Raising Children is the most important job!

[TC]

Excellent blog post...which i'm now reposting

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Raising Children Is the Most Important Job In The World!
10 09 2006

Well, at least that’s what society would have women believe. And, parenthood may well be the most important job that many will take on. But does that really mean it’s the most important job in the world? Who says so? And why do some women believe it? They must believe it since they frequently use it to try and convince childfree people to reproduce. I think it’s because parenthood is so hyped by society, the media and even parents themselves, that women simply buy into the myth almost automatically.

The problem with this assumption of motherhood being “The Most Important Job In The World” is that it immediately relegates any other endeavour that a woman might do, or might consider doing, to at most a secondary position with little or no importance.That becoming a parent is the most important job in the world is a pro-natalist view directed at women, the sub-text being that no matter what they may do or aspire to, it pales into insignificance when compared to having and raising of children.From a childfree perspective, in fact from any perspective, that’s pretty bleak. The outcome of course is childfree women being roundly criticised if they decide they don’t buy it.

Now, if a women has children as well as achieving or doing other endeavours, then to the critics that’s somewhat o.k, as long as she remembers that rearing children should always take priority. I say somewhat because working mothers get plenty of hostility thrown their way as well.If the kids are not seen to be coming first, then to the critics (and a large chunk of society) she’s a Bad Mother. I’ve touched on some of the issues that raises in my previous post “Childfree… You Obviously Chose a Career Instead of Children…Part 1.

Of course, should the woman be unable to have children (as long as they’ve tried all the available IVF treatments ever invented) they are excused. Keep in mind they are likely to be questioned on this, and advised as to what they could try if they are have trouble having kids. It amazes me that some women see nothing wrong in offering this advice to further the “must be a mother” cause. It’s something I personally would never ask. But, the important point is – at least they are making an effort to have kids. If a woman is performing some kind of caring, nurturing role (preferably low paid, or better still unpaid) instead of having kids she is grudgingly excused. A useful get out of jail free card: when described in loving detail caring for an elderly relation though usually unrecognised, apparently shuts up the critics like a dream.

The most insidious problem, however, is how having children is so hyped and so well marketed. Like any slick marketing campaign, it only tells one side of the story: that which the marketer wants you to hear. And, like any effective marketing campaign product positioning is key. Do we ever hear the stories of the sacrifice, the hardships, the constant demands, the complete subjugation of one’s own life and desires? Are these ever presented? No. I suspect that if they were there might be less people jumping on the baby conveyor belt. Which is probably why the other side of the story is downplayed or sanctimoniously presented thus:

“Oh yes, children are hard work, but they’re worth it/every sacrifice and pain they require.”

“A good parent knows that the children come first.”

So why would anyone want to skip such a wonderful life-enhancing, enriching experience of baby nirvana? When you’re being told right from the time you’re little that “When you grow up and have children it will be the crowning of your life’s greatest achievement, and You Will Live Happily Ever After.” Right.

I invite you to think about what the inverse of that statement implies.

When considering most questions, we are always quick to point out there are two sides to every story. Yet, it is unthinkable in our society to present the other side of the saintly parenthood story. Unthinkable for a mother or father to say aloud:

“I wish I’d never had kids. It hasn’t been the experience I thought it would be, or that I wanted. I put in so much, yet the troubles outweighed the rewards… It really wasn’t for me. I wish I’d known.”

Or “If I had my time over, I wouldn’t have kids.”

Such a person would be vilified and probably accused of heresy. Which to some it is. No, rather than presenting both sides of the much hyped parenting myth, it is more important to preserve the conspiracy of silence.

Many buy into that myth; some find out - too late - they’ve been had, and many turn around and use it to pressure others to have kids. That having kids is the Most Important Job They’ll Ever Do is one of the strongest messages society gives to women and many women duly pass on to their daughters. Fortunately an increasing number of women (and their partners) are insisting on knowing all sides of the story, and are refusing to accept that their lives and endeavours are less meaningful just because they decide not to reproduce.

So what to do when someone suggests to you that you are somewhat less for deciding not to have kids?

You could be nice about it. Try to explain where you’re coming from. But that isn’t likely to work, in fact it leaves the door open for more criticism of you, descriptions about how “wonderful” motherhood is, more pressure and a few more sanctimonious words, just for good measure. Either way, you’re more likely than not to feel on the defensive. So I find “nice” is ineffective and a waste of time and I prefer to tell the critics to “kindly” get lost. Much more effective.

Then, carry on doing exactly what you wanted to do. Go and climb your mountain or fly your plane, race in the Grand Prix, run for political office or run that company, take that plum assignment whatever it is you want to do – knowing it is the most important thing to you because you say it is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thebritgirl.com/2006/09/10/childfre...b-in-the-world/ (http://thebritgirl.com/2006/09/10/childfree-but-raising-children-is-the-most-important-job-in-the-world/)

Google hits confirm the article's claim (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2GGGL_enGB206GB206&q=%22most+important+job+in+the+world%22&btnG=Search)

[La Comédie Noire]

Good blog. People should be able to do whatever the hell they feel is right for them.

Who would want to subject children to the capitalist system anyways?

[Herman]

I never want to have children. Period. I have other things I consider more important.

Even in movies that myth is constantly being shown. Especially in romantic comedies.

[LSD]

Save the obnoxious capitulation to the standards of bourgeois corporate culture in the penultimate paragraph, I find nothing objectionable in that artice. Nor do I expect will many others on this site. This is, thankfully, one area in which we've managed to remain pretty progressive. Largely, I suspect, because our demographic base is largely composed of young peoppe and hence less susceptible to "old world" values related to children.

Of course, for that same reason they're also far less likely to want to have kids anyway, so the whole idea probably repulses a certain segment of this board's population, consciously or not.

I feear though, that this does not reflect political wisdom on their part but rather mere inexperience. Because while you're unlkely to get a negative response to such an obviously unabashedly feminist piece, we still see debates on this board over issues like abortion and euthanasia.

People are very willing to pledge their allegiance to grand principles in the abstract, but once it comes down to actually applying them in real life or even in on-line hypothetical simulacrum, they blanche.

So I put this point to all those who congratulate themselves for thieir political "insight"; "understanding" isn't enough, "respect" isn't enough.

It's all nice and well that you respect women's freedoms when it comes to things you agree with, but you've got to understand that it applies to everything else too.

That means abortions, that means suicide, that means drug use, that means self-mutilation if for whatever reason that's what one wants to do.

'Cause the ultimate point here isn't a feminist one, it's a humanist one. It's one that says that every human being has the right to do with themselves that which they will and the rest of y'all's morality be damned.

That's all that freedom is, self-determination. The rest is all a means to an ends.

[Body Count]

Honestly, I've always felt that children would be better off in a boarding school type of situation (But one that isn't really anything like what we have now....sorta a "group home" type of deal, where the kids sort run things themselves...a college environment at a younger age if you will.

The "traditional family" is quite unreliable, and leaves children at the whelm of nutty parents...:D

[kelly-087]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 12, 2007 06:59 pm
Honestly, I've always felt that children would be better off in a boarding school type of situation (But one that isn't really anything like what we have now....sorta a "group home" type of deal, where the kids sort run things themselves...a college environment at a younger age if you will.

The "traditional family" is quite unreliable, and leaves children at the whelm of nutty parents...:D
You are joking right? Kids cannot "run" anything, A six year old child isnt even capable of walking down a street without a parents help. You cannot really expect to give such responsiblities and independence to a 6-10 year old and expect it to turn the same as if you gave it to an 18-22 year old?

And what if the child or the parent does not want him or her to go?

[Body Count]

Originally posted by kelly-[email protected] 12, 2007 07:32 pm

You are joking right? Kids cannot "run" anything, A six year old child isnt even capable of walking down a street without a parents help. You cannot really expect to give such responsiblities and independence to a 6-10 year old and expect it to turn the same as if you gave it to an 18-22 year old?

Of course I am not talking about kids living in some dormitory without any adult supervision or guidance.

But, I do believe that between the boarding system we have now, home schooling, and the "typical" way of doing things where parents send their kids off to school, then the kids come back home for the rest of the day to their parents, that the former way of doing things has the highest potential of educating kids to the fullest and preparing them for their adult lives.

But please, if you're going to be condescending, there really is no need to even respond to me, cause I obviously must not be worth your time and effort.


And what if the child or the parent does not want him or her to go?

I am simply stating my opinions on how I feel children could be better raised in society.

I don't want to get into what you're asking, cause that probably deals more with the role of the state more then anything.

[TC]

Originally posted by LSD
Nor do I expect will many others on this site. This is, thankfully, one area in which we've managed to remain pretty progressive. Largely, I suspect, because our demographic base is largely composed of young peoppe and hence less susceptible to "old world" values related to children.


You would think that LSD what with this supposedly being a "revolutionary left[ist]" forum but there is a great deal of patriarchal, misogynistic crap around values related to children here.

Apathy Maybe announced to me:


"You, for some reason, seem vehemently anti-children!"

For arguing that men should perform equal infant care responsibilities rather than foisting their infants onto their wives and girlfriends exclusively and that the government has no business in enforcing a media blackout on material that facilitates that. Apparently any attempt to to free women from childcare is "anti-child".

How utterly hateful and sexist is that?

In reaction to my comment that maybe some mothers might not want to be human soda fountains for six months he wrote "Well, there[sic] are being bad mothers in the sense that they aren't giving their children the best possible start to life." So there you go: a working mother is a "bad mother", a stay at home slave to childcare housewife is a good mother.




Then in the abortion thread, we have Ichneumon asking the psychotically misogynistic question:


"the human races does in fact have to produce babies - what would YOU do if every woman on earth went on strike and demanded to be sterilized? do they have that right, to end the human race?"

What do you think the unwritten answer to his rhetorical question as to what "YOU" 'should' do?

He is saying that women don't have the right to refuse to reproduce; sexual consent is apparently a luxury to him (or, only a right for men?)




And "GreenAnarchist" saying:

"In case of sexual violence, poverty life (no food, no money...), in the case that the boyfriend is a not drug free or he is alcoolistic and he hit she...
In this case i agree...

But if the mother is a rich stupid girl, that she make sex, and after she want to kill the baby i dont' agree.. "

Apparently, GreenAnarchist wants to destroy "society" except when it comes to punishing stupid "rich"(not impovershed) sluts with forced pregnancy and childbirth.


Then we have Dean's comment:

"And please explain how it makes one reactionary to think that nurturign habits are more likely to be bestowed upon the gender which bears a child and takes care of it in it's early years? If nothing else, the fact of breastfeeding indicates a natural, biological inclination towards nurturing that is not present in men. Even if we only use breasts as evidence for an argument about nurturing, it still supports the claim."

Who apparently thinks that if you have breasts then you're obviously inclined to want to take care of babies; i mean, what else could you possibly be good for or interested in then.


So, actually i think this particular line of patriarchal motherhood worship is quite common and tolerated on revleft.

[TC]

Originally posted by LSD
Nor do I expect will many others on this site. This is, thankfully, one area in which we've managed to remain pretty progressive. Largely, I suspect, because our demographic base is largely composed of young peoppe and hence less susceptible to "old world" values related to children.


You would think that LSD what with this supposedly being a "revolutionary left[ist]" forum but there is a great deal of patriarchal, misogynistic crap around values related to children here.

Apathy Maybe announced to me:


"You, for some reason, seem vehemently anti-children!"

For arguing that men should perform equal infant care responsibilities rather than foisting their infants onto their wives and girlfriends exclusively and that the government has no business in enforcing a media blackout on material that facilitates that. Apparently any attempt to to free women from childcare is "anti-child".

How utterly hateful and sexist is that?

In reaction to my comment that maybe some mothers might not want to be human soda fountains for six months he wrote "Well, there[sic] are being bad mothers in the sense that they aren't giving their children the best possible start to life." So there you go: a working mother is a "bad mother", a stay at home slave to childcare housewife is a good mother.




Then in the abortion thread, we have Ichneumon asking the psychotically misogynistic question:


"the human races does in fact have to produce babies - what would YOU do if every woman on earth went on strike and demanded to be sterilized? do they have that right, to end the human race?"

What do you think the unwritten answer to his rhetorical question as to what "YOU" 'should' do?

He is saying that women don't have the right to refuse to reproduce; sexual consent is apparently a luxury to him (or, only a right for men?)




And "GreenAnarchist" saying:

"In case of sexual violence, poverty life (no food, no money...), in the case that the boyfriend is a not drug free or he is alcoolistic and he hit she...
In this case i agree...

But if the mother is a rich stupid girl, that she make sex, and after she want to kill the baby i dont' agree.. "

Apparently, GreenAnarchist wants to destroy "society" except when it comes to punishing stupid "rich"(not impovershed) sluts with forced pregnancy and childbirth.


Then we have Dean's comment:

"And please explain how it makes one reactionary to think that nurturign habits are more likely to be bestowed upon the gender which bears a child and takes care of it in it's early years? If nothing else, the fact of breastfeeding indicates a natural, biological inclination towards nurturing that is not present in men. Even if we only use breasts as evidence for an argument about nurturing, it still supports the claim."

Who apparently thinks that if you have breasts then you're obviously inclined to want to take care of babies; i mean, what else could you possibly be good for or interested in then.


So, actually i think this particular line of patriarchal motherhood worship is quite common and tolerated on revleft.

[Entrails Konfetti]

In reaction to my comment that maybe some mothers might not want to be human soda fountains for six months he wrote "Well, there[sic] are being bad mothers in the sense that they aren't giving their children the best possible start to life." So there you go: a working mother is a "bad mother", a stay at home slave to childcare housewife is a good mother.

Another point, a stay at home father is considered "less of a man". Society views mother-hood as something so important, but it pales in comparisson to the husband having a lucrative career, which, he has this career to provide for the children. Societies logic forms into a total knot!

If the duties of parenthood were considered equal then it wouldn't matter if the wife goes out and work, husband stays home, vice versa, or if both work and take care of the children on shifts. But duties aren't considered equal, and if everyones pre-determined purpose is to have a family, then the family is only secondary to the mans career. So the purpose of the women is to help the man have a career, so they can have a family. Having a family is a good career move! Most firms like to hire the family man.

Nevertheless women are still considered immature or lacking in mental health if they decide they want their own autonomy and not help their spouse with a career.
But, it can be said that their reason to not have a family is more logical than having one.

[RedAnarchist]

I hate the social conditioning of women that wants to make them nothing more than domestic slaves and kid factories. You see it too much in the media and even in real life - women being pushed down to let a man get higher.

Whilst we are in the capitalist society, children should go to nurseries/pre-school as soon as they can, so that neither of the parent has to look after them 24/7.

Both men and women are able to nurture. There is no reason why a father cannot be as good a parent as a mother, but society doesn't like women to be free, so has created a stigma around stay-at-home dads and women who choose to have a career.

[Raúl Duke]

You would think that this supposedly being a "revolutionary left[ist]" forum but there is a great deal of patriarchal, misogynistic crap around values related to children here.

So, actually i think this particular line of patriarchal motherhood worship is quite common and tolerated on revleft.



I have to agree with TC...lately theres been some leftists who only agree with abortion in certain cases (and I think there might be some who might not agree at all... :blink: ) and having condescending views on women (when it comes to motherhood and control over reproduction)

[LSD]

You would think that LSD what with this supposedly being a "revolutionary left[ist]" forum but there is a great deal of patriarchal, misogynistic crap around values related to children here.

I take your point, but it is worth noting that of the four members you quoted, two of them are already restricted and the third one is about to be.

It's entirely unsurprising that we have conservative opinions posted in OI, that's the whole point after all.

Af for Apathy Maybe's comments, I agree that they are despicable, but then he has always been a marginal member. And the fact remains that every single post in this thread has been in support of the original article.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for threads we've had in the past on late-term abortion or euthenasia or drug use or other kinds of less than acceptable social behaviour.

Again, though I suspect that's because we have a generally young demographic that's not really that into having kids in the first place and, to a large extent, is probably still in that anti-parent stage of development anyway.

I would like to think that their agreement here demonstrated a modicum of political maturity, but again, their unwillingness to extend that support to more controversial cases makes me doubt it.


And "GreenAnarchist" saying:

"In case of sexual violence, poverty life (no food, no money...), in the case that the boyfriend is a not drug free or he is alcoolistic and he hit she...
In this case i agree...

But if the mother is a rich stupid girl, that she make sex, and after she want to kill the baby i dont' agree.. "

:o

Well, he's restricted now.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with that article - with the exception of the last paragraph and the glorification of capitalist society contained therein.

Of all irritating social pressures (there are quite a few), the pressure to reproduce is possibly the most difficult to escape. And the worst part of it is that I feel very much powerless to do anything about it. As a male, I have often found my arguments dismissed on the grounds that I "just don't have a maternal instinct" or some other such bullcrap.

I suppose that, as always, true liberation can only come from within the oppressed group (in this case, women). But it is still not pleasant to be forced to sit on the sidelines, especially when many of my female friends believe they are under some kind of biological obligation to have children.

(I'd appreciate any advice on how I could persuade said female friends to change their views, by the way)

[BobKKKindle$]

Interesting article. I think the following quote from Kate Millet's 'Sexual Politics' really supports the position that has been put forward; that is, the oppressive and limiting function of the female gender role;

“In terms of activity, sex role assigns domestic service and attendance upon infants to the female, the rest of human achievement, interest, and ambition to the male. The limited role allotted the female tends to arrest her at the level of biological experience. Therefore, nearly all that can be described as distinctly human rather than animal activity (in their own way animals also give birth and care for their young) is largely reserved for the male.”

I do contend that raising children is very important - the future of any society, by definition, depends on raising and educating the young. The question that we have to consider as socialists is to whom the responsibility of childcare should belong, should any given individual choose (and I emphasise the importance of individual choice in this matter) to have a child. Because raising children benefits society as a whole, it is clear that this should be an obligation for the community and that the introduction of free and socialised childcare is an important priority in any revolution, so that women are able to participate in the workforce and be independent beings. It is also possible that eventually a fetus will be able to develop in an artificial environment so that women are no longer subject to the physical discomfort and immobility of pregnancy - this would offer women the ability to be free form their biological, sexual role as bearers of children. This is something that has been discussed at length by feminists who argue that womens' oppression derives from their biological function - Firestone, for example.

Indeed, it should be recognized that Alexandra Kollantai, Commissar for Social Welfare and head of Zhentodel pressed for the establishment of creches in all workplaces and the promotion of communal living despite the limited resources her department had available following the October revolution.


So there you go: a working mother is a "bad mother", a stay at home slave to childcare housewife is a good mother.

It is not quite so simple as this of course; In a capitalist society, women are in a difficult position - although the female gender role imposes the position of child-bearer, they also have to work in order to supplement the income of the male within the family unit, but because of the difficulties associated with bearing and raising children, the only kind of work that offer women the flexibility they require is part-time work, for which pay and chances of promotion are limited. This supports a system of financial and material dependence on men.


I'd appreciate any advice on how I could persuade said female friends to change their views, by the way

I sympathize with you - I often feel like I am 'imposing' priorities and ideologies when I write about socialist feminism or talk to my female friends. You might find more success, though, if you do not talk about girls specifically but discuss the general idea of a gender role and also emphasize how, in addition to forming the basis of patriarchy, gender roles also disadvantage men - then it will seem like you have a reason beyond simply altruism for supporting the elimination of the gender dichotomy.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If a couple decides to have kids I believe it is both parents who must contribute to raising the kids.

I wish them luck. My sis has a child and it looks like hard work.

I wonder if I will ever have childeren. :unsure:

[EwokUtopia]

This is all just pre-industrial backwash. It takes its roots from a time when raising children was an extremely important job because if you dont, when you get old, you'll starve to death, and you had to have lots because odds are that half or more will die. Its easy to make people believe this because thats human instinct (which is largely obsolete and can be overridden through logical thought) that we developed over tens of thousands of years.

This view is being propagated to keep people busy and pre-oocupied, and to divide men from women, the fact that its an easy sell doesnt help us much either.

We need to look at the historical roots of such myths to understand, and better fight them. In doing so, we need to realize that humanity in 2007 is almost a different species from humanity in 1007. We have evolved, not biologically, but technologically, and the necessities of the past are obsolete, to follow them would be folly at best.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)It's all nice and well that you respect women's freedoms when it comes to things you agree with, but you've got to understand that it applies to everything else too.

That means abortions, that means suicide, that means drug use, that means self-mutilation if for whatever reason that's what one wants to do.

'Cause the ultimate point here isn't a feminist one, it's a humanist one. It's one that says that every human being has the right to do with themselves that which they will and the rest of y'all's morality be damned.


That's all that freedom is, self-determination. The rest is all a means to an ends.[/b]It is funny how we seem to agree on so much, and yet I'm still a marginal member...


But onto the topic at hand... I also don't approve of children. I think there are far too many around as it is, and anyone who is thinking of bringing more people into this world should have their head examined. I'm up for adoption, but not more bloody pregnancies.

Anyway, I've got semi-personal experience with the topic at hand, along with the usual "book-learning". My opinion (which I have expressed on RevLeft before), is that work places should have child care centres on site, that parents (which ever one) should be able to take their children to work, that parents should be able to take leave (especially mothers) before and after a child is born etc. The semi-personal experience is that trying to deal with a baby/young child is a full time job in and of it self.

Anyway, going off topic, tragically Miss Clown has completely misinterpreted my position regarding baby formula. I won't bother responding in that thread again, but let my make my position clear.



Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)"You, for some reason, seem vehemently anti-children!"For arguing that men should perform equal infant care responsibilities rather than foisting their infants onto their wives and girlfriends exclusively and that the government has no business in enforcing a media blackout on material that facilitates that. Apparently any attempt to to free women from childcare is "anti-child".[/b]No... I didn't say anything of the sort. And you won't be able to find quotes that support that comment (here is the link to my post in the relevant thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69572&view=findpost&p=1292359670), not edited at all you will notice). I said you appeared anti-child, because you wanted to foist onto children a shoddy second hand product. You appeared to support the right of big business (including such as Nestle) to promote a harmful product.

Would you also support the right of tobacco companies to advertise cigarettes?

Anyway, it is possible to free women from the burden of child care, still while providing their babies with breast milk. It is possible to get breast pumps, indeed I've seen them in action! A quick search turns up a number of sites.



How utterly hateful and sexist is that?Indeed, if it was my position, which it isn't.


In reaction to my comment that maybe some mothers might not want to be human soda fountains for six months he wrote "Well, there[sic] are being bad mothers in the sense that they aren't giving their children the best possible start to life." So there you go: a working mother is a "bad mother", a stay at home slave to childcare housewife is a good mother.Once again, you are misrepresenting my position! Lets have a closer look at that shall we? If you smoke around your children, surely that is "being a bad mother"? Similarly, if you are breast feeding and drinking lots of alcohol at the same time? Or if you let your child wander around without changing their nappy from day to day? Once the sprog is out of the womb, there is a certain level of responsibility that is required. Sure, breast feeding is lower on the list then the other three things I mentioned, but it is still not providing the best possible start for the kid. It has actually nothing to do with the mother, perhaps she (or the government) could hire a wet nurse! It has to do with the child (which I take it you actually recognise as having an independent existence from the mother now, seeing as it has been born?).


El [email protected]
Another point, a stay at home father is considered "less of a man". Society views mother-hood as something so important, but it pales in comparisson to the husband having a lucrative career, which, he has this career to provide for the children. Societies logic forms into a total knot!Indeed, society discriminates against men who stay at home and look after the children. And that is a societal problem, patriarchy.


LSD
Af for Apathy Maybe's comments, I agree that they are despicable, but then he has always been a marginal member.Meh, don't take Tragic Clown's interpretation of my position as gospel, she seems to like misinterpreting my position sometimes. While I have in the past had some reactionary positions regarding some issues, when it comes down to an individual and their body (and where there is no question about that), since I've been on RevLeft, I've always (as far as I can remember) supported the right of that individual to do as they wish with their body.

[MarxSchmarx]

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, we still need to be careful not to embrace the puritanical view that somehow raising children is a chore "beneath" people.

For all its many merits, our critique of the "raising children is the most important job in the world" doctrine needs to be distinguished from the implicit contempt for child-rearing that the old ideology spawns.

Society needs to also recognize and facilitate the decisions of both or either parent staying at home full time care to care for the kids, if the parent wants to do that.

Why don't we demand those claiming "the most important job..." to put their money where their mouth is? Right now being a stay at home parent is a luxury for many families. It shouldn't have to be.