NEWS: The Mother's Bill of Rights

CULTURE: The Mother's Bill of Rights

Over at my other blog, where I reposted Sunday's adoption post, a commenter asked,

Excellent question. What *should* society do, if we wanted (crazy feminist pipe dream, but bear with me) to live in a world where pregnancy and motherhood were recognized as simple facts of life, rather than as abnormal? In other words, where we granted women full humanity?

Lots of things. But since I'm not writing an encyclopedia here, let's focus specifically on some of the things that directly affect pregnancy, childbirth, and mothering young children.

First, let's decide that birth control is absolutely the responsibility of *all* heterosexually active people of whatever age. If you do not want children, and you are a man, you are responsible for using birth control. If we, as a society, *really* believed that, you damn well know we'd have a lot more birth control options for men than we do now. Shit, people, the only reason anyone talks about condoms is because of AIDS. Condoms sure as hell weren't on the radar before then. And if we really believed that sexually active people should be responsible for birth control, then we wouldn't even have these fucking arguments about whether or not we should tell young people about it or make it available to them.

Second, let's also recognize the corrolary: that if sexually active people are responsible for birth control, then they are *also* responsible for deciding if and when they don't want to use it. And that this, along with the fact that no birth control is 100% effective, means that women will get pregnant if they are sexually active--not all women, but some women, of all ages, and from all walks of life. And that since this is the case, scolding women for being pregnant "too young," or "too poor," or "when they're not ready" according to us, or because they're addicts or alcoholics or crazy or "unfit," in our minds, will simply not happen--because if sexually active people are responsible for using, or not using, birth control, then it is NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS if they don't.

Third, we would recognize that human beings (1) *will* be sexually active, and (2) *will*, therefore, get pregnant. Because human beings are living creatures, and one of the essential qualities of being "alive" is being able to reproduce. So reproduce we will. Reproducing is not a moral issue, or an occasion for passing judgment; it is a simple fact of life.

Fourth, because of this, we would structure our world around this basic fact and the things it involves: pregnancy, childbirth, and the demands of caring for young children. We wouldn't expect young women to quit school if they got pregnant; we would acknowledge that sometimes young women *will* get pregnant before they are finished with their formal educations, and we would accommodate this: schools would have nursing rooms and changing tables, we would provide daycare and allow young women and men with children to bring them to class (if they weren't disruptive), to step out (when and if they became disruptive), and to schedule their classes around elementary school hours--which would themselves be based on research in child psychology and development, rather than on agricultural seasons or the "9 to 5 workday." If this meant that young parents took a little longer to finish high school, college, or graduate school, that would be just fine, and there would be no sanctions for not finishing in the "average" amount of time (which would probably be higher than it currently is, since young parents would be better able to stay in school).

Fifth, the 9 to 5 workday wouldn't exist. Work would be reconfigured, since we'd recognize that "the worker" wasn't a 19th-century factory worker who needed to be physically present in the factory in order to take his place on the assembly line; instead, we'd define work in terms of projects, tasks, processes, and results. Where work required one to be in the same physical place as other people at the same time, we would of course provide workplaces for that to happen, and when it was better to have the material aspects of work (paperwork, hardware, merchandise, etc.) in one place, employers would build those things or rent space. But when a job didn't require that, we'd let people do the work when and where they were able--at home, in the workplace, wherever. Perhaps employers would subsidize employees renting private or shared office space under some conditions, in order to shorten their commutes, make their work time more efficient, and save money on infrastructure. Employers would certainly provide changing tables and nursing rooms in official workplaces, and taking children to work would be just fine--again, as long as doing so was safe and not disruptive. Where it wasn't, we'd set up formal and informal daycare arrangements of all types: private centers in high-density work areas; employer-provided daycare for very large employers who required many or most of their employees to be in the workplace much of the time; public daycare and preschools; round-the-clock availability when this was cost effective, some kind of economic support (like medicare will pay for hiring a private nurse) when it wasn't.

Sixth, we'd recognize that some people, because of physical or mental disabilities, personal preference, dangerous or neglectful behavior, and even death, would not be able to be their children's primary care providers. Where they were willing and able to provide *some* of their children's care, we'd prioritize their doing so, but we'd accept, encourage, and where necessary provide supplementary care, preferring (in order): extended family members, friends and acquaintances, and--where absolutely necessary--strangers. When these accommodations needed to be made, we'd provide supplemental caregivers with training, material support, and social services if those things were needed.

Seventh, we'd recognize that even primary care providers cannot--and should not--be solely responsible for their children's welfare, because children, too, are human beings, social animals, and by definition members of society. So parents, too, would receive supplemental services when they needed them. Also, children would be accepted in all public and private venues, and we'd accommodate their needs and limitations just as we do those of people with disabilities. Recognizing that they need adult supervision, that childhood is (in part) a process of socialization, and that the developmental, psychological, and physical needs of children are different than those of adults, we would of course provide alternate forms of entertainment for them where appropriate, sympathetically excuse them (and their parents or supervising adults) from situations where they became disruptive, and be patient with their social lapses. Being supportive of primary caregivers would be a basic social expectation, like holding the door open for someone carrying a heavy package; this would mean that all sorts of rare politenesses would become matters of course: correcting misbehaving children ("young man, you should listen to your mother"), lending a quick hand ("let me help you get that stroller down the stairs"), and providing public amenities that recognized that children are members of the public (low toilets and sinks, family restrooms, barriers between walkways and streets). Breastfeeding, it should go without saying, would be a perfectly acceptable and unremarkable public activity.

If we did these things, then it would be a lot easier to raise children, and most of the "special" burdens of motherhood would be ameliorated or erased--and where it wasn't possible to do this, we'd consider them human burdens, and take them into account, rather than scolding, judging, or punishing women for having to bear them.

A Bitch_PhD can dream.

:thumbs up:

Sounds fantastic.

Unfortunatly, this will only work on the individual level. No matter who has tried it, responsibility and understanding cannot be forced.

This reminds me that I need to pick up some fresh condoms. My stash is getting a tad old.

Sounds Idealistic.

I recognize that you call it a pipe dream so its obvious you understand just how over the top it sounds. Of course the real value of the article I suppose lies in its exaggeration and how it highlights just how much of our society is built around standards that don't necessarily apply to every individual. At first it sounds like a sort of collective society but the structure of it actually encourages individual choice rather than societal norms and gives responsibility to all people rather than a few "qualified" people.

Sure it's about as likely to happen as mules mating but it's enough to get people thinking about a) what their ideal is and b) how our current society effects that.

I get your gist, in theory, but I have to say, about the whole condom thing, and maybe it's just me, but when a man gets his first condom from dad to keep in his wallet, well it's been kind of an initiation into manhood thing for a few decades now. It was something that folks in my dads age group (a decade or two before AIDS awareness was a topic'o'discussion) made almost a tradition of. And, I know, I know, it's another issue that feminists barrel up against, the whole good ol' boy approach to sex with women, and making light of it, and blah blah blah, but you can't make a blanket statement like "Shit, people, the only reason anyone talks about condoms is because of AIDS." because, while not on the grand scale it's discussed today, wearing a condom and being sexually responsible were still a part of the whole father/son coming- of-age dialogue. Or, well, since this IS your article, or whatever, I guess technically you CAN make blanket statements like "live in a world where pregnancy and motherhood were recognized as simple facts of life, rather than as abnormal? In other words, where we granted women full humanity?" when really pregnancy IS viewed as a fact of life. Additionally, or at least in the area I live in, major provisions within a community are being made for pregnant women these days. Like parking spaces that are closer than even handicap spaces to grocery stores and pharmacies (that's just a small example, but an improvement from the 50's, nontheless).

I don't totally agree. Condoms probably weren't on the radar much before AIDS because the pill is considered to be far more effective. I agree that as a male who doesn't want to have a child, I should use a condom (and I'd really like for a better form of birth control to exist for me...). But I don't think society as a whole thinks it's a women's responsibility. The pill is just a highly effective method, and it just so happens that it is for women only. And as a male has no control over if a women keeps the baby if she gets pregnant (rightfully so, in my mind... even if it can be unfair, I can't think of any other way it should be), it's downright stupid to expect the woman to take all the responsibility.

As for the rest of the points. A few of them sound a little extreme... I have responsibilities/disabilites that others don't, and I don't expect others to be accommodating to me, even if it would be nice sometimes.

However, I do suppose pregnancy/children might be a fairly common occurance, and some things just make sense. We have problems where I live with strollers on the bus. If more than one person has a stroller, then no one else can get on the bus. Considering how common strollers are... this problem shouldn't exist. People helping with stollers is remarkably common where I live, by the way.

As for it being socially acceptable to correct misbehaving children? Sounds great. However, I see how most people are... they don't know a thing about what I consider to be proper behavior. I'd rather do without their imput, as tempting as it is to yell at their brats.

The rarely acknowledged burden on the malcontent or the activist is to point the way to some better course of action from what they're protesting. For years I've known people pissed off about one thing or another who never stop long enough to seriously think about what model might work better. Thanks for proving that not only can it be done, but it can be done well.

Have you ever run a business and been responsible for meeting a payroll?

I like this layout of an "idealized" society. It gives some concrete areas to endeavour towards and covers potential benefits that would result. This is a good place to start to talk about what we want and to start talking about how this might happen.

society is embarrassed of sex and they blame women ...

Oh wow that's awesome news.
So if it's none of our business if they don't, do we still have to pay taxes to support unfit addict abusive welfare moms and their neglected children? Schweeeeet, cause I sure could use some of my own hard earned tax dollars to buy things for my own kids.
Frivolous shit, like, oh I dunno, food and clothing?? Or maybe I can put it towards a home security system to protect them from the criminals who are slowly making their way down our street, or gas for my car, so I can get to work.

Do you have absolutely no opinion on things that you are not directly responsible for?

Yes, you have to pay taxes to support poor children, because children are members of society and are unable to support themselves. When they grow up, they will pay taxes to support your health care, your social security, and--if you are unlucky enough to need it--your food stamps, your subsidized housing, etc. That's what being a member of a modern society means.

Ever pushed a watermelon through a Krispy Kreme?

Just so we're sure, you did meet payroll, right? Ok, good. Then shut the fuck up.

It may have been idealised, (and what exactly is wrong with trying to think around some of society's problems?) but if Bitch_PHD was running things I think we'd all be better off. You've got my vote.

umj, where do you get your facts? the condom has always had an effective rating of 98%(when used properly) the pill has only ever at best had a rating of 96%(when used properly) I suggest you recheck that statement.

References please. kthnx!

Ohhh got ya, thanks for clearing up the whole modern society thing for me, I wasn't straight on the whole thing. In that case, I totally reserve the right to scold these types of mothers then. Not that I ever have or would, because "scolding" isn't a real big motivator is it? "Bad bad 18 year old girl with three children you aren't taking care of, shame on you! Now here's your welfare check, go by yourself somethin pretty".

Actually, according to the FDA, condoms have an 80% typical effectiveness rate (94% when used perfectly), whereas the pill has a 95% typical effectiveness rate (99.9% when used perfectly - better than female sterilization). Just something to note.

Oh, hell, no.