I must say, I find the prospect of it terrifying.

To Audrey Apple:

To Audrey Apple:

"I fail to see how Rivezblahblah can NOT see motherhood and pregnancy as an issue of identity. I can only assume that it must be a man."

Well "it" -- I mean "I" -- did not say I could not "see" the point being made. I simply said there is no issue to be had. I mean if I think this article is nonsense, what do you think most would think of your "idea of pregnancy being a disorder." Seriously its fun to hypothesise stuff, but if there is an issue to be had with pregnancy it definitely is NOT "identity" or nonsense like it being a "disorder". At least talk about maternity or paternity leave, for example, something which many Australians do not have...

In giving birth we are re-born. Nothing can prepare a mother (or father) for that moment when that beautiful little bundle, wrapped tightly in a too large blanket, is in her arms. There is a completeness that wasn't there before and a hole in your heart that you didn't even know existed previously, is filled. Suddenly it is impossible to remember life before the baby's arrival. "But how can that be so?", you wonder aloud.

Cristy, just go with the flow, because that is enough and it is all any of us can do. Enjoy the experience and live the transition to the full. Immerse yourself and you will be pleasantly shocked how much you will experience and learn. There is a whole new life opening up for you and as a thinking, active woman the ball is at your toe.

Great piece Cristy! I hope that you settle into the flow and enjoy a bonny healthy baby that grows up to be a credit to you and your family.

I have heard some real horror stories about very uncomfortable pregnancies where the mother absolutely struggles to keep the baby inside until its full term and I have seen some really problematic children that I would never have liked to have owned/parented. Ignoring the bad or unlucky trivialises the great strain that every pregnant woman puts her body under. Blaming the parent for throwing a wrong 'un is most unfair when can simply be just the baby's nature.

If we are serious about supporting women to have more children then we must pay decent wages, provide access decent affordable child care and affordable housing.

“I say all this as a truly lucky person. I have a scholarship that provides paid maternity leave, a wonderfully supportive husband and extended family, and the freedom to go back part-time and to work from home - and, above all, I happen to love children and to genuinely want to be a mother.”

So where’s the problem Cristy? Getting older, gaining too much responsibility, loss of appeal to opposite sex? Hormones?

“This is not the result of feminism - this is the continued impact of a patriarchal culture that remains fundamentally unchanged at its core. Workplaces are still built around the idea that there is a good women at home taking care of the household. Childcare is expensive and waiting lists are long. Maternity leave is not provided for most Australian workers, and part-time work is difficult to secure.”

Yes, that must be it. Patriarchy has made childcare too expensive for female PhD candidates and fellows alike. If only feminism would encourage more men into childcare and/or social fathering by live-in house-husbands in the home. The fact that not many women want to do it, or that men are not allowed to, couldn’t possibly be reflected in costs. Human rights huh?

TY for the compliment CJ.

Although I must confess I fail rather miserabley in the patriarchial stakes. If I am a patriach then I am a very poor imitation.

CJ, I'd like to invite you around so that you tell my kids I am the patriarch. Better do it whilst the missus is out shopping if you want to live to an old age.

It wasn't that long ago when especially for middle and upper class women, pregnancy was regarded as a delicate condition and they were not allowed to do alot of things such as psychical activity and then after delivery mothers were kept in bed for around 10 days to recuperate.

Each culture has it own rituals around motherhood. For example in some cultures this is women's business and men are kept out. Now is that matriarchial or patriarchial?

Now before I became a father, I could pack up, quit jobs and simply move house without much problem. Fly off on a holiday, go skiing or fishing whenever I want to or just simply go out for dinner and spend a couple of hundered.

Now I cant simply take a holiday from work or pack my bags and just move to perth or darwin. My choices have been limited by becoming a parent. Now that the kids are older I take them fishing, but skiing is out of the question because I am not a very wealthy patriarch.

To me the biggest joy of parenthood is watching the kids grow and develope as they learn new skills, sure sometimes it drives me batty whilst they are practising, but then that is how they learn.

Hi Cristy – interesting article. I am going through much the same situation lately. I had a baby 6 months ago, and since then, two things have hit me really hard – first, how much I love my little bundle of joy and how much I love spending time with him. Secondly, I can’t get over how much I feel like a completely different person. My body feels like it’s just a different thing to what it was before. I also worry how I’m ever going to get back to my PhD studies. Like you, I feel like my identity is being taken over by being a “mother” and I find that troubling. It’s startling to find people generally react to you as a “mother” now. In the same situations, people react and speak to me differently than they did before. When you’re a mother, almost all communication focuses on the baby. It’s depressing to be around people who no longer ask your opinion on current events, as it’s assumed I have no interest, or have no time to do anything outside mothering.

I agree that motherhood and all the sacrifices and choices surrounding it are undervalued. I have been called a “natural mother” on several occasions, and while I know people mean it as a compliment, it sits uneasily on me, and it’s an expression I really dislike. Everything I do with my baby comes not just from a deep “motherly” love, but also from sheer hard work and a conscious effort to try to do the right thing, by reading, talking, listening and finding out as much as I can about developing babies. The idea that all this comes “naturally” underestimates and undervalues how much work women put into being good mothers.

Personally, I think every mother deserves an honorary PhD. But then we’d probably be undervaluing something else.

It is interesting how motherhood changes your perspective.

Funnily enough, some of the people who have been least supportive of me since I had my child have been women who think I should just get straight back to work. You see, once I had my child, I found that I loved her so much that I wanted to spend as much time with her as possible. But some women have inferred that because I want to spend time with my baby, I must be some kind of brainless idiot, and that I am a traitor to the sisterhood. So I think that the problems women face are actually more complicated than just sexism and the patriarchy. Some strands of modern feminism have some pretty inflexible adherents who don't seem to want to admit the ways in which becoming a mother might change the things you can do, or want to do. To enjoy being a mother is a "weakness". Of course, that's not all women or all strands of feminism, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.

On the other hand, I agree with you that this government's rhetoric on family values is just a lot of hogswash. I have found it very difficult balancing work, study and child, and my husband and I have struggled financially. I get very angry when Peter Costello exhorts me to "have another one for the country" - does he realise how difficult it is to bear and bring up a child? Obviously NOT.

My advice to you is to enjoy your baby as much as possible. My baby is now starting to talk ("Mum, mum", "Dad, dad", "Doggy!", "Num") and it is just adorable. The first few weeks are hard, but after that it just gets better and better (presumably, until my darling hits teenagerhood!)

I must say I found the first few weeks of motherhood remarkably easy. Yes, there were worries over breastfeeding correctly, and there were the sleepless nights, but all the baby wanted to do was sleep all day, so I was left wondering what I could do. To make matters worse I had a c-section, so couldnt actually do much around the house for a while either. It gets harder once the baby is more alert and active (read demanding)!

One of the majority issues of (impending) motherhood IS one of identity. Not only does the rest of the world approach you differently, but you see yourself differently too. YOu might see yourself in a rosy fuzzy wonderful view of blossoming motherhood, you might see yourself very clinically, you might hate the changes that are happening to you. You may welcome your new role, or you might pine for your old life (or both!). One thing is for certain, you do change. And that change can take quite a bit of getting used to. And you can be made to feel incredibly bad by both men and women for actual or perceived shortcomings (or for not feeling/thinking/acting in a certain way)

It seems that nowadays, anything that interferes with our lifestyle is an assault on our freedom. We have people (of both sexes) writing endless tracts about how hard done by they are, because they have to work/pay mortgages/have babies, etc.

How about a little perspective? What do you think it would have been like 100 years ago (or even 50 years ago) if you were living on a farm in the middle of nowhere, where your entire life was defined by 12-14 hours of manual work for very little reward, irrespective of your gender, race, etc?

Or how about ethnic migrants (my parents, for example), who came here with only a suitcase of clothes, who worked labour intensive jobs for most of their lives, who raised children, who paid mortgages, who dealt with discrimination, language issues, little formal education, etc., who were not provided with welfare, did not have family here to help, yet consider themselves some of the luckiest people alive, and have a positive attitude to life?

Sometimes I wonder whether all this moaning about essentially trivial and everyday events is a sign of a very sick society that has lost its way. We are now so wealthy that even joyous events are seen as some sort of terrible task that the world has thrust upon us. For all the talk in cultural studies about 'pathologisation', it seems that cultural studies is the most guilty party, in pathologising what are essentially 'normal' activities.

Is life really such a struggle? How about people who worked a 12 hour day in a factory and then went on to a night cleaning job in order to earn enough money to pay the mortgage, all while trying to raise kids? Did that 'interfere' with their lifestyle?

If you wanted to design an environment that was hostile to young women with infants you couldn't go far past what we have already. Of course most workplaces do not have the conditions that would help but the fundamentals are not there in the community either. Try handling children and shopping in cities and you will quickly see what I mean. Would it really truely hurt local government to have family friendly facilities in shopping areas? The facilities that suit the very young also help the older citizen who wants to get around.

What about suburb design? People have been asking for designs to promote socialising and interaction for years. Even Council libraries have made only minimal concessions to parents with little children.

In closing I think it should be acknowledged that interrupting a career for family is not well received by some who regard themselves as feminists and a lot of sledging goes on. The feminist elite lobbies for only those government initiatives that 'best fit' their feminist ideals and regrettably this can include obstructing or derailing change that could help many women. Feminism should be concerned with helping women realise all of their potential and that includes raising families.

When did anyone last hear a feminist fighting for well-appointed infant change, rest and feeding facilities in parks and shopping centres? The answer is never. What about family friendly transport systems? No, they are not interested in that either.

Cornflower, hear hear about the the family friendly shopping facilities. I am pleased to be able to say that the Coles supermarket that has just opened up in our town has made a step in the right direction. Next door to the disabled parking areas are a few bays marked for use by "cars with prams". Not everything (eg there is no baby change area that I have been able to find), but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Cornflower, It has only been feminists who have worked for baby friendly initiatives in hospitals (why was it necesary?), supermarkets (Breastfeeding Mothers Assocation), urban planning etc etc. What seems to have happened is that once a feminist becomes a mother, she ceases to be thought of as a feminist and the bigger and more demanding identity of "mother" takes over. There has been a lot of feminists working to make the whole of women's, men's, and children's lives rewarding and enjoyable (Maternity Coalition, Home Midwifery Assoc. and their international counterpart bodies have inherited a huge legacy). What hasn't happened well is passing on this knowledge from one generation of women to the next. Shopping centre managers didn't miraculously begin to install parenting rooms. Mothers argued and costed and negotiated with babies and prams in tow. They wouldn't have had the passion to do it if they weren't feminists.

Cornflower I know that women are often their own worst enemies but why do you say that feminists deride women who take time off their careers to raise their chldren.

Many women find they are in careers where they have to work full time, if not all hours of the day and night and if they leave for 2 years to raise children they must retrain into another occupation. Its not women who make these rules, but women do tell other women what the state of play is. Women tell other women that they are in a "strange occupation for a woman".

I think that the new workchoices legislation will do wonders for the australian birth rate as families can't afford to rear their existing children on dimishing real wages, families will have fewer children as their fear for their economic well being rises, families will start having children later as the lowering of wages and uncertainty about employment adds further pressures on family life and the lives of all members of society.

Yes its feminists who demanded that child care centres be set up, demanded that women earn equal pay and be able to access permanent employment. The 25%+ australian children growing up in single parent families must be grateful they aren't living on less money. Hopefully the next wins will be state run kindergartens for all 4 year olds and adequate access to respite care for families with disabled children.

Gekko – you’re missing the point. This is not a discussion about who has the hardest life, or a “feel sorry for me” moan, obviously my life is not hard compared to probably most people in the world. I am ecstatic about being a mother and, while still considering myself a feminist, am throwing myself into being a full-time mother with gusto. I consider myself very lucky that I have a supportive husband who is happy for me to raise our kids and complete my PhD at the same time.

This is a discussion about identity, how it changes and how that effects your life. Regardless of your lifestyle, having a baby changes your identity dramatically in ways that you are not aware of until you actually become a mother. To be aware of this and reflect on it helps us to understand what’s going on and to live with the changes. Becoming a mother doesn’t “interfere” with your lifestyle – it changes it completely. There are some aspects of this change that you revel in, some that you find hard and others that come as a shock.

Re the discussion about family friendly facilities – I currently live in Tokyo, and the facilities here for families are amazing. My local department store has a very comfortable feeding room (comfy chairs, feeding pillows, microwave etc) and a huge change room, as well as a sitting room for parents. It’s really fantastic, and most big shopping centres are the same. I have no car here, and getting around on public transport with a pram is pretty easy and stress-free. It is so much better than what I see when I come home to Sydney. It seems incongruous that Japan is still very much a patriarchal society and yet these facilities used mostly by women are so much better.

(btw – Eno – thanks for your insightful comment re giving birth to a new person and needing to get to know that person – that’s a really positive way to look at it)

Allison (or is it Cristy?), a few points in response.

1. Perhaps my post was oblique, but the point I was trying to make is that you discuss the changing nature of identity when becoming a mother. However, your discussion is contextualised through the lens of feminism and how pregnancy somehow exposes you to sexism (?). To the untrained eye, the implication is that the changes brought about by pregnancy are a 'bad' thing.
2. You pathologise pregnancy as if it were a medical condition with your long discussion of how horrible you feel (ok, technically it is a medical condition to be pregnant, but then, the process of eating can also be characterised in medical terms, as can anything we do with the body).
3. You suggest that society devalues motherhood. Yet this attitude was largely institutionalised by feminists. Motherhood was seen by second wave feminism as some sort of subjugation to patriarchy.
4. Most importantly, at the end of the day, so what if your 'identity' changes? My point (again, obliquely) was that many people have their 'identity' changed every day, through decisions that are out of their control, yet they don't spend their life wringing their hands about it.

Firstly, a hearty congratulations to all on this forum who are pregnant.

Secondly, surely more expensive child care hurts both men and women. Whether patriarchy or excesses of feminism are at fault, the sooner this society values a woman’s right to choose whether to be a childless careerist, working mother, or stay at home mother, the better.

Thirdly, to every woman who wants a career I say go ahead, be my guest. Take it. You can have it. I'll give you my job. Honestly, I'll introduce you to my boss. She's really great. I understand that for the first period of a baby's life it should spend most time with the mother, but after that, if you like, I'll take care of things at home. I love kids. I love cooking. As long as you don't mind a bit of mess. I’m not saying looking after kids isn’t hard. It’s far more demanding than my job. (And I am not suggesting that a male’s lot is harder than a woman’s. If a bloke tells you that, if he could, he’d do the pregnancy, birth, and breast-feeding for you, he’s lying.)

But ask most guys with a career why they have one you’d get an overwhelming response- to support my family (either single or double income families,) or to save to have one. When a man becomes a father his identity changes along with his partner, and the weight of responsibility upon him increases forever. I think Allison is incorrect in suggesting that men’s “autonomous hopes and dreams are rarely taken away from them just because they chose to breed.”

I'm a musician. I have a band, and the required casual job that goes with it. I would love nothing more than to play music all my days and, if possible, make a living from it- who cares if I have to live frugally. But I know when I get married and have kids, I will be expected to get a real job (or at least teach a bit of piano.)

From where do such expectations arise?

Dozer, that's a great point about fathers. I was talking with my dad just the other day and he said that I don't understand the pressure that (good) fathers feel to provide for their partners and children.

Rivez_Alvarez, I apologise, 'it' was actually a typo. I meant to say 'they'. However, I'd like to ask if you've ever been pregnant. If you haven't, I fail to see how you can label Cristy's personal feelings as 'nonsense' given that she's the one whose body and life is changing.

“I was talking with my dad just the other day and he said that I don't understand the pressure that (good) fathers feel to provide for their partners and children.”

Not that I consider the event unique at all, but this is one of the saddest lines I’ve read for a while. I wondered what your response may have been to your dad, and your reasons for having to qualify fatherhood in the way that you did. Call me cynical, but I doubt you would do so for motherhood – in your world, abortion is a brave motherly virtue; fathers are somewhat less than coincidental.

This would explain your dad’s need to make such a point. No?

audrey, good comments.

I've been pondering the article and trying to see if I've misunderstood it but so far I don't think so.

The author has an important topic, the experience of pregnancy. Something I will never experience. She starts into issues of the feelings and perceptions of identity and what that means to her, all good stuff. She expresses some concern about the mixed messages about the value placed on motherhood.

Unfortunately to get some parts of her message she seems to feel the need to dismiss mens experience as fathers. No need for her to write about that experience or defend it but there no need to suggest that our experiences as fathers don't also come as a mixed bag of joy and cost.

The author in a number of places seems to suggest that men have it much easier when it comes to being parents. I started countering those points and decided it read like a whine and that's not what I wanted.

Simply put my life has gone through an ongoing series of changes since I found out that my then wife was pregnant. Some good, some not so good. Much of what the author writes about men is plainly wrong for those of us who take fatherhood seriously.

All parents who take the role seriously will find lifes opportunities and options in differing places to the ones which were there before parenthood became part of our lives. It's one of the joys and curses of being grown up.

Spend some time pondering it so that you understand what is happening but don't assume that sombody elses experience is less impacting because their road is different.

R0bert

"I wondered what your response may have been to your dad, and your reasons for having to qualify fatherhood in the way that you did."

I suppose I was taken aback by it mainly because my father doesn't really discuss his feelings, and his revelation came after watching a particularly schmaltzy family moment in a Robin Williams film. I qualified fatherhood as I did because I would classify all men that try and provide for their children as being good fathers - those that don't have any interest can be nothing but bad fathers. I know that my own father provides for his family - but given that he rarely acknowledges that it was interesting to hear him give an insight into the responsibility he feels.

"Call me cynical, but I doubt you would do so for motherhood – in your world, abortion is a brave motherly virtue; fathers are somewhat less than coincidental."

Rubbish. You've taken my views and experience entirely out of context. I never said I was brave and I certainly don't equate abortion with maternal virtues - I equate it with the fundamental right of any woman to govern her body. As that is not exclusively tied to motherhood, how could I possibly consider abortion a 'brave motherly virtue'? Fathers aren't coincidental to the matter; hopefully, a woman who has an unexpected pregnancy will also have a partner that she can discuss the matter with although we know that isn't always true. Perhaps they can together decide, taking both their feelings into account, what to do about it. However, if a woman is adament about having an abortion, I'm afraid her partner's wishes don't really come into it because it is her pregnant body in question.

"This would explain your dad’s need to make such a point. No?"

No. My father's views on abortion are identical to mine. I can safely say he considers an unwanted pregnancy to have nothing to do with his idea of fatherhood.

Thanks Audrey.

“I know that my own father provides for his family - but given that he rarely acknowledges that it was interesting to hear him give an insight into the responsibility he feels.”

For more insight, I would recommend Will Smith’s “The Pursuit of Happyness”.

As for your dad’s need to make the point, I meant no link with abortion – just you apparent attitudes to parenthood, gender roles, rights and responsibilities. Had he perceived your appreciation of his role and pressures experienced by all (good) fathers, he would not have made the statement, nor would you have claimed new insight. Hopefully he was able to sense some recognition this time.

Audrey, "those that don't have any interest can be nothing but bad fathers" - I'm often left wondering how many of them would be better described as unwitting fathers. Ones who did not want to have a child but found themselves as fathers anyway. There are a variety of reasons why that might happen, many of the same ones which apply to women. The following are general comments on this rather than a reflection of where I think that you are coming from.

They may still be bad fathers, each of us has a choice about what we do with the consequences of our actions. Sometimes we just have to make the best of it and in the case of parenthood that means doing our best for kids (planned or unplanned).

For many of the same reasons that women choose to end a pregnancy (excluding the pregnancy itself) some men would rather not be fathers right now, the difference is that they don't in the end have a lot of choice once the initial act is done.

I suspect that a lot of people don't understand just how parenthood impacts on men, both those choosing to be parents and those who would rather not.

One of the consequences is that a lot of people are quite happy to villify men who don't fullfill what we think their responsibilities should be.

Biological fathers who don't want kids (and may not have had any say in the matter other than the initial act) are called deadbeat dads or bad dads. C$A meets with approval as it attempts to make them meet their "responsibilities" regardless of how little choice they may have had in the matter.

Many who are outraged when women who have either had abortions or given children up for adoption are attacked for their choices quite willingly villify men for trying to opt out.

R0bert

I have been away or I would have engaged earlier, but I wanted to say Thank you for your comments.

To the women with whom this struck a cord: I am glad that it did. Thank you for sharing your own experiences with me. The main point of my post was to express my feeling that I had been largely unprepared for many of the feelings that I was experiencing because I had not been privileged to share the similar feelings of other women before my own pregnancy. The post was actually written as a reaction to the posts (and comments threads) of Ampersand Duck, Zoe and Pavlov's Cat - all of which had just demonstrated to me that I actually wasn't alone in having those feelings.

To the guys who were outraged at the 'gall' of my expressing my own feelings on my own personal blog (for that is where this article was written), perhaps it is you that should get over yourselves. The fact that other people have experienced similar issues was the whole point, and the fact that still more people experience other challenges in life is kind of beside the point - such a line of reasoning simply makes everyone's personal experience completely irrelevant unless they can qualify in your eyes as being the 'most' badly off or 'most' lucky or whatever it is that you have decided to set up as the criteria for relevance. I am really not concerned with whether or not you care about my feelings - you were never my audience.

The word "breeders" if I recall correctly, was used in a derogatory sense by that group of people who support human rights and social justice ad nausem, when it suits their agenda.

'... and that non-feminist women are derided as "domesticated females" or even "breeders".'

The issue about the changes a female body goes through with pregnancy seems to be related to the fact that many women delay getting pregnant until their 30's and because of the falling birth rate, many do not have contact with pregnant women, to be exposed to the changes so it can be a shock to experience this without understanding what is happening. As such many people do not have exposure to babies, until their own is born, so dealing with such a small infant is life changing and the learning curve is huge.

Many women I have spoken to have found their first experience of child birth frightening.

Successive governments have failed in the past, to make child care FTB exempt. Child care placement is especially difficult for shift workers.

It is interesting that most of the flack about not returning to work early enough or returning too early comes from other women.

It doesn't matter if you are a mother or a father, university study becomes harder when a little person comes along, they don't understand about deadlines or study.

Cristy, somewhere in Uni Library is a paper on child birth in Tibet, if you think western women have it hard the read the paper on Tibet.

KerryMcG said, “It has only been feminists who have worked for baby friendly initiatives in hospitals ….supermarkets (Breastfeeding Mothers Assocation), urban planning etc etc. “

That is not correct, these changes resulted from community action and involved both concerned men and women. Unions were heavily involved.

Since when was the ABA (formerly Nursing Mothers assocn) or the (original) Association of Breastfeeding Mothers run by feminists? Where in its charter (see below) does it say that and where does it exclude men?

"WHO ARE THE ASSOCIATION OF BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS?
The Association of Breastfeeding Mothers (ABM) is a voluntary organisation founded in 1979 by a group of mothers experienced in breastfeeding counselling. Charity status was awarded to the organisation in 1980, and the Association continues to grow steadily throughout the United Kingdom.
As we are a charitable organisation we rely on grants, donations and membership subscriptions to continue our aims. We also work hard to minimise our costs and justify all of our expenditure.
Members of the ABM are mainly mothers who are breastfeeding or have breastfed their children in the past. Some breastfed easily without problems and some have experienced varying degrees of difficulty. Other members include supportive health professionals such as midwives, health visitors, lactation consultants and GPs.
"It is our aim to promote the physical and psychological health of mothers and children through education in the techniques of breastfeeding, and to advance the education of the public, especially those persons concerned with the care of children, on the health benefits of breastfeeding, both immediate and long-term."

Where are the feminist mantras in that?

Hi Cornflower
Gloria Stein did a lot of work, as have many feminists, on clearly defining feminism. With Marilyn Waring, from NZ, and Robyn Morgan, she was in an international network, established at the Mexico conference, to advance the ability of women to live full and happy lives. Marilyn went back and entered Parliament, eventually crossed the floor on the nuclear issue and has changed the face of the world as a result. The definition I memorised (please check it) was that “feminism is about enabling men, women and children to reach their full potential”. This has been the touchstone of my life.
Mothering is very much a part of men’s, women’s and children’s lives. “To promote the physical and psychological health of mothers and children” is core to enabling all people to reach their full potential. It is at the core of feminism. To be free and satisfied, women and men express ourselves in the fullness of our biological being. Perhaps it’s time for me to write that book “Sisters, It’s ALL about biology”. Cheers

Those male posters that have expressed their annoyance that this article and subsequent approving posts by women dont address the fathers perspective, really should pull out a finger and write an article on fatherhood. I'm serious. You have a valid point, but you cant expect a woman to write about the experiences of fatherhood, so you are just going to have to do it yourself. Actually particularly interesting would be from a single father. If my own father was more literate, I'd see if he'd write one - he raised 3 girls on his own, an absolutely mammoth job. His attempts to explain the mysteries of "cycles" was hilarious and touching (although somewhat embarassing for both of us at the time) - I got left to do the two younger girls.

So come on, I'd love to see it.

Country Girl good suggestion, one I've pondered at times but lacked the confidence in my writing skills to tackle.

I have no expectation of the author to write about mens experience but do consider that her dismissal of mens experiences in the article was unnecessary.

The tone of the article and the subsequent post suggest to me that the author is the type of feminist who sees men through the lens of stereotype and feels that the way to address womens issues is to kick men down.

R0bert

KerryMcG

Whilst i might not disagree with you opn what feminism should be -in particular it should be inclusive of men and it should be more tolerant- that is not the view of the feminist intellectual elite who post here. I would suggest that modern feminists are hung up on gender and the rights of the individual (as opposed to obtaining some community benefit).

You mentioned midwives and I am aware of the feminist interest in this area. I would not agree that their intrusions to date have always been helpful and intending consumers should be aware of certain policies of such units, including cherry picking only the best (young, healthy, likely problem free births). Such intrusions have also served to create distrust between medical professionals and prospective parents and this is not in the best interests of the public and especially women in the country. Taking the last mentioned, if something goes awry, the woman and child are a long way from help and resusitation.

Cornflower,

I know a bunch of (male and female) feminists who do nothing BUT advocate for adequate parenting support.

Mother/father are not inconsistent with feminist. I'm both, and so is my partner. And our three year old seems pretty happy.

Also, I'm not sure who you think the feminist elite is...but last time I checked they were pretty keen on women having choices: and those choices include staying home (hence their opposition to Welfare to Work), going to work, going shopping, staying home, or frankly whatever women decide is best for them and their families.

Scorn is a personal thing, it's not an entrenched agenda. for example, just as you'd ask me not to judge you as a mother (and I wouldn't, I am one too and lord knows I could use the leave-pass), I'd ask you not to judge me as a feminist by some stereotype of what that term means.

that's all, really.

I tried to post this yesterday as the second half of my comment, but instead I managed to post the first half twice and was thus barred from finishing under the 'two posts every 24 hours" rule...

I am quite confused by the guys who have objected to my post on the grounds that men also struggle with the identity issues that come with becoming a new parent and will the new levels of responsibility that parenthood entails. Of course they do! However, my husband is a perfectly articulate human being (with whom I share my blog) and perfectly capable of expressing those issues himself. I am at a loss to understand why you think that I ought to try to summarise his experiences and feelings in my own post when he can surely do a better job himself.

If you believe that by calling this a feminist issue I sought to invalidate or trivialize the experiences of men, then you and I have very different understandings of feminism. I believe that men suffer just as much from the rigid gender identities and roles that we continue to impose on people in our society and that one of the main aims of feminism is to challenge that imposition for the benefit of both men and women. Feminism is not code word for "women's issues"; it is a political movement with specific goals and objectives. Unfortunately, it is also quite a fragmented movement in many respects and so those goals are not always coherent or consistent, but that is a story for another day...

I am sure Cristy's feelings are real whilst she struggles to complete her Ph'd fighting against the patrairchial oppression and sexism and at the same time dealing with the change in her body image.

I recalled the other day a friend who was so desperate to have a baby, that she was prepared not only to put her health on the line, but her life as well.

Against medical advice she choose to continue her pregnancy, she even had a stroke which made her dysphasic and at one point she became so ill that she was admitted to Intensive Care, still she choose to continue the pregnancy.

Both she and the baby survived and she has a healthy boy. Fortunately for most western women they are not faced with such a life and death dilemma's.

And when compared to the third world we do not really have to worry much about the survival rate of our children where in the third world a large percentage do not even see their third birthday. We worry about luxuries such as child care and maternity leave, Ph'ds and careers.

I guess the work of the culture of patriarchial oppressors in this country has had nothing to do with improving the health outcomes and survival rates of our children.

Here we go, again.

Patriarchal conspiracy theories.

"Its all about me."

What a surprise.

For example your paid MATERNITY leave agitprop speaks for itself. You realise that there are two parents and one is prolly a man? You realise that there are a lot of men who would welcome the opportunity for equally paid patertinty leave? Better still call it PARENTAL leave. Gender specific labelling alienates a natural ally, speaks to female chauvinistic (gender based superiority) view of motherhood. You think we cant see this?

Switzerland has 1yr parental leave for EACH parent. With job/position waiting upon return.

Try taking a broad, INCLUSIVE perspective that doesnt alienate the 'other' sex behind the usual littany of latent hostility. Check ideological pretensions at the door. Lacks credibility. People dont like that. Especially the one's you claim are responsible and need to do more to 'fix' things the way YOU want them.

Your incessant adherence to 'us and them' perspective is your biggest obstacle.

You keep sending this message that women are poor little happless victims and men are evil patriarchal oppressors who can scarcely keep their rape extensions zipped. You betray your own philosophy with that attitude.

Inherently exclusionary tact and constant parading of ideological cliches betrays your calls for positive change.

Ok, going on a bender here. In this place there are many self proclaimed feminists who seem oblivious to their ideological herstories. Some elementary pointers that the founding mothers prothletised (this stuff is your ideolgical bedrock)...
1. patriarchy conspires to oppress women,
2. marriage and motherhood = primary means of said oppression
3. women will only be free and equal by eliminating marital families, hence no fault divorce and sytematic devaluation of motherhood since the 70s (a tact changed somewhat now that fems realise inherent power of monopolising all aspects of procreation),
4. parents perpetuate limited gender roles when they raise their own kids, thus gender role indoctrination must be thwarted by having the state raise (indoctrinate) kids. Child care centres? Doctrinal state primary schooling (subtle and overt)?

Then feminists decry the obvious successes of their movement.

For why?

The absolute arrogance of men telling women what feminism is. Its also arrogant to tell the author how she ought to feel about HER pregnancy and HER changing self image.

Unless society has expected YOU to submerge your self in caring totally for someone else you can't even begin to understand the emotional side of pregnancy.

Cristy, if I've misunderstoof you then it is unintentional. Your article seems to suggest that men never face some of the issues you talk about and that is simply not the case. Many of the things you speak about are issues faced by men.

For a start many men struggle with being identified primarily as "breadwinner" - men who want to be active in their childrens lives and who face massive pressure to provide financially ahead of parenting.

As far as I'm aware my sons child care costs me no less than it costs women (in fact my ex used to get it for a fraction of what it costs me). My opportunities for further study are on hold for some time as I deal with the daily issues of parenting.

My career is limited by the requirements of parenting (I'm out of the office when others still have a couple of hours to go).

If you think that you have seen the full weight of societies sexism talk to some single dads who have had dealings with the family law system, C$A, Relationships Australia etc.

The issues you write about are worth writing about but from my perspective seemed to be tainted by a theme that men don't face similar issues. It's true that I'll never be pregnant, as for the rest the pressures may be different but they are still there and not necessarily any less significant.

billie, whilst I don't agree with some of the nay sayers in their views on feminism why should men be silenced about feminism? Cristy did choose to comment on men in her piece. Cristy may write whatever she likes but if she chooses to allow her work to be published on a public forum then her words are open to comment by anybody who abides by the forum rules. If a male had written a piece talking about how hard men have it and suggesting that women don't experience the similar issues would you consider it arrogance for women to comment?

R0bert

From every day feminism, men could mistakenly deduce that women are unlikely to see past their own numerous issues however apparently superficial, to feel any sympathy for their patriarchal oppressors - be they biological or social.

Your average Marxist princess reserves her right to comment on each of her attempted rescues – be it prince or state. Only she knows how she feels, and is therefore perpetually entitled to be disappointed or angry. Difficulty levels of any said rescue mission is no excuse for her ultimate perception of failure.

So why should we write about fatherhood, when its full-time practice, continues our slide backwards? Would taking time off provisioning to write about how we feel, be more noticeable for its dereliction of duties, or for its communication value? I wonder.

Present trends indicate that the prince is more likely to be the village idiot, and that the village more willing than ever to raise their child. I notice that in the US (and we can’t be much behind), for the first time ever, there is a majority of single women. Yes, that means more than 50% of adult women are single. Don’t know how many of them have PhD’s.

Hello Christy,

Um, great. Of course it's not your job to talk about men's experience. I was pointing out that I think you observation that men's "autonomous hopes and dreams are rarely taken away from them just because they choose to breed," is incorrect. Do you stand by this statement?

Being perfectly articulate, I think the comments section, which I regularly find as interesting as the articles themselves on OO, and important for thrashing out a few more ideas, to be the perfect place on which to challenge some of your assertions.

However, you and Country Gal are correct in suggesting we write our own articles. Do they let any old schmo write an article on this forum? I'd love to have a crack. I can assure you I won't lazily dismiss your comments on the grounds that you are not a part of my target audience. Although lying outside this exclusive grouping, I have found your comments and honesty refreshing and enlightening.

I was also making two other points in my post. Firstly, I think the concept of "having a career" is a little glorified and held up as a goal in itself by both sexes. A regular pay-check can provide autonomy, and being in the public sphere is empowering, but it can also tie you down in a monotony as bad as domestic confinement. Could some of the dissatisfaction with feminism/ its perceived lack of progress, be because employment isn't the pot of gold it was expected to be?

Secondly, I wanted to question where the expectation for a soon-to-be father to get a "real job" arises. I would suggest that equal pressure would come from society and the expecting mother. Would I be allowed to refuse my hypothetically pregnant wife's urging to pursue a more respectable career on the grounds that she was trying to impose the gender role expected of me in a patriarchal society?

Dozer and Robert, I certainly had no intention of dismissing the impact of becoming a parent on men. However, I will not take responsibility for the fact that you chose to read that into my post. That was certainly not the way that my husband read my post and I choose to trust his judgement over yours.

I do, however, stand by the quote that you selected out as proof of my prejudice Dozer. While men are effected in many ways by becoming a parent, their identity is rarely subjugated by that new identity (by society) in the same way as it is for women. I can't count the amount of women who have found that people stop talking to them about anything other than children once they have become a mother - thus dismissing their ability to have political thoughts or future career aspirations. That is a different impact and I have no interest in starting a competition on whether it is worse, better or the same as OTHER DIFFERENT impacts that men experience.

Finally, regarding leave: my husband does have access to paternity leave, which I think is fantastic and a sign that feminism is working in Australian society. I think that when we start truly accepting that the job of raising children is something that needs to be shared equality between men and women, and that society needs to support both men and women in that choice, then we will have a more equal and happy society. However, paternity leave is not the norm (and neither is maternity leave for that matter) and so our society is not there yet. Until it is, these issues will continue to arise for both men and women.

I, being a woman, will write about my own personal experience of those that impact on women. It would be presumptuous of me to try to sum up how it effects anyone else - let alone all men.

I have read and studied George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and there are so many parallels between how the story unfolds in Animal Farm and feminism, that it is scary.

The animals were promised the utopia of equality, but gradually and insidiously the rules get changed until the animals find that they are living in a totalitarian regime.

"The absolute arrogance of men telling women what feminism is. "

As a man whether I like it or not, feminism has affected my life in ways that many women choose not to understand.

They should expand their intellectual horizons beyond the narrow feminist propaganda and read other authors such a Daphne Patai, Christine Hoff Sommers, Melaine Phillips etc.

Myrna Blythe who wrote 'Spin Sisters' exposes how womens magazines continually sell misery and unhappiness to the female readers. when people read enough negative stories, they then begin to view the world through that negative lense.

Cristy chose to turn her article about pregnancy into a political statement.

Sure life after children becomes much more complicated with different decisions and choices to be made.

"while the choice to have a child receives a “baby bonus” and then nothing."

This is incorrect, as eligible families can recieve the family tax benefit A&B, rent assistance etc. Mind you the government does claw that back where families face high marginal tax rates.

JamesH,

this is getting off topic, but I think that one of the issues surrounding the social change of the last 30 years is that, as Dr. Rebecca Huntley claimed last year, "feminism has changed what it is to be a woman, but has been silent on what it is to be a man". I think this is probably right, but I also think that men have to take some responsibility for identifying their roles in society given that it seems unlikely that ALL women are able to participate in a society where they are not expected (or want to) work while raising their children.

As we've seen from just this limited discussion, some men are pretty disagreeable to the concept that women might tell them what their role is: my sense is that Cristy resisted the temptation to tell others "how it is" about their own lives, she sought to relay her personal experience.

More broadly, I don't think women have a problem with self-idenfication of roles - surely that's what we've been trying to achieve for some time now.

Feminism is anything you want it to be.

Dr Rebecca Huntley is not talking about prescriptive feminism, because that, it already is (or isn’t, depending on your favoured branch). I would have thought her comments were critical of its exclusionary tactics, questioning its development in a vacuum without men or children, but happy to use either as ideological tools. This approach at best, seems naïve, at worst, narcissistic. The movement’s fragmentation is understandable since its cornerstones were laid on a foundation of fiction.

When is a feeling not a feeling?

When its explained, analysed or otherwise INTELLECTUALISED. It ceases to be a feeling.

Prefixing a statement with the words 'l feel' does not change a STATEMENT into feeling.

Taking a breathe is not the same as explaining the biology of breathing.

Emotion and logic occupy different perceptual realms.

l understand the tendency to do it. Avoids being logical or making sense by hiding behind the defence that its a feeling, thus transcends reason (cannot be right nor wrong). LOL. l feel that 1+1=2... right or wrong?

Folks pre-emptively defend an attempt to be logical and reasoned by starting with 'l feel.' Then follow with the logical construct that is dialogue (verbalised THINKING). Contradictory. Disingenuous.

Analogy... seeing a colour is different to discribing it. Experience of colour is akin to the feeling. Description of the experience is outside of feeling, entering the realm of analysis (logic).

The 'l feel' prefix provides the guaranteed side door of emotional manipulation in the face of unwelcome (invalidating) opinions for which a logical reply cannot/will not be contemplated.

Statements like... how dare you, lm offended, the arrogance of, l dont believe you can say, how can you say, are clear examples of attempts to induce shame based retraction of opinion. Its lazy and dishonest. Psychologically bullying people into silence.

Emotion (instinct) is a stronger motivation than reason (intellect). Political debate seeks to influence. Politics projects personal discontent thru seemingly rational (plausible) ideological constructs (a device). Emotion is the essence of personal discontent (politics). Attempts at pure reason fail or take too long.

Betrays a reasoned approach to compromise which is how oppossed interests harmoniously/tolerantly move foward. Disappointing in a discussion space like The Forum which alludes to reasoned, intelligent and logical discussion.

A rare few on this forum (l aint one of them) have integrity, rarely if ever invoking logical fallacies nor blatant dishonesties like appeals to emotion. They make this place worthwhile with their laudable contributions. You know who you are. Thanks.

Men and women are different! There is “men’s business” and “women’s business”. A joint blog is not the place to discuss either in detail. The last thirty years have required people to respond to huge technological change. The availability of the contraceptive pill, abortion and the morning after pill have challenged our identity as mothers and fathers. It used to be easy. If you had sex out of wedlock, and the woman got pregnant, mostly the couple got married, had more children and lived together into old age. The ability to choose pregnancy changed all that. This choice came within a context of belief in zero population growth. Standards of living increased because there were fewer mouths to feed. Suddenly families could improve their standard of living, not by redistributing income, by choosing not to have big families. Soon, choosing to have big families became socially sanctioned.
The feminist scholars saw “choice” as an opportunity. The concept came from Ralph Nader’s campaign against corporates who decided the cars and fridges we would have. Consumers had political power and got to choose the types of cars and fridges we had. The concept transferred into the motherhood debates.
A quirk of nature meant that it was frequently the women who were choosing not to have babies who were leading the debates. They fought for equal pay for equal work, for women’s health centres, for free safe abortion on demand and for free 24 hour child care. Most women, regardless of their choices, supported these initiatives. To be continued.

It was when we got pregnant and chose to stay pregnant, that the old system clicked in. But the old system was having its technological revolution too. “Machines that go beep” were entering women’s experience of giving birth. And you either went with the flow, or you didn’t. Not going with the flow attracted social attention – “you are thinking of yourself and not your baby and your partner” (the new word emerged out of the business world and entered the home).
I noticed that men are acutely hierarchical in that they defer to higher ranking men. So, if their partner says she doesn’t want, e.g. an episiotomy, and the doctor says he’s going to do one, the man will most of the time agree with the doctor and literally hold his wife down while another man cuts her vagina. Women who have access to professional information know there is no basis, other than poor midwifery skill, for episiotomies (OK there are rare occasions, and this is women’s business, but please stay with me on this), see the father of their child participating in the socially condoned physical assault. Now what choice does a woman have here? The man hasn’t the wherewithal to analyse his reaction. The doctor won’t and the woman either has a group of sisters with whom to discuss her feelings of betrayal or she swallows it. Many women have swallowed it and the anger seeps out in other ways. I think the men know at a deep level that they haven’t got it right, despite their good intentions, and they are angry about it too. We are a very angry society. So, what do we do about it?

Some people place far too much emphasis on what others think about them, their opinions, their choices, their lives in general.

What does that mean for personal identity?

The identity of this personality type may be characterised by overt insecurity, compromised self-esteem, emotional immaturity/frailty, inability/unwillingness to take responsibility for one's outlook. Instead blaming society and various elements within it.

Politics is a way to play the blame game. The writer takes it one step further, invoking emotional sensibilities attached to personal insecurity to passively/aggressively advance a political agenda for personal gain. Hence those who have piped up in this post, having recognising an alterior motive.

This modus infers the depths of the writer's insecurity. By (consciosuly or unconciosuly) baiting a scapegoat, our responses validate her angst, thus suring up, perpetuating and compounding the insecurity.

Political ideologies keep people mired in a sense of helplessness. They must. For once we think we have the power to effect change, what need do we have for those that would rescue us from ourselves?

The writer has used a body politic to disown the seeds of her discontent. This could be seen as a sign of insecurity.

In this article... motherhood, fatherhood, babies, society, feminism, gender roles, men, patriarchy, the price of fish on a balmy wednesday summer morning when the relative humidity is above 85% and the wind blows from the south... are all irrational psychological defences against personal responsibility for an identity defined by insecurity.

Reasons offered that potentially drive that insecurity might be crutches for evading personal accountability. Another defining attribute of identity.

The world is full of people with opinions. Take a stand. Dare to be who you want to be, who you are. Dont get down on yourself based on what others think or say about you. Their approval is unnecessary. No need to attack (elements of) society. That is self destructive. Please dont make yourself unhappy.

Getting off the blame train is the first step to personal accountability, which in turn, is the first step to feeling good about oneself.

All the best.

What a bunch of whimps.Not so long ago Asian women would have a child in the paddy field and continue working that very same day.

By wanting it all, i.e. the high powered career,money and the token child,women have lowered the status of motherhood.

What can be more important than bringing up the next generation that will replace us?Corporations,Govt and both sexes must come to this realisation.We should not rely on the State to raise our children,nor should we expect others to pay for our indulgent lifestyles.

Let single income families on less than $100,000.oo pa income splint for the first four years of their child's life.Make child care for two days a week tax deductable.Reduce the size of our bloated bureaucracies and reduce taxes.Then our economy will boom.We will all be then much happier vegemites,since we will then have more time for family interaction.

"I noticed that men are acutely hierarchical in that they defer to higher ranking men. So, if their partner says she doesn’t want, e.g. an episiotomy, and the doctor says he’s going to do one, the man will most of the time agree with the doctor and literally hold his wife down while another man cuts her vagina."

This statement is inflammatory!

Men will sometimes defer to the person they think has the expertise and knowledge. Medical opinion is divided on episiotomies. However episiotomies came about to prevent 3rd degree vaginal tears, which can leave women incontinent.

"Women who have access to professional information know there is no basis, other than poor midwifery skill, for episiotomies"

This is not correct, vaginal tears can occur from either a babies head being too big or too quick a labour are the major causes.

On one hand the author says that this stuff is 'women's business' yet men are expected to be a partner through pregnancy, child birth and child raising. If we are going to divide things into women's and men's business then we should go back to the old sterotypes.

Unfortunately sometimes child birth does not go to plan and complications occur and this is where the mother can feel a loss of control as medical intervention takes over and sometimes even medical intervention goes wrong.

When situations go wrong people look to blame someone, even when it was out of the control of everyone.

Trade215 -
Out of interest: who were you referring to in that “founding mother” thing? The first feminists? When? The 17th century when they were campaigning for women’s education? Or are we talking 18th century here? Or the 19th? John Stuart Mills, Mary Wollstonecraft, Charles Fourier, right? But they were campaigning for women’s rights within marriage, if you’ll remember,

While Henry Compte de Saint Simon - celebrated author of the first feminist magazine- only advocated free love as a means of strengthening marriage and was talked down by the women of his group.

Robert Owen and Frances Wright, William Thompson and Anna Wheeler were advocating the right for free speech for women, Taylor and Leigh-Smith were after married women’s property rights, and even the Suffragists of the mid-19th century were only campaigning for women’s education and the right to vote.

Nary a patriarchal conspiracy between the lot of them. You might also note that many of those “founding mothers” were also “founding fathers” . (Er, the word I think you were looking for in connection with these founding men and women was “proselytizing” which means “to convert”. Am unsure what your word prothle-whatsit actually means). And while we're on the subject of founding fathers, why consistently employ the word patriarchal as if it were a term dreamt up by evil feminists, instead of a mere descriptive word used to define Western sociological groups? Its not up for debate, or needing quotation marks. Like it or lump it, it just is.

I suggest the reason people question your right to “dare” to argue is because you don’t have a complete grasp on the subject. Perhaps you should take a break from expressing misinformed opinion, go to the library and read up on the history, aims and discourses of the feminist movement, rather than gleaning bits and pieces from uneducated, partisan or biased sources. And yeah, mate, that includes the telly, Wikipedia, yours and the missus’s mates and snide articles in the popular press.

KerryMcG

That was really wild stuff you said about episiotomies.

Why promote the mendacious radical feminist tripe that the medical profession has somehow 'medicalised childbirth' and continually performs unnecessary procedures. Medicine is a science and relies on proven, documented methods.

I feel for doctors who mop up when complications arise from midwives interventions and then have to record such errors against their own results.

It is easy and safe for middle class women in major centres to snipe at the superb medical facilities to which they have ready and immediate access, but talk to women in remote areas. Ask Australian women would would volunteer for childbirth in countries where midwives are in abundance but there are few trained doctors.

Kerry claimed that husbands would join agree to unnecessary procedures. This is such a load of nonsense but it says volumes about where Kerry is coming from.

It is only in recent times that wives have had the support of their husbands at childbirth. This was demanded by women and men and obviously not by feminists who have too many sexual hang-ups to see any advantage in it. But for the record, it was female midwives (not mothers or 'men') who excluded fathers from experiencing the miracle of birth with their partners.

Just as a comment on midwives, in the prenatal education we received, some midwives wasted the class's time with bitches about how they would like to extend their role; endless guff about squatting for delivery (helpful in Africa); and how we should have intercourse immediately before birth because the semen assisted dilation. In a politically correct world I guess they get away with stuff like that, but they scared the class more than they assisted it.

You hear the uninformed feminist criticisms of doctors and medical specialists, but I would place my trust in these professionals every time and I count my blessings that now we are within thirty minutes of a major teaching hospital with infant resusitation facilities.

Romany,

bwahahhahahahahahardly.

too many logical fallacies and irrational notions to contend with in your post.

how dare anyone dare to dare. omg, the cheek of a voice expressed, the travesty of it.

ps. you need authority in order to give a person permission.

good luck.

Oh, Cornflower, why do your posts consistently set out to polarise people? Some women prefer to give birth one way, some another. The centuries long midwife v. doctor debate is still unresolved and the politics of the protagonists vary.

Kerry's "claim" about husbands agreeing to certain procedures is fact. Many, through love of their spouses; through fear for her welfare and that of the child's and through lack of knowledge only too willingly agree with whatever the doctor, or midwife, suggests. How does that imply a feminist construct?

I can only hope that your comment about sqatting to give birth being "Helpful in Africa" wasn't thought through properly. As it stands, and given your view that this method of giving birth is "guff", it suggests that African women are somehow different and inferior to others. Otherwise, if helpful to African women then why not to others? Traditionally it was the universal birth position until doctors (originally called "men-midwives" in this context)began to officiate at births. Millions of women, influenced not by feminists, but by the laws of gravity, find this a more comfortable way to give birth. It depends on the woman and I have not yet discovered any political preference.

Intercourse before birth? Why did this(or differing positions) scare your class? Its been part of birth knowledge for centuries and is still suggested by many doctors: its hardly feminist propaganda.

Midwives and doctors attended the same obstetrics and gynaecology lectures and courses in University. Once registered, they are also subject to the same litigation for malpractice. I'm sure some midwives make blunders, just as some doctors do. Once again, what has this to do with feminism? And what about feminist doctors? Where do they fit into the scheme?

Not having husbands present at birth was(and still is, in many places) a societal construct for centuries - not a feminist one. To state that the innovation of having sanction for one's partner or whomever one chooses to be present at the birth "obviously" owes nothing to feminists is, I think, another one of those statements you didn't think through properly.

Romany

You so ably demonstrate why so many modern feminists lack credibility because they take whatever suits them to support their case and deny anything that doesn't.

To top it off you insult and deliberately misconstrue what is said to waste the other person's time in rebuttal.

Squatting might suit a woman delivering a baby with a lower birth weight than is usual for Australians. Further, few Australian women exist in an impoverished landscape where slipping behind the nearest stunted tree and gritting the teeth is the only (not best) option. Such cultures have high mortality rates for mother and child alike.

It is probably not of interest to a well-off feminist in a big city with all of the mod cons, but country and indigenous women do not always have access to the excellent medical support she might take for granted and moans about.

High mortality and injury in childbirth were common in the West before the dramatic improvements due almost entirely to medical science. You should be aware that such fundamental hygiene deficiencies as lack of soap and water hand washing before food preparation, after changing infants and after performing bodily functions claim thousands of infants a year through 'old' killers like dysentery. Australia has similar problems in some areas but to a much lesser extent.

In their efforts to create distrust with medical practitioners and health authorities Western gender feminists do not serve the interests of women and their unborn infants at all. I would venture to say that the same well-heeled feminists would themselves elect to give birth in the best appointed birthing suite in private hospital with the full retinue of professionals and pain control on hand. No way would they contemplate giving birth in rough conditions far from medical help as some of our indigenous and country women are obliged to do.

Cornflower this topic is too much for this site. May I encourage all readers to research it thoroughly and read widely? Marjorie Tew found that there was not a positive correlation between hospitalisation of birth in the UK and declining infant mortality. The scientists that are responsible for declining infant mortality are engineers and public health professionals, not obstetricians. It is an error of logic to continue to assume that the medical profession has caused declining infant mortality.
But may I alter the course of the conversation and go to the period prior to conception? Earlier in the discussion, someone mentioned how abhorrent it is to call women ‘ladies’. There have been conversations in the past in which the term “lady” carried with it a social disability. But may I ask how a man is to woo and learn to be a faithful and considerate partner to a woman if he cannot find the “lady” within? How is a woman to show the man who courts her what pleases her if she is not in an emotionally safe place in his company? The rituals of courting seem to have disappeared in social conversation in Australia. I think feminist discourse, in seeking beyond the biological imperative, has resulted in women being considered as “just another bloke”. The 50-50 marriage success rate harms men, women and children. Let us explore new ways of reaching our full potential, ways that acknowledge the differing biological imperatives faced by men and women.

Cornflower I sincerely apologise if you found my post insulting: it was consciously vetted for inflammatory adjectives, subjective language or sweeping generalisations in a conscious effort to avoid giving offense. Further, if I misconstrued either the tenor of your remarks or any individual opinion I am sorry if this led to misunderstanding.

The purpose of my post was to point out that, especially in such emotive threads as these, introducing further contentious subjects such as the feminist question, takes us further and further away from rational thought and understanding. Which completely negates any possibility of accepting differing points of view: what should be debate turns into rancorous squabbling.

I hoped that, by highlighting some of the views in the doctor/midwife debate which you had thought were feminist driven and explaining that they weren't the dissolution of this thread - as so many others -into feminist/anti-feminist could be shown as irrelevant. I pointed also to the fact that the doctor/midwife question had been hotly contested for years without conclusion so that its introduction at this point was unlikely to lead to resolution.Like the previous poster, I don't think this is the time or place even to try.

One obvious point where we are at cross purposes though, I can identify. The different positions chosen by a woman in which to give birth are not socio-economic markers: I have dealt with women in Australia, Europe and England who prefer active birth techniques and squatting - and women in Africa, China and Asia who prefer supine positions. (Though personally, I have never come across any who have slipped behind a tree!)Once again my point is merely that such choices are not dependent on politics, affluence or nationality but are personal.

As I don't identify my own politics, nationality or socio-economic level I do hope that you understand I am not striving for partisanship but for objectivity. And I also hope that this doesn't, once more, give offence.

Cristy is yet another woman who needs all those around her to change. Her own aversion to change is evident throughout, but especially through gems such as “However, I am still trying to come to terms with the inevitable impacts of this choice on my life.” … “The real issue for me, however, is identity.”

For most thinking people, life-cycle traversal means many identities. Some are attained through great effort and sacrifice, a few by chance. Many go to plan, but just as many don’t - some just happen and just are.

So round and round we go, powered only by a woman’s feelings of insecurity and discontent. Whom to blame for her discontent? She makes it very clear: “This is not the result of feminism - this is the continued impact of a patriarchal culture that remains fundamentally unchanged at its core.”

Are we so unprepared for making such life’s choices, that we must blame others for its unanticipated impacts. Are adherents to feminism more or less likely to be disappointed than those more resigned to the so-called patriarchal oppression?

So while the sistas are doing it for themselves, the village is expected to raise their children. The logistic paradox here is that most village sista’s are now too busy “doing it for themselves”, to raise their own, let alone other people’s children. This could be, at least in part, why we need degrees in childcare, and why childcare is seen as expensive.

But why revert to logic now. As others have said, this may not be the place for it - just leave your assumed identities by the door on your way out …

KerryMcG

Any woman who is giving birth for the first time or is not of optimal age and health would be ill-advised in my view to prefer delivery outside of a hospital.

Australian hospitals and medical specialists do emphasise natural childbirth.

All research and statistics have limitations that may not always be evident, or disclosed for that matter.

The most obvious flaw in overseas studies is that they say nothing about our local conditions. Often data has been collected for another purpose entirely.

Consumers should be aware that governments have targeted health for savings and this will skew research grants (and a cynic would say some research results) accordingly. An easy way to reduce costs is to focus on risk management – which is fine for those who have money and good access to facilities.

Again, privatisation of health provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to enhance profit through using less skilled staff on a ‘risk management’ basis. I would not be surprised if clinics of midwives with visiting specialists were set up in Australia by entrepreneurs and ‘user pays’ contributions were increased by government.

Feminists will be very useful in sledging obstetricians and gynaecologists to ‘free up’ the market. This is regardless of the number of women who are entering these fields. High insurance premiums are driving experienced Gynaecologists and Obstetricians out of the market.

I think we are moving rapidly towards two layers of health provision in Australia: the top layer for those who can afford 'optimal health and wellbeing' and the lower layer for those with scant medical insurance and resources who will have to be satisfied with what accountants focussed on 'risk management' are prepared to dish out.

We should insist on robust community consultation on health before it is all over, game set and match.

Cornflower, I agree wholeheartedly with your predictions for Australian health care. I don't want to live in a society with a 2 tier health care system and I don't believe we need to. From what I can see there is no guarantee that patients in the top tier of health care would get better treatment than is available in another society with universal health care.

You know, Cornflower, I admire much of what you say and the tenacious and forthright way you say it.
Your only blind spot is your hatred of feminists, and your tendency to identify every woman who disagrees with you as a nasty feminist. Funnily enough, you sound just like a feminist to me - as I understand the term - an intelligent, informed woman not afraid to put her point of view. Even if you reject the term, can you acknowledge that you (and I, and all the other women on this forum) owe our ability and right to express our view publicly to women who certainly would have identified as feminists? Without feminists, there would be no female doctors, no female voters, no universal female education.
There are many views in the broad church that is feminism - there are socialist feminists, liberal feminists, radical feminists, conservative feminists, religious feminists - we are no more cut from one cloth than any other group. You never know, if you met many of us, you might like us - in fact, you probably already know and like many women - and men- who are also feminists.

Defining a term in such vague and variant terms lacks credibility. Its highly disingenuous. It provides the incontravertible 'out clause' that a term is whatever someone says it is, in all of its 6.5 billion potentially divergent definitions. Thus, nothing can ever be illucidated in rational terms because its built on eternally shifting sands.

In other words, something is whatever someone says it is. The more obtuse, variant and fuzzy, all the better. Everything becomes relative and no progress can be made, which l suspect is the underlying motivation for such esoterica.

It is exceedingly dificult, if not impossible, to be logical, rational and reasonable if we cannot first DEFINE the TERMS of discourse and AGREE on those terms. Of course, when folks have agenda they invariably seek to define the terms in a way that serves themselves. Very dishonest.

It does not need to take decades to come up with an objective definition. The fact that it has taken so long, speaks to a generalised state of confusion and indecision. Both of which l perceive as deliberate devices to keep battle field sands shifting, thus making it very difficult to get a foot hold from which one can actually advance.

Most glaring aspect of ideological 'debates' like feminism is that they go around in circles. Assertions to the contrary, few if any make any real effort to step outside of their own egoes, insecurites and self interests and yield to pure logic, in all of its intellectually unforgiving and rigourous demands. Its easier and more effective to drive personal agenda by emotions (thinking hurts, its difficult to resolve logically). If it can be done with thinly veiled prententions to logic and reason, all the better. Those half truths have a lot of power.

Tendency to continually revise terms and reduce them to personal subjectivity makes the whole exercise thoroughly nebulous, ultimately futile. Imagine, one person arguing that 1+1=2, the other arguing it equals yellow, becasue that is 'my personal understanding and that is how l feel about it'.

In a word... REDUNDANT.

Ena - a very soft and fluffy sisterly appeal to “the woman in Cornflower” - this should be interesting...

Again, a familiar mantra: when something putrid is revealed, the obligatory statement is imminent: “… but look at all that we’ve achieved”.

How much credit for these achievements does feminism really deserve? For at least the last 20 years, its unchecked ability to usurp resources and uproot families has produced more havoc than anything of tangible value to society. The full impact of this is yet to be realised.

intelligent confusion caused by absorption of trendy ideology. pathetic and concerning.

ena

Do you have sons or other men in your life to love? Men and women are not the same and we should enjoy and celebrate the differences.

Over the decades there has been emancipation of women and men and I see no virtue in putting the needs of one above the other. We are all struggling for a more peaceful world where we can make the best use of our opportunities and live in happiness.

My Mother and the family womenfolk before her were always equals in family businesses, farms and properties, however we could never have survived without the complementary skills and strengths of the men in our lives. They needed us as much as we needed them. It is not a competition and I certainly do not want to be like them - my femininity gives me unique strengths, awarenesses and creativity.

It is about respect. If anything, there are 'problem' people not problem genders.

I don't think I could be successful in business (or life) if I hobbled myself with a hatred and distrust of half of the population. Who needs excuses anyhow?

In Victoria in 1953 the maternal mortality rate was 67.5 per 100,000 live births and in 2003 the mortality rate was 4.8.

So while KerryMcg is correct to a point in that it was scientist and engineers who had a great impact on child mortality rates, before the advent of modern medicine. Something simple like providing clean drinking water and sewage had an enormous impact on improving life expectancy and so did immunisation.

Improved nutrition also played a part, plus today we are also take more steps in improving child safety and thereby reducing the number of accidental deaths.

Someone posted that feminists were responsible for women's health centers, this maybe true. However long before women's health centres appeared, there were hospitals for women and women only. The Royal women's was founded in 1856.

Medicine has also come along way in improving maternal and child health as shown for the statistics for Victoria.

The vast majority of pregnant women do give birth without complication, however when things do go wrong, they can go wrong very quickly and sometimes even being a patient in a major teaching hospital will not save you.

In the UK mothers are monitored and those who are likely to have a complicated labour are sent to hospital, this trend is likely to skew the results of any research paper.

I formerly referred broadly to 'medical science' and it is reasonable to include researchers like Louis Pasteur in that.

I would be the first to agree that clean drinking water and proper drainage are fundamentals for health. That is why I gave the example of washing with soap and water, another fundamental that resulted from the germ theory.

It was through application of the germ theory and their success with immunisation that allopaths, the precursors of the modern GP, obtained sociopolitical legitimacy.

Engineers only drained land and provided clean drinking water because they were directed to do so. Up to then they were interested in draining land (for example) to provide arable land and better footings for buildings. Equally they were formerly well able to dam and transport drinking water but it was not necessarily free from nasties.

I see positives in midwives assisting deliveries in hospitals (and I think that is where the quoted research has been done) after scans and professional consultation have determined suitable prospects and the woman is in agreement. However policy makers and private entrepreneurs are not beyond putting cost savings and profits ahead of health, which is why I wouild like to see community consultation before change is introduced.

I would be concerned if midwife delivery alone was promoted for indigenous and country women.

But who ever said all feminists hate men - or even that feminism hates men? The people who have said such things are generally the enemies of feminism, not its adherents.
Feminism is a belief in the equality of men and women - and, before we get bogged down into the same old silly arguments - equality does not mean the same, it means of equal value. That was the feminism of john Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, virginia Woolf and Gloria Steinem, that is my feminism and the feminism of the vast majority of the women and men who would describe themselves so.

"But who ever said all feminists hate men - or even that feminism hates men? The people who have said such things are generally the enemies of feminism, not its adherents.
Feminism is a belief in the equality of men and women"

Erin Pizzey wrote that when she attended a meeting she was told;
"Your problem is not your isolation but your husband. He oppresses you and he is a capitalist."

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies."

No not all feminists hate men, but they just stand by and let such expressions go unchallanged. Even if they say they love men, they still partake in misandric male bashing.

Pru Goward said;

"You can't expect a person to step into that role when the child's 10, having never seen them before, needing an autocue to remember their name."

Daphne Patai showed in Heterophobia how the claim makers were forever expanding the definitions (case in point DV)or to do with sexual harrasement.

The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault

"I concluded my opinion by observing the danger of imposing liability based solely on speech. “[T]he sexual harassment police,” I wrote, “seem oblivious to the First Amendment as they eagerly enlist the courts as censors of words and literature in the workplace.” More specifically, I noted that it seems clear to everyone “except for the denizens of the cloud cuckooland of radical feminism” that no court had ever held a sexual advance to be actionable in and of itself."

Ena, you and other feminist will have do alot more to convince me that you really believe in equality.

James, I think that you do Ena an injustice. I've been involved in discussions with her for some time and have not seen any sign of her being the kind of feminist you suspect her of being. Just as I don't challenge every assertion made by guys wanting to put women back in their places (or necessarily spot that right up) I don't expect Ena to do the same regarding extreme feminism.

Try an experiment, take Ena at face value and have a dialog with her - you might be surprised.

The continued refusal to accept that many feminists seek equality puts up a barrier to dialog and makes it that much more difficult to get moderate feminists to take seriously claims made about the abuses done in the name of feminism.

R0bert

Can we reach some common ground on physiology? Do all agree that when giving birth, a woman who is anxious and feels unsafe tenses her muscles and consequently feels pain? That a woman who is relaxed and feels loved generates endorphines and may feel no pain?

Robert that maybe true.

I once supported feminism, until I gained more life experience and started reading much more widely. However I felt like what Tomas Ellis describes in 'The Rantings of a Single Male' that there was something bogus about feminism.

I have read many female authors, Daphne Patai, Melaine Phillips etc. I haven't obtained a copy of "Women who make the world worse" Kate O’Beirne and I don't think I will be.

Any woman who says, "Feminism is a belief in the equality of men and women" and then sits back and lets men be dissed. Is no better than a person who says that they don't support racial discrimination and then sits back and watches the KKK victimize african americans.

If they really support "human rights" and "social justice" they would tell the rad/gender feminists that they have gone too far!

By remaining silent they support the rads.

So, James H, do you apply the same high standards to other movements that you do to feminists? How about Catholics who remain silent about the sexual abuse of children by priests, or who actively cover it up? Does that give you permission to hate Catholicism? Do you hate North Koreans because many remain silent about their government's nuclear posturing? Do you hate men because many of them remain silent about domestic violence and rape? Do you hate hetereosexuals because many of them remain silent about gay bashing and abuse?
Of all the feminists I know I have never heard a single one say she hated men. Most of us are married to men, the children of men and have given birth to men, how could we hate you? We love you, we just don't always agree with you, and when we don't we will put our point of view vigorously and pay you the compliment of expecting you to do the same. There are radicals and nutters in every human group, country and religion - do you hate Muslims because of idiots like Sheik Hilaly? Why should feminism be any different? We're not saints or perfect, just women who believe in their right to control their own destiny AND believe in men's right to do so too.
The women who hate men are sad, just like the men who hate women. They tend to be damaged human beings with problems, such women do not represent the vast majority of feminists or feminism, just as such men do not represent the vast majority of men or male society.

Cristy should understand that the World will continue to turn if she completes, or fails her quest for a phd. Being a mother or father to your own child is the only job there is that nobody else on the planet can do. If John Howard was never born, somebody else would be prime minister right now. Modern young women need to review their lives and stop considering their careers as a 'significant' contribution to society - the real reason why governments now encourage life-long work from women is because of the extra tax revenue it gets its hands on.

Cristy,

I can't count the number of mothers who have been all too ready to give me their (welcomed) opinion on everything and anything. I can’t count the number of men who have had their identities and roles change after becoming fathers. Is there a study which quantifies how men and women's identities change? So far we're just giving anecdotal evidence.

My regards to your husband. I disagree with him too, because he seems to have missed the point as well, that we were disagreeing with a part of your argument, not because we don’t care about your feelings (as trade125 has pointed out.)

If you have no interest in starting a competition (neither do I for that matter) on whether it is worse, better, or the same as OTHER DIFFERENT impacts that men experience, why did you say that men's "autonomous hopes and dreams are rarely taken away from them just because they chose to breed," in the first place? If it is presumptuous of you to try to sum up how it affects men, why did you mention men’s experience, in relation to that of women, at all?

You have written about your own personal experience and those that impact on women, which we value and have found very informative. But you have written this in the context of feminism and patriarchy- terms which many on this forum, including myself, find problematic and well worth a good debate.

As I said in my opening post, surely more expensive child care hurts both men and women. I would suggest that this is just one subject where some can be too quick to blame "patriarchy" (yes Romany, I'm using quotation marks,) when it could be more complex than that. Allison pointed out that Japan, "very much a patriarchal society," has much more "family friendly facilities." Why would a patriarchal society provide disincentives to have children by making it difficult for mothers to use public transport and go to department stores?

TBC

As a number of posters have shown, the change of identity a woman undergoes when she becomes pregnant and has children, and the smaller numbers of people who are interested in her opinions, may not necessarily be all down to patriarchal attitudes.

Donnie,

This is going way back, but regarding your comments that an "emphasis on economic growth and industrial productivity" is a "patriarchal mindset." I know the response I'll get from mentioning Margaret Thatcher, but surely Karl Marx wasn't a pseudonym?

Kerry,

Regarding episiotomies, it seems a little odd that, given that you brought up the subject in order to make a point, you then told those who challenged your point that we shouldn't really debate it because we don't have enough room here.

Regarding, your latest post, yes, I agree.

dozer, very well said in that second last post. I was pleased to read Cristy's perspectives on change of roles, my only compaints with the article were the portions where she choose to dismiss mens experience. Doing so was unnecessary and showed a lack of understanding of what many men experience - the possibility that her husband has not yet been there does not mean that men don't deal with many similar issues.

R0bert

"Do you hate men because many of them remain silent about domestic violence and rape?"

Ena if you want to debate me on domestic violence got to,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5212

and have a look at
http://www.mediaradar.org/

If you really honestly look at the research on DV, the honest researchers do not support the feminist supposition.

Musing on Masculism
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.77

"* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, give many feminists an EXCUSE to justify anti-male bigotry. This helps alleviate any guilt that would normally be associated with other types of prejudice, such as with racism. In psychology, we call this phenomena "cognitive dissonance,"

Religion or North Korea are not driving social policy in this country.

I find it interesting that when the Shiek put his foot in his mouth, there was a hue and cry across the country. Yet when people like Pru Goward tries to make jokes at men's expense, the women giggle.

I know both gay and straight men who I like as people, and there are others of either sexuality who I do not like as people. You write about gay bashing which I do not support, nor do I support another issue which is underreported and which I will not mention here because I am not going to start a homophobic war. The point is that the are good and bad men whether they are straight or gay.

Dozer - I'm conscious that we are all responding to Cristy's original piece about here experience of a change of her identity when she became a mother. Consciously sharing one's physical body with another person for at least six months is an amazing journey. Giving birth is another. Then comes mothering for the rest of your life. Fathering is a different and related journey. If we, as mothers, try to "get it right" we strike trouble from the outset. There are as many different opinions as there are people. Sharing our own journeys is perhaps the only way that another can see that there is no "right way", but as many "ways" as there are people. This knowledge then gives us the courage to step out and consciously choose what works for us and our family. The question now is: how do we guide ourselves? Do we use our intellect? our emotions? our family? other people's stories? At what point do we choose to trust ourselves? That, I think, is what this discussion about feminism is about. Finding inner trust.

Ahhh, it’s all about “Finding inner trust”!

Like for example, the identity crisis your average incredulously pregnant, hormone overladen woman in question may experience – is this child really mine? And then, … is it his? Maybe it’s neither of ours, coz I was on the pill. Whatever!? Will I really never be PM? Will he run off with the nearest non-pregnant skanky ho? Bloody patriarchy…

James H, you completely miss the point of my post - that we all belong to groups which include people we would never agree with or support, and that feminists are no different from any other group in this. Those who are religious in particular must recognise this experience. It is absurd for you to condemn all feminists out of hand because some are stupid or extreme or even nasty, just as it would be absurd to condemn all Catholics out of hand because some are stupid, or extreme or molest children or whatever.
I do not wish to argue with you about domestic violence - all violence is wrong and stupid. Men should not beat or intimidate other men, women or children, women should not beat or intimidate other women, men or children.

Fear is no basis for making a decision. It may be a factor, but if present, it clouds our judgement. The aim is to get to a place where we feel safe and strong, and then to choose what is best for us. When we are pregnant, the whole world is happy to share their fears and their hopes with us. The experience of being human is very intense. Strangers come up and put their hand on your belly. During pregnancy is a good time to look at the things people fear for us and our baby. I dealt with it by reading ALL the obstetric literature. I came to the realisation that it couldn't all happen at once. That was my comfort. Then, reading the text of the textbook I realised that the male body was the norm. Honestly....read the definitions closely. That realisation gave me the freedom I needed. Obstetricians do not know how to give birth. They are of help when something is wrong and you can't do it yourself. But I was the one with the job of giving birth. To find out how, I had to go to the women. They told me to trust myself. I did. Wow!! What an amazing journey. It is the most powerful and exhilarating thing I've done in my entire life.

KerryMcG said: "..Obstetricians do not know how to give birth. .....To find out how, I had to go to the women. They told me to trust myself. I did. Wow!! "

Kerry, If you really want to be taken seriously, just leave out 'loaded' stuff like that. As I said earlier, it is easy for a woman in a major centre with immediate access the best medical and hospital facilities to dump on obstetricians, especially where she has had the benefit of regular scans and other screening (performed by those science-based medical people you have such contempt for).

Why not be reasonable and accpet the obvious which is that midwife assisted delivery is a choice for women who prefer it and are known to be good subjects. However the best risk management in that case would be midewife assisted delivery in hospital, especially where an infant resusitation facility is available.

There is really no need to sledge obstreticians or other medical specialists. Do you really believe they know nothing useful about birth?

I havent checked in on this debate for a few days, and so have gained a little perspective (I think), rather than just responding to the posts of others. Its true that there doesnt seem to be a lot of research being done in general about the changing roles and identities on becoming a parent, so by nature most of the posts here will be anecdotal - that doesnt mean that there is nothing to learn from them.

I hesitate to defend a statement made by someone else, but in this case I will try and show my take on Christy's point that men rarely have their autonomous hopes and dreams taken away from them. This to me is more the point of view that men rarely and are rarely expected to take on primary care for their children. Society still portrays an expectation that the mother assume this role. The problem is, particularly for women who also work (whether or not they have to in order to survive), that then leaves little time for pursuits of their own. Few men that I have seen (yes another anecdote) are put in the same position. Yes, their personal activities can be curtailed, but are rarely totally pushed aside.My husband for example certainly doesnt go fishing and hunting as often as he used to, but he still does on occasion. However for me to do something while he takes care of our child is seen as he is doing me a favour. Society sees him as a "good dad/husband" if he "helps" like this. I do know of exceptions, and these are generally ones where there is a sole parent (father) family, where the father has no choice but to take on all the facets of parenting, and so outside work has little or no time to pursue other interests.

Countrygal, there is some research on fathers that I know of, however the data is not this computer and from memory most of it was from the UK.

One piece of very interesting research is what is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping". (Google it)

James good point. I did the Google search and many of the most interesting pieces were pay for access ones but one article I found seemed to be very good as a general discussion of the issue http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/print.html

It may be a bit too pro-feminist for your liking (and too willing to question for others) but worth a read.

One of the things I keep being reminded of in this discussion is that each of our situations is different.

R0bert

It could be that maternal gatekeeping connects with some deep needs and drives of women - need to be loved, valued and so on. It affects not only the male partner but other women who try to assist with children and the abode (territory?) as well. Few women seem to welcome support from the in-laws. It might also explain why women are more into parental alienation. Gatekeeping gone badly wrong.

I don't doubt that nature has more to do with certain of our behaviours than some would acknowledge. Maybe women are much more hardwired to nurture and to defend their issue and territory than we think. It could put a whole new meaning on 'identity change'.

Alright, so some of this is tongue in cheek.

Why do so many women persist with living in some sort of perpetual crisis? They appear to actively disadvantage themselves in some primal urge to invalidate their equality, but then get so pissed off at the rest of us as they succeed.

Could abortion be the ultimate act of maternal gatekeeping, closely followed by parental alienation? And what of paternity fraud – is that not also a form of gatekeeping denial? DNA testing – another denial. Child neglect and abuse … beware armed women at gate.

The article that was provided in the link is very interesting. Indeed I got a bit of a giggle as I recognised a few points. I am afraid I am probably far too quick to say "you're supposed to do it like this". Eg, when washing dishes, work through from the cleanest things to the dirtiest - glasses first, then plastic containers, then plates, then cutlery, then pots. Also hanging clothes on the line - hang them this way up and smooth out the wrinkles and straighten collars. My husband hates it! Funnily enough, I learnt most of my domestic habits from my father, who is anal about "the right way", and contends that he taught my mother how to do the housework properly. He also slept beside the cot of each of his 3 children, then slept on the floor with them when they got too big for the cot. We went out to work with him (on the farm) from a very young age (basically as soon as we could walk), though he usually only took one at a time.

The reference to the tv ad where baby's first word is ma-ma, made me laugh though. Really, it is well known that most children's first word is da-da. My 18mo still rarely says Mum - its more da da da da da da da da da, running round in excited circles. Reminds me of my own childhood - Mum did the boring stuff and doled out the discipline, Dad was fun. Perhaps, given that baby's first word is normally da-da, this ad was a gentle joke with women, who knew better.

Everyone on this list is trying to come to terms with identity and, in this case, maternity. Identity is gained from a number of places: parents, race, geography, religion, intellect, history, physical skill, social role. When the basis for our identity disappears, there seems to be at least four responses. 1. Find a new basis and grow into the new identity, 2. Cling to something in our life that gives us a sense of identity, 3. Depression, and 4. Schizophenia. I'm relying on research on immigrant youth in Europe that has found the immigrant women, with their social roles intact, get depressed and the men, with the loss of their identity, become schizophenic. Mothering is a social role. How do we retain our social identity as e.g. an independent profesional, while responding to the inevitable physical process of pregnancy and birthing, a process that cannot be negotiated with? I have found that if we "go with the process", it gives a sense of achievement (note the process requires surrender, not control) that empowers us for life. The birth of each baby is like a portal to a new social identity for all the family and closely related friends.

Maternal Gatekeeping has a very simple explanation. Essentially, the term says it all.

A gatekeeper has power of admission therefore CONTROL.

Pretty simple really, personal rationalisations, justifiactions and denials aside.

I think the governments patriarchical (dunno how to spell it) attitude is vulgar!

The government are making womens lives so hard! Half way into last year they have made mums who have a child above the age of 7 look for part time work!I mean, how stupid is the government? There are so many mothers out there who have to now look for work and they all want to apply for the same time slot of 9-3pm! Not just that but some have been mothers for so long that their qualifications arent recognised or they have been out of work for too long and will need extra training,for some, age is against them. As well the mothers may earn less by working than they would on their centrelink payment!so the governmetn are making things worse for the women and better for themselves.

While the government are making mothers on benefits look for work, they are also encouraging other women in the work force to leave and have children! how stupid!They are giving a payment incentive of 5K and it increases each year!So if they think that they are saving money by forcing mums on benefits to look for work, they are totally deluded, they are probably losing more in fact!

Then those who leave the work force to have a child will be in the same situation as those on centrelink.

The government are doing jack when it comes to child care expenses as yeah ok they might have the child care rebate but then the child care centres are just increasing their prices from say $75 per day to say $100 so the rebate is ineffective.
Then the government are trying to make women go for couselling before having an abortion! how stupid! and whats even more ridiculous is that they make the counselling chiristian based only

Paying the bills (daddy govt) is what patriarchs do.

Sometimes they stop.

Patria... damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.

Carey Roberts wrote an interesting article

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey138.htm
THE FEMINIZATION OF POVERTY.

"When economist Victor Fuchs of the National Bureau of Economic Research combed through the figures from the 1970s, he concluded: “Statistical decomposition of the changes shows that an increase in the proportion of women in households without men was the principal source of feminization of poverty.”

Translation: Divorce places a woman at risk of becoming impoverished."

" When widespread divorce and social discord ensue, the Gender Guerillas then blame the whole mess on patriarchal society, leaving behind no marks or fingerprints.

Think about it -- it’s the perfect crime. That’s the genius of radical feminism."

What a recommendation for "stand by your man" if you don't you will be poor.

Moni, if you are going to make accusations, at least get your facts right. The maternity payment is $4000. It will be until 1/7/2008, when it will rise to $5000. This is the last scheduled rise. Since its introduction, it has risen by $1000 every 2 years. It is available to both working mothers and stay at home mums, as well as those on benefits. The idea is to ease some of the burdens of having children, for all women (and men, seeing as they have to provide less:) ). Personally, although I am a professional, I wouldnt have been able to afford children without it. My husband is too hard-hit by the drought for us to be able to afford the basics (even though a lot was second hand). The allowance allowed me to stop work for 3 months and get to know my baby. Currently I would love to have another, but cant afford to risk having to stop work whilst pregnant (if something goes wrong). I kept working against doctors orders last time, even on the day that I went into hospital I had meetings in the morning (was scheduled for an induction due to preeclampsia, so at least I knew the timing). If there are 2 lives and 4 livlihoods at risk, well thats just too much for me to shoulder.

Moni

"The government are making womens lives so hard! Half way into last year they have made mums who have a child above the age of 7 look for part time work!I mean, how stupid is the government?"

Correction, it is the choices women make that influence their lives, choosing whether to have a baby outside a relationship or choosing to end a relationship and then relying on welfare and child support for income.

Melaine Phillips 'Saying the unsayable"
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471

A study showed that around 48% of women would lie about birth control in order to get pregnant.

Research also shows that married men earn more than single men. However whilst married women may enjoy the extra income and the advantages that it brings, some, also resent the hours of work that their husbands put in to earn that income.

That is not to say that there are not mothers out there who do manage to combine raising children and having a succesful career or business.

If and it is a big 'if' there had not been the demographic change in society over the last, let's say 30 years, then child care would not be the issue it is today.

And if Pru Goward and the HREOC had not opposed the presumption of shared custody following separation and divorce. Then child care for many separated/divorced mothers would not have been as big an issue. As fathers would have had more responsibilty for child care, thereby allowing mothers more time for employment.

Uhm, stop giving does not equal taking away. Illogical.

What the govt gives it must first take away (from those of us who feed the trough).

And, what it takes away it must first give (to those eating at the trough).

Drop the entitlement attitude, get off the govt nipple and stop feeding at the public trough.

jamesH. There are those of us that earn more than the men in our lives. My disposable income would go up if I were a single mother (even without any child support payments from my husband), simply because I pay all the household bills and rarely recieve a cent from my husband to help do so. Without him the grocery bill and power bill would at least drop. Dont assume that women just enjoy the ride. Likewise, my mother earned more than my father, and my grandmother earned more than my grandfather.

Country Gal, my disposable income would skyrocket if I had never gotten married or fathered children.

Getting married and fathering children was the worse 'financial' decision I ever made.

I have two very beautiful and loving children and Yes it does make life hard.

Yeahh … I gotta marry me one of those country gals and live off the land. No tax and no child support. Yeahh, that’s what I gotta do.

You’re not alone JamesH. Not even a good "social" decision these days.

Come on guys. You are real people who make a real difference to the lives of your wives, children and friends and neighbours. Take yourselves seriously. Remember, it is only small groups of people that change the world.

Why is it never a womans fault?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=431000&in_page_id=1879

Because it's never anyone's fault. Blame won't get anyone anywhere. Inspiration and love, that's what inspires. We are all human. And humans are not perfect. So let's make love together and enjoy!

No KerryMcG, let’s not; until you clean up your act, take some responsibility and start playing fair.

Thomas Ellis in "The Rantings of a single Male" wrote that Petra would reward him with sex when he agreed with her on some feminist ideological point and when he did not agree with her she would 'hold out'.

The most pertinent point he made was that 'even sex has it's limits!'

WOW!

That was a real conversation killer.

Well, Thomas Ellis was a fool and seriously needed to grow up and take control of his own life.
Women do not owe men sex. Women should only ever have sex because they want to. Sex is not a "rent" we pay to maintain a relationship and men who regard regular nookie as their god given right are deeply unattractive ( and needy and pathetic) quite frankly. If you want sex, you need to think about how to make yourself attractive to the person you'd like to have sex with. That probably means you need to think about sex from their point of view rather than your own.
This idea that men have a right to sex is damaging to both sexes because if they succeed, they end up having a kind of rape rather than loving sex, because women do it because they feel they ought and because its too much of a hassle to say no - gee, that must feel great, guys. In a relationship of free equals both parties make love ( rather than sigh and have sex) because they actually and fully want to. Even if that means it happens less often than a guy would like, surely that kind of sex is a thousand times better than the get on and get on with it kind?

Ena, I suggest that before you call anyone a 'fool', that you actually read his book.

Esther Villar who wrote "The Manipulated Man"

"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-men-and-women-dont-want-sex.html
"My personal reasons for not wanting sex is disappointment, the word NO, rejection, lack of desire by wife, total indifference. I have heard every excuse heard by man. When the efforts by my spouse are a basically get it over with, you can hardly expect me to get overly excited. Since she consideres sex a chore - just let her read and book and fall asleep."

Now lets consider this, if a man with holds finances this is economic abuse. If a partner with holds affection, praise etc this is emotional abuse.

Toby Green;

"I explained to Robert that if statistics are right, it’s likely that he’ll go through his marital life sexually underfed. And if that’s not unfair enough, it gets worse. Even if she’s not in the mood, he can’t get sex elsewhere because women can’t handle infidelity. If he strays the price may be his marriage. Sexually, marriage is a bad deal for men."

Now this is where it gets tricky, considering the vast differences in opinions and beliefs.

Lets imagine for one minute the boot was on the other foot and it was women who had the high sex drive and men, the low sex drive.

I wonder how women would feel if their needs were not being met?

A recent conversation with a mate of mine where he told me that his wife had been very 'testy' and she told him that he didn't love her anymore, because he had stopped asking her for sex.

Basically he is an arsehole if he pesters her for sex and doesn't respect her and when stops asking her for sex, he doesn't love her or find her attactive?


"The secret of being in rude health is intercourse"
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/04/22/1145344320257.html?page=fullpage

No, of course men don’t have a right to sex, unless it is gifted or bartered.

The village scrambles to its duty: “Nurse names 20 doctors as possible dads”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/nurse-names-20-doctors-as-possible-dads/2007/02/03/1169919583068.html

“SARAJEVO's Kosevo Hospital has been rocked by a sex scandal after a nurse handed its director a list of 20 prominent doctors as potential fathers to her baby son."

"A Sarajevo magazine reported on Friday that the nurse, who gave birth last month, asked the management to investigate and determine who fathered the child.”

To be a grown up, you need to recognise something important. Grown ups earn their own money, do their own housework and accept responsibility for fulfilling their own needs. Only the immature expect others to look after them, either financially or physically. You simply cannot expect someone else to fulfill your physical needs, if you do, you will , indeed, go through life resentful and frustrated. Your very expectation - that sex is your right - is what probably turns your partner off. Who wants to have sex as duty? This is not about men or women, in fact, this is about expectations of others. There are many women with higher sex drives than their partners and no doubt many of them feel just as hard done by as you do, but you simply cannot expect someone who does not want to have sex with you to do it. And you certainly cannot expect them to enjoy doing it.

Within an established relationship there is barely a menstrual cycle difference between seduction and sexual assault.

What is acceptable behaviour one minute, can become totally unacceptable the next. It has nothing to do with being reasonable or unreasonable. It is all about power and control.

Most men recognise that they are balancing on a knife’s edge and one woman’s word can destroy their life.

Sex within a relationship is about more than sex. It is about physical and emotional intimacy.

In a relationship each person has the right to be treated with respect, something which sometimes is forgotten.

Both Toby Green and Amy Cooper wrote about women being testers, from the first date, to marriage. To my knowledge most men are clueless of this and when I read what they had written alot of things started to make sense.

Maybe the French had it right when along with a wife they had a mistress as well, who perhaps was someone elses wife.

As ena wrote it is not possible for one person to be able to totally met the needs of another.

Is ena really saying be a man/woman about it and have sex with whomever and whenever you like, or am I over-extrapolating her sophistry?

No, I am actually saying you should only have sex with whoever wants to have sex with you - I'm arguing for mutuality and self responsibility, hardly sophistry. It seems you guys seem to think you marry a woman and she owes you regular sex. If your sexual needs are not being met you have many choices, you can accept it and stay in the relationship for other reasons, you can leave the relationship and hope you find someone with the same libido as you, you can have affairs either openly or not, or you can work with your partner in a sensitive, open and non-sulky way to see if you can improve your sex life together. You do not have to be the sullen victim here. Sullen victims are deeply, deeply unattractive. It seems to me the mature response to a problem is not "I'd be happy if only she'd change." but "What can I do to change my situation?"
Being blamed for not wanting sex does not make you want sex - rather the opposite, so such an attitude is ultimately self defeating, it seems to me. Maybe that's what you should change.

ena very well put.

R0bert

A few years ago I said, to my lady love,

"I cant always tell, whether you are interested in making love or not and that I would like for her to let me know."

Now being the usual clueless, uncaring, type neanderthal male or maybe thats cro magnon, I am totally hopeless at figuring out whats going on and wouldn't be able to read the signals even if they hit me on the head.

I usually figure out eventually I am suppose do something, but then it is usually the wrong thing anyway. I gave up trying to learn how to mind read years ago.

However without a doubt the adult response "What can I do to change my situation?" and I agree with Ena about the pathetic sulking victim. I also find the aggressive victim equal pathetic.

I think the term here is "High Maintaince".

The magic in Ena's post is that both work together in a sensitive caring way.

Well ena, thanks for the tip. How insightful. So apart from your many current roles (in no particular order) as mother, wife, cleaner, feminist, workaholic careerist, project manager, financial advisor, psychologist, nurse, chef, navigator, teacher, coach, mentor, judge and jury, social director, resident pole dancer, (and I’m sure I’ve missed a few), you also qualify as a sex therapist. Well ain’t feminism grand!

The problem is this: “No, I am actually saying you should only have sex with whoever wants to have sex with you”. On many levels, this makes perfect sense to a feminist, but to most men, it just shows how out of touch most can be.

No sophistry, just mature linear logic. In just one easy step, one could break that down to “no one should have to do anything they don’t want to” and “everyone should only do what they want to”. Within legal bounds, of course. And herein mostly lies the problem. Our legal framework does not seem to work the same way for men. Here’s a few keywords just to get you thinking in the general direction: misogyny/misandry, victim/perpetrator, choice/responsibility, abortion/contraception, family court/no-fault divorce, residency/CSA, children’s best interest/property settlement, social father/paternity fraud …. And these are just a few pertaining to male-female relationships. Other differences? You bet!

If you love women, try keeping it that way and don’t marry one.

Seeker,
It is sad to see someone who so dislikes 50% of the human race he cannot allow that they are simply ordinary struggling human beings just like he is. Of course women are flawed - every single last one of them is way less than perfect. They make mistakes, are mean, selfish, afraid, insecure and do the right thing for the wrong reason and vice versa. But, and here's the newsflash for you, in this they are just like men.
That's the beauty of human relationships, two deeply flawed people (because there is no other kind) come together and the relationship probably succeeds if they are able to accept one anothers flaws and fails if they are not.
As I say to women I know who complain (in tones rather reminiscent of yours, actually) about being unable to find the right partner, the problem is all you are going to find is an ordinary man or woman, There are no princes or princesses or paragons of virtue. Human beings are all you've got and they are going to get things wrong. Your only option, it seems to me, is to look to your own part in it and forgive others theirs.

Good post ena. Appreciate your patience.