Whose child is this? Kyriarchy, privilege, and motherhood

Y’all know that I blame the kyriarchy — to talk only of patriarchy is to whitewash (ha ha) the myriad ways that people, including women, are variously oppressed and privileged. It pretends that all women experience oppression in the same ways, and focuses on sexism as the prime or only marginalization of women (because the concept was formulated by highly privileged women — white, US, middle class, mostly educated, abled, cis, and largely straight), which erases the experience of the majority of women on this planet.

To think only in terms of patriarchy leads to false assertions based on too-narrow perspectives, on the belief that what one experiences as a cis white upper class academic woman is typical of all women. Like the assertion that women with children are privileged over women without. (No, I’m not going to link to where I encountered said assertion.)

To the contrary, childfree/child-having is a classic double-bind of womanhood; there is absolutely no way to “win”, no choice to be made that does not result in discrimination and oppression. For to be sure, childfree women — if they are the “right” kind of women, or perceived to be so — are absolutely criticized, and marginalized in many ways; there can be no doubt of that, I think, and this is absolutely not a competition of who has it worse. But let’s go back to that caveat, because that is why the narrow-minded privileged academics get it wrong: it is only some women — the “right” women, privileged women, women like the ones making that assertion — who are most definitely expected to be mothers, and woe unto them if they fail to fulfill this imposed obligation.

What if you’re not the “right” kind of woman? What then?

If you are not white, if you are not cis, if you are not well-off (forget being on public assistance of any kind), if you are disabled or have a history of psychiatric diagnoses, if you are “too young”, if you are “too old”, if you have “too many” children, and especially if you exist at the intersection of more than one of those “failings” — if you are not the “right” kind of woman, motherhood further invites society to comment on and assert control over your life, if society allows you motherhood at all.

Motherhood does not confer privilege, but is a function of privilege; it is conditional, a “right” granted only to those whom society is best pleased with — and only for as long as we continue not only to be “right” but to do “right”.

Because even the rich cis white etc etc mother is policed, often with further double-binds:  the work for pay question is a classic example — there is simply no winning that one, no matter whether one works out of the home, in the home for money, in the home for sticky kisses, or some impossibly juggled combination thereof.  But if she shares sleep space with her children, breastfeeds for “too long”, lets her child roam “too far”, or in any of a million other ways steps outside of what her society deems the “right” way to mother (whatever that is where and when she lives), even the most privileged mother still risks comment and criticism, risks losing her children to “protective” services.

(To some extent, I don’t think that is even necessarily wrong — I entirely approve of lines drawn against physical and psychological and sexual abuse, against reckless child endangerment and neglect, against child slavery and prostitution. The problems come when those definitions of abuse or neglect are defined by a kyriarchy-fueled society, implemented in kyriarchal ways with biases against the already marginalized, and are used to enforce kyriarchal norms: don’t let your child be too emotionally close or physically distant, don’t let women ever have a moment’s rest, don’t let women use their bodies as they choose, don’t respect the personhood and autonomy of children. There are ways to do serious, inexcusable harm as a parent, to be sure, but there are a far, far more ways to be “bad” in society’s eyes.)

We cannot, we simply cannot extrapolate from a singular, privileged experience of motherhood/childfree womanhood to the entire population of women and think it relevant or right. And to pit women against each other, to pretend that one side of a double bind is “better” or “better off” than the other? That’s how we all lose, and kyriarchy wins.

If you want to help broaden the understanding of what it means to be a woman with a child, please tell your story — any one of your stories — as part of the Womanist/Feminist Parenting Primer.

10 Responses to Whose child is this? Kyriarchy, privilege, and motherhood

  1. They’ve just taken the baby away from that poor woman with learning disabilities.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245190/Mother-clever-raise-child-baby-removed-social-workers-running-away.html

    Breaks my heart to read that article.

    • You know, I almost went looking for an update on her story, and couldn’t bring myself to do it. There are so many reasons to be heartbroken and angry about what’s happening to that family.

  2. “Like the assertion that women with children are privileged over women without. (No, I’m not going to link to where I encountered said assertion.)”

    OK, I run into this fairly often on feminist blogs. Arwyn, I have dug deep on this one and really tried to see how I am privileged in this area. I don’t even get how I could be. Tax deductions?

    • Jill:

      I think the assertion that women with children are privileged over women without takes on a number of forms, depending on where you live and what the political/social situation is. Some examples (again, not all apply in all places) include:

      - Paid or even unpaid maternity leave: I’ve had this one on my blog, where single people say they would like to take time off work to give back to society in some other way other than being a mother and their bosses won’t allow it. With regards to paid maternity leave, there is of course the claim that they do not want to finance our breeding.
      - More consideration from employers: People with families are often allowed to leave on time, whereas single ones are expected to do overtime.
      - Someone to take care of them in their old age
      - Priority parking, priority boarding on flights, etc.
      - Ability to be able to opt out of the workforce without being seen as lazy/useless

    • All of what Annie said, plus there’s the idea that the patriarchy wants us to breed (again, for a very certain, limited value of “us”), and thus we get “status” for fulfilling that obligation. This is seen more in some cultures than others: think of cultures where infertility is seen as grounds for divorce (that is, a woman is held to be worthless if she can’t make babies).

      But I would counter that with 1) it only applies to the “right” women, so again proves that motherhood is a function of relative privilege, and 2) even in cultures where this applies, even when the “right” women make “good” babies, the “status” achieved is only a further sign of our oppression: breeding doesn’t make us equal with the master, it only makes us good bitches.

  3. I don’t think there is any woman who can get off being a mother without some sort of an attack on her ability/place/rank. Motherhood is held to such an ideal that no mother can actually reach it, we’re all never going to be “good enough”. Blah!

  4. Pingback: Blog for Choice Day 2010: Trust Women « Raising My Boychick

  5. Pingback: whose standards? « Love | Peace | Ohana

  6. Pingback: Too crazy to parent « Raising My Boychick

  7. Pingback: I’m pro-choice because… | Raising My Boychick

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>