What do you think?
Rate this book
Kadınlık mı? Annelik mi?
Annelik, kadın olmanın bittiği nokta mıdır? Eğer günümüzün "ideal anne"sinden söz ediyorsak, evet... Beklentiler öylesine ağır ki kadının anneliği "hak etmek" için ekonomik özgürlüğüyle birlikte sosyal ve cinsel hayatından da vazgeçmesi gerek... Hayatından ödün vermeye yanaşmayan "anne-kadın"ın ise sinirleri sağlam olmalı. Çünkü Elisabeth Badinter'in de ortaya koyduğu gibi, "vicdan azabı" ideal annelik Şablonuna uymak istemeyenler üzerinde gerçekten etkili olan bir baskı aracı... Bugün kadınlar, mücadele vererek geldikleri noktadan, tip camiası ve aile kurumunu yücelten kesimler tarafından uzaklaştırılıyor. Üstelik emzirmeyi ve annelik rolünü öven feminist akımların işbirliğiyle!
Kadınları bu modern kölelik düzenine sürükleyen ne? Badinter'e göre, kadının profesyonel hayattaki yeri hâlâ sağlamlaşmış değil. Öte yandan, bitmez tükenmez annelik yükümlülükleri kadına sürekli evinin yolunu gösteriyor. "Yeşil" siyaset ve idealleştirilen natüralizm nosyonu ise, "doğal" doğum yapmasını, hazır mama, bez ve biberon kullanmamasını, kısacası, hayatını kolaylaştıran her şeyi bırakmasını telkin ediyor.
Sonuçta kadına iki seçenek sunuluyor: Ya "çocuk-egemen" bir yaşama razı gelmeli ya da çocuk yapmaktan bütünüyle vazgeçmeli. Doğum oranlarındaki düşüş ikinci şıkkın güçlendiğinin ispatı. Badinter Kadınlık mı? Annelik mi? sorusunun kadınlar için nasıl tehditler içerdiğini etkileyici bir biçimde gösteriyor: Bu tercih dayatması, sonuç en olursa olsun, kadınlara mutsuzluktan başka şans tanımıyor...
Kadınları bu modern kölelik düzenine sürükleyen ne? Badinter'e göre, kadının profesyonel hayattaki yeri hâlâ sağlamlaşmış değil. Öte yandan, bitmez tükenmez annelik yükümlülükleri kadına sürekli evinin yolunu gösteriyor. "Yeşil" siyaset ve idealleştirilen natüralizm nosyonu ise, "doğal" doğum yapmasını, hazır mama, bez ve biberon kullanmamasını, kısacası, hayatını kolaylaştıran her şeyi bırakmasını telkin ediyor.
Sonuçta kadına iki seçenek sunuluyor: Ya "çocuk-egemen" bir yaşama razı gelmeli ya da çocuk yapmaktan bütünüyle vazgeçmeli. Doğum oranlarındaki düşüş ikinci şıkkın güçlendiğinin ispatı. Badinter Kadınlık mı? Annelik mi? sorusunun kadınlar için nasıl tehditler içerdiğini etkileyici bir biçimde gösteriyor: Bu tercih dayatması, sonuç en olursa olsun, kadınlara mutsuzluktan başka şans tanımıyor...
184 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
54 people are currently reading
1614 people want to read
About the author
Élisabeth Badinter
37 books101 followersElisabeth Badinter is the acclaimed author of three seminal works on feminism—The Myth of Motherhood, Wrong Turn, and Masculine Identity—which have been translated into fifteen languages. Badinter teaches philosophy at the école Polytechnique in Paris, where she lives.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/elisab...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/elisab...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews
June 29, 2010
Before reading this book, I had read an interview in a Quebec newspaper where Elisabeth Badinter outlined the book's main ideas. I found her incredibly lucid and courageous.
It is true that we live in a child-centric society, how we got here is to some extent explained in Le Conflit. The feminist waves had a peak and then they crashed. She argues that right now, the new generation of women are caught between the environmentalist movements, the anger at their own mothers who fought to achieve equality "at the expense" of not being full time with their kids and the politics of several international organizations that seem to define who is a good mother and who is a bad mother, dictaminated by whether the woman breastfeads, uses disposable diapers and spends at the very least a year at home tending to their children full time. She describes it in two chapters: L'enfant d'abord (the child first) and l'imperium du bébé (the baby's empire).
She talks about all aspects of motherhood and how these provoque great conflicts in women; breastfeeding is one of them. She examines how the act of breastfeeding has become a nearly dictatorial issue by demanding women in western countries to "breastfeed upon demand and as long as the baby wants". She describes the policts behind La Leche League and lists the 10 breastfeeding commmandments including "You will not quit [breastfeeding:]" and Badinter adds a comment "Not in two days, nor in two weeks, nor in two months. If your breasts hurt, find help before your breasts begin to bleed".
Maternal instinct, the desire of NOT having children, the stigma against childfree or childless couples, the neverending and always valid female aspirations, the high statistics that show that couples separate before the child turns three, the constraints set by the environmentalists, doctors and nurses that listen to international organizations but do not listen to the individual woman and her individual needs, all these are issues described and supported with an impressive bibliography by Badinter.
It is no mystery as to why Elisabeth Badinter has been demonized, ridiculed and discredited. Women who abide by the rules do so in a firm belief that they are doing what is best for their babies but forgetting themselves. It must be painful to have their loving intentions questioned like this.
They have read the reviews but have not read the actual book, and so they call Badinter an old feminist hag. In fact, she is not discrediting any of it, what she is doing is to raise awareness about the emprisonment of women in these, in my opinion, insane corsets that are pulled tighter and tighter.
She argues that a woman does not need to feel guilty over her decisions and she should not be made to feel guilty by external "experts".
I believe that what she is actually saying is: if you want to breastfeed you should, but it you don't want to then that's ok too. If you want to use disposable diapers because it makes life easier for you it's ok, if you want to use washables, fine. If you want to stay home and you are sure of that, then go ahead, but if you will be happier at work, leaving you child in childcare is also fine. What she's saying is that enough with the guilt. It is the XXI century after all, for better or for worse, but if women don't thread carefully, they will entrap themselves (or maybe they already have) in a corner where no matter what they do, it will never be good enough.
It is true that we live in a child-centric society, how we got here is to some extent explained in Le Conflit. The feminist waves had a peak and then they crashed. She argues that right now, the new generation of women are caught between the environmentalist movements, the anger at their own mothers who fought to achieve equality "at the expense" of not being full time with their kids and the politics of several international organizations that seem to define who is a good mother and who is a bad mother, dictaminated by whether the woman breastfeads, uses disposable diapers and spends at the very least a year at home tending to their children full time. She describes it in two chapters: L'enfant d'abord (the child first) and l'imperium du bébé (the baby's empire).
She talks about all aspects of motherhood and how these provoque great conflicts in women; breastfeeding is one of them. She examines how the act of breastfeeding has become a nearly dictatorial issue by demanding women in western countries to "breastfeed upon demand and as long as the baby wants". She describes the policts behind La Leche League and lists the 10 breastfeeding commmandments including "You will not quit [breastfeeding:]" and Badinter adds a comment "Not in two days, nor in two weeks, nor in two months. If your breasts hurt, find help before your breasts begin to bleed".
Maternal instinct, the desire of NOT having children, the stigma against childfree or childless couples, the neverending and always valid female aspirations, the high statistics that show that couples separate before the child turns three, the constraints set by the environmentalists, doctors and nurses that listen to international organizations but do not listen to the individual woman and her individual needs, all these are issues described and supported with an impressive bibliography by Badinter.
It is no mystery as to why Elisabeth Badinter has been demonized, ridiculed and discredited. Women who abide by the rules do so in a firm belief that they are doing what is best for their babies but forgetting themselves. It must be painful to have their loving intentions questioned like this.
They have read the reviews but have not read the actual book, and so they call Badinter an old feminist hag. In fact, she is not discrediting any of it, what she is doing is to raise awareness about the emprisonment of women in these, in my opinion, insane corsets that are pulled tighter and tighter.
She argues that a woman does not need to feel guilty over her decisions and she should not be made to feel guilty by external "experts".
I believe that what she is actually saying is: if you want to breastfeed you should, but it you don't want to then that's ok too. If you want to use disposable diapers because it makes life easier for you it's ok, if you want to use washables, fine. If you want to stay home and you are sure of that, then go ahead, but if you will be happier at work, leaving you child in childcare is also fine. What she's saying is that enough with the guilt. It is the XXI century after all, for better or for worse, but if women don't thread carefully, they will entrap themselves (or maybe they already have) in a corner where no matter what they do, it will never be good enough.
February 16, 2014
I had heard how awful this book is, but I figured that it couldn't be so shrill and reactionary as people claimed. I wanted to read it, both as a feminist and as someone considering having kids.
Holy god, this book is awful. Seriously. Before I get into how awful this book is, there's one good point that Badinter makes that I want to acknowledge. Women who don't have children are looked at as selfish or narcissistic or otherwise dysfunctional in some way for not having children. However, many if not most childfree women spend a good deal of time thinking about their choice and attempting to make a responsible decision. So, what's looked at as an immoral or abnormal decision is most likely actually a quite thoughtful and considerate decision. Fair enough. That's a good point.
But the rest of this book? What a bunch of shrill, 1960s-1970s reactionary feminist bullshit. Seriously.
Badinter seems to think that women will achieve the feminist "goal" when they are equally engaged in making money and pursuing career status as men. Equality or justice for women is about achieving parity with men in a capitalist order. Children stand in the way of that "goal" to the extent that they remove women from the labor market.
For Badinter, women who started having kids in the 1990s and later are nothing more than the ungrateful children of those 1960s and 1970s feminists like herself. People of her generation struggled for their freedom and how dare those younger women not want to succeed in the way their mothers chose for them?! How dare these younger women not value status in the work place over other forms of life?!
If her implicit endorsement of capitalism and all the hierarchy that comes along with it weren't bad enough, she also seethes with disdain for nature. Her language choices drip with sarcasm and condemnation when discussing the fact that many women are divesting themselves from medical systems that treat pregnancy as a disease rather than a natural occurrence. This devaluation of nature, the implicit endorsement of the idea that we are more advanced to the extent that we remove ourselves from nature, combined with her valuation of participation in the capitalist order is just too much masculinist bullshit for me to handle.
I will never understand "feminists" like this lady who insists that we're equal to men to the extent that we all become masculine and value the kinds of things that have been valued in patriarchal, capitalist societies. Turns out I think all that economic achievement, status driven, nature devaluing stuff is fucked. I don't want to be a part of that. And if that makes me a bad feminist, then so be it. I'd rather be a good person than the kind of person that Badinter would recognize as a good feminist.
Holy god, this book is awful. Seriously. Before I get into how awful this book is, there's one good point that Badinter makes that I want to acknowledge. Women who don't have children are looked at as selfish or narcissistic or otherwise dysfunctional in some way for not having children. However, many if not most childfree women spend a good deal of time thinking about their choice and attempting to make a responsible decision. So, what's looked at as an immoral or abnormal decision is most likely actually a quite thoughtful and considerate decision. Fair enough. That's a good point.
But the rest of this book? What a bunch of shrill, 1960s-1970s reactionary feminist bullshit. Seriously.
Badinter seems to think that women will achieve the feminist "goal" when they are equally engaged in making money and pursuing career status as men. Equality or justice for women is about achieving parity with men in a capitalist order. Children stand in the way of that "goal" to the extent that they remove women from the labor market.
For Badinter, women who started having kids in the 1990s and later are nothing more than the ungrateful children of those 1960s and 1970s feminists like herself. People of her generation struggled for their freedom and how dare those younger women not want to succeed in the way their mothers chose for them?! How dare these younger women not value status in the work place over other forms of life?!
If her implicit endorsement of capitalism and all the hierarchy that comes along with it weren't bad enough, she also seethes with disdain for nature. Her language choices drip with sarcasm and condemnation when discussing the fact that many women are divesting themselves from medical systems that treat pregnancy as a disease rather than a natural occurrence. This devaluation of nature, the implicit endorsement of the idea that we are more advanced to the extent that we remove ourselves from nature, combined with her valuation of participation in the capitalist order is just too much masculinist bullshit for me to handle.
I will never understand "feminists" like this lady who insists that we're equal to men to the extent that we all become masculine and value the kinds of things that have been valued in patriarchal, capitalist societies. Turns out I think all that economic achievement, status driven, nature devaluing stuff is fucked. I don't want to be a part of that. And if that makes me a bad feminist, then so be it. I'd rather be a good person than the kind of person that Badinter would recognize as a good feminist.
July 26, 2012
I finished reading less than a minute ago, so a very fresh reaction: everyone should read this book. The thesis is essentially that by expecting too much of mothers, motherhood becomes so heavy a burden that it is unreconcilable with women's obligations to their careers, to their partners, to themselves. I am constantly irritated by the ever-growing list of pseudo-scientific recommendations that pregnant women and mothers of young children are exhorted to abide by, and so it was incredibly refreshing to read this book. Badinter not only articulates this, but explores the consequences - for women's happiness, for women's professional attainment, and for birthrates.
One particularly inflammatory theme is the ideal of 'naturalism' as opposed to feminism. Badinter takes issue with 'maternal instinct' (and so do I), and pushes back against breastfeeding, cloth diapers, organic food - not because these things are evil, but because guilting women into doing these things has massive negative externalities.
Should I have kids, their lives will be a little rougher because I read this book. And my life is going to be a lot better.
One particularly inflammatory theme is the ideal of 'naturalism' as opposed to feminism. Badinter takes issue with 'maternal instinct' (and so do I), and pushes back against breastfeeding, cloth diapers, organic food - not because these things are evil, but because guilting women into doing these things has massive negative externalities.
Should I have kids, their lives will be a little rougher because I read this book. And my life is going to be a lot better.
December 11, 2012
In her latest feminist missive, Elisabeth Badinter seems determined to conceal a number of extremely important points with wandering discussion; layers of dry, sarcastic vitriol (particularly directed at La Leche League); sweeping generalizations; and an almost tangential conclusion. Her message: thanks to changes in feminist theory and the vaunting of all things natural, a new "high ideal of motherhood" as full-time and all-embracing (i.e., the belief "that a good mother takes constant care of her children round the clock and cannot pursue personal fulfillment at the same time") leaves women with "two options: exclusive motherhood or remaining childless," and that we will see more women choosing the latter. In several respects, I can't say that I agree.
Why do I recommend the book nonetheless? First, it's mercifully short. Second, she delivers aforementioned golden nuggets like, "[i]n a civilization that puts the self first, motherhood is a challenge, even a contradiction. Desires that are considered legitimate for a childless woman no longer are once she becomes a mother." True. "The irony of this history is that it was precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home." Well put. Third, I like the global perspective. Finally and most importantly, I can take strands of her thoughts and weave them into material that's more relevant for me, discarding the scraps.
Badinter's bottom line observation - that mothers these days are held to a new unrealistic ideal (taking primary responsibility for domestic chores as well as their children's basic physical needs, education, stimulation, and future psychological well-being) - is astute and forceful. And she provides every one of us with an extraordinarily valuable touchstone when she writes that "a mother cannot allow herself to be consumed by her baby to the point of destroying her desires as a woman." My primary problem with Badinter's book is that she doesn't stop there or offer ideas to reform "vocational motherhood," instead suggesting the employment route (along with bottle feeding and utilizing child care) and opting out of motherhood entirely as our sole means of salvation. In so doing, she unnecessarily narrows the desires mothers relinquish down to one: professional ambition.
In my opinion, the key to stay-at-home mothers escaping their "new master[s]" is not necessarily work. One can refuse to "give her child everything" by consciously and consistently making time for her social life, sexuality, vanity, and intellectual curiosity. She can be "both mother and woman" simply by changing her approach to the first role. At least that's what I've done lately, refusing to feel contrite about skipping infant enrichment opportunities, asking my two toddlers to play independently for chunks of time throughout the day, and hiring college students to babysit (or arranging child care swaps with other moms) for a few hours a week so that I can read, shower, drink, socialize, spend time with my husband, and write book reviews. How do I skirt the guilt at not being able to do it all single-handedly? In part, thanks to the support Badinter provides.
Why do I recommend the book nonetheless? First, it's mercifully short. Second, she delivers aforementioned golden nuggets like, "[i]n a civilization that puts the self first, motherhood is a challenge, even a contradiction. Desires that are considered legitimate for a childless woman no longer are once she becomes a mother." True. "The irony of this history is that it was precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home." Well put. Third, I like the global perspective. Finally and most importantly, I can take strands of her thoughts and weave them into material that's more relevant for me, discarding the scraps.
Badinter's bottom line observation - that mothers these days are held to a new unrealistic ideal (taking primary responsibility for domestic chores as well as their children's basic physical needs, education, stimulation, and future psychological well-being) - is astute and forceful. And she provides every one of us with an extraordinarily valuable touchstone when she writes that "a mother cannot allow herself to be consumed by her baby to the point of destroying her desires as a woman." My primary problem with Badinter's book is that she doesn't stop there or offer ideas to reform "vocational motherhood," instead suggesting the employment route (along with bottle feeding and utilizing child care) and opting out of motherhood entirely as our sole means of salvation. In so doing, she unnecessarily narrows the desires mothers relinquish down to one: professional ambition.
In my opinion, the key to stay-at-home mothers escaping their "new master[s]" is not necessarily work. One can refuse to "give her child everything" by consciously and consistently making time for her social life, sexuality, vanity, and intellectual curiosity. She can be "both mother and woman" simply by changing her approach to the first role. At least that's what I've done lately, refusing to feel contrite about skipping infant enrichment opportunities, asking my two toddlers to play independently for chunks of time throughout the day, and hiring college students to babysit (or arranging child care swaps with other moms) for a few hours a week so that I can read, shower, drink, socialize, spend time with my husband, and write book reviews. How do I skirt the guilt at not being able to do it all single-handedly? In part, thanks to the support Badinter provides.
April 30, 2018
Veľmi dôležitá (hoci miestami možno príliš povrchná) analýza fenoménu moderného materstva, ktoré svojimi totalizujúcimi požiadavkami podkopáva ťažko-vydobité práva žien. Dôležitý príspevok do debaty o rodičovstve, o spoločenských a kultúrnych očakávaniach toho, čo znamená byť "dobrá matka", guilt-trippingu s tým spojeného a aké regresívne môžu byť dôsledky takejto ideológie. Aj na Slovensku, kde sa to hemží biomatkami, predpismi o kojení do maturity, diskurzom o 'obeti' deťom, a kde sa všeobecne gýče o rodine hojne využívajú ako nástroj politického boja, nám takéto knihy treba (v preklade) ako soľ.
Read
February 11, 2021
"Daha da kötüsü, annelik, kadının toplumsal açıdan tamamen değer kaybetmesi anlamına gelse de, kendisini gerçekleştirmesinin en önemli adımı olarak görülür. [...] Görüldüğü gibi, çocuk sahibi olmak, aşk hayatına uygun değildir."
(s.120)
Badinter'in kitabı annelik beklentisinin kadınlar üzerinde yarattığı etkileri açıklama konusunda oldukça kapsamlı tespitler içeriyor. Anneliğin kadın kimliğinin tek özelliği olmadığını, yalnızca özelliklerinden biri olduğu temel tezi, kitabın pek çok yerinde karşımıza çıkan subjektif ifadeler nedeniyle cılız kalmış.
Evlenmeyen kadınlar, evlendiği halde çocuk yapmayı planlamayanlar, evlilik dışı çocuk yapanlar veya fizyolojik sebeplerle çocuk yapamayan kadınlar üzerindeki toplumsal baskıyı akılda kalıcı örneklerle ortaya koymuş. Diğer yandan anneliğin doğal mı yoksa kültürel bir inşa mı olduğu, emzirmenin, biberonun veyahut da bebek bezinin üzerinden yürüttüğü/yürütmeye çalıştığı tartışmalarda kitabı bir döngüye sürüklemiş. Anneliği yer yer olumsuzlayan, kötüleyen ifadeleriyle anne-olmama-olamamanın kadınlar üzerinde yarattığı baskıyı ve suçluluk duygusunu ortadan kaldırmayı hedeflerken bunun yerine anneliği kendi özgür iradesiyle tercih eden kadınları kendi özgürlüklerinden feragat eden "kerizler" gibi görmekle sonuçlanacak bir yanılgıya sürüklenmiş. Nüfus artışının durduğu, nüfusun azaldığı ülkelerde bu doğrultuda oluşan endişeyi bertaraf etmek için "yarı zamanlı annelik" gibi öneriler sunsa da bunların içerisini doldurmakta pek de başarılı olamamış ve anneliği kökten olumsuzlayan önceki subjektif ifadeleriyle iç çelişkiye düşmüş.
Hamilelere sigara ve alkol yasağı uygulanmasını dahi rahibelik gibi tasavvur ettiği şu ifadeler sizce de subjektif değil mi?
"Tıpkı rahibe olan dindar kadın gibi, geleceğin annesi de artık başına buyruk olamaz. Tanrı ve bebek, dünyevi hayata son erme gücüne sahip yegane varlıklardır. İdam cezasının son karesi bile bundan anlamlı olamazdı...." (s.73)
Yazar, anneliği erkek hakimiyetinin bir devamı olarak görürken bebeği de anneyi bir takım fedakarlıklar nedeniyle gündelik yaşamından alıkoyması üzerinden bu düzenin bir müttefiki olarak karşımıza çıkarması subjektifliğinin boyutunu göz önüne seriyor:
"Erkek hakimiyetinin en iyi müttefiki, kendisine rağmen, masum bebek olmuştur." (s.102)
Sonuç olarak, yazar; anne olmaları yönündeki kadınlar üzerinde oluşan ağır baskının ve ataerkil sistemin dayattığı "anne olamazsa yarım kalmışlık" suçluluk duygusunu ortadan kaldırmak yönünde iyi niyetli bir çalışma olarak yazdığı kitabı, yer yer anneliği kadından kopararak ataerkine yapıştırması ve doğrudan hedef haline getirdiği satır aralarında sıkışmış cümleleriyle bilimsel bir çalışmadan çok "bekarlığa övgü" haline getiriyor. Diğer benzer çalışmaların da düştüğü bir diğer yanılgı olan, erkeklerin erkekler üzerinde yarattıkları baskı mekanizmalarının hiç yer almadığı kitapta, erkeklere yönelik baba olma yönündeki erkek (ve kadın) baskısına dair tek bir satır bile yok. Masum bebeğin bile ataerkil sistemin müttefiki olarak sunulduğu bu kitaptaki tezlerin bir kısmına katılmam mümkün değil.
M.B.
Mersin
Badinter'in kitabı annelik beklentisinin kadınlar üzerinde yarattığı etkileri açıklama konusunda oldukça kapsamlı tespitler içeriyor. Anneliğin kadın kimliğinin tek özelliği olmadığını, yalnızca özelliklerinden biri olduğu temel tezi, kitabın pek çok yerinde karşımıza çıkan subjektif ifadeler nedeniyle cılız kalmış.
Evlenmeyen kadınlar, evlendiği halde çocuk yapmayı planlamayanlar, evlilik dışı çocuk yapanlar veya fizyolojik sebeplerle çocuk yapamayan kadınlar üzerindeki toplumsal baskıyı akılda kalıcı örneklerle ortaya koymuş. Diğer yandan anneliğin doğal mı yoksa kültürel bir inşa mı olduğu, emzirmenin, biberonun veyahut da bebek bezinin üzerinden yürüttüğü/yürütmeye çalıştığı tartışmalarda kitabı bir döngüye sürüklemiş. Anneliği yer yer olumsuzlayan, kötüleyen ifadeleriyle anne-olmama-olamamanın kadınlar üzerinde yarattığı baskıyı ve suçluluk duygusunu ortadan kaldırmayı hedeflerken bunun yerine anneliği kendi özgür iradesiyle tercih eden kadınları kendi özgürlüklerinden feragat eden "kerizler" gibi görmekle sonuçlanacak bir yanılgıya sürüklenmiş. Nüfus artışının durduğu, nüfusun azaldığı ülkelerde bu doğrultuda oluşan endişeyi bertaraf etmek için "yarı zamanlı annelik" gibi öneriler sunsa da bunların içerisini doldurmakta pek de başarılı olamamış ve anneliği kökten olumsuzlayan önceki subjektif ifadeleriyle iç çelişkiye düşmüş.
Hamilelere sigara ve alkol yasağı uygulanmasını dahi rahibelik gibi tasavvur ettiği şu ifadeler sizce de subjektif değil mi?
"Tıpkı rahibe olan dindar kadın gibi, geleceğin annesi de artık başına buyruk olamaz. Tanrı ve bebek, dünyevi hayata son erme gücüne sahip yegane varlıklardır. İdam cezasının son karesi bile bundan anlamlı olamazdı...." (s.73)
Yazar, anneliği erkek hakimiyetinin bir devamı olarak görürken bebeği de anneyi bir takım fedakarlıklar nedeniyle gündelik yaşamından alıkoyması üzerinden bu düzenin bir müttefiki olarak karşımıza çıkarması subjektifliğinin boyutunu göz önüne seriyor:
"Erkek hakimiyetinin en iyi müttefiki, kendisine rağmen, masum bebek olmuştur." (s.102)
Sonuç olarak, yazar; anne olmaları yönündeki kadınlar üzerinde oluşan ağır baskının ve ataerkil sistemin dayattığı "anne olamazsa yarım kalmışlık" suçluluk duygusunu ortadan kaldırmak yönünde iyi niyetli bir çalışma olarak yazdığı kitabı, yer yer anneliği kadından kopararak ataerkine yapıştırması ve doğrudan hedef haline getirdiği satır aralarında sıkışmış cümleleriyle bilimsel bir çalışmadan çok "bekarlığa övgü" haline getiriyor. Diğer benzer çalışmaların da düştüğü bir diğer yanılgı olan, erkeklerin erkekler üzerinde yarattıkları baskı mekanizmalarının hiç yer almadığı kitapta, erkeklere yönelik baba olma yönündeki erkek (ve kadın) baskısına dair tek bir satır bile yok. Masum bebeğin bile ataerkil sistemin müttefiki olarak sunulduğu bu kitaptaki tezlerin bir kısmına katılmam mümkün değil.
M.B.
Mersin
March 9, 2019
At least it was a quick read.
This book got my hackles up so bad. I could not stop rolling my eyes and arguing with it! I hated it. So I had to give it 3 stars because it made me think, it made me feel, even if I didn't like what I was feeling.
The translation from the French was not great but I got used to it. Not surprisingly, the book is wrapped up by pretty much implying the French are doing things right.
I had a big issue with what the hell she was trying to get at with this book but it's so much to delve into now.
She pretty much thinks the La Leche League is some kind of paramilitary conspiracy organization. Okay, not exactly but pretty much the devil. Whatever, I read their famous book. It had some useful information and what didn't work for me, I dropped. You know why? Because I'm a big girl. With a brain. 🙄 They didn't brainwash me into breastfeeding on demand, co-sleeping, ignoring my husband and quitting my job. FFS.
One thing I do agree with is we pay an inordinate amount of attention to those who choose not to procreate and not enough to the thought devoted by those who choose to do so.
I marked this one "to read" 4 years ago so who knows what I was thinking.
This book got my hackles up so bad. I could not stop rolling my eyes and arguing with it! I hated it. So I had to give it 3 stars because it made me think, it made me feel, even if I didn't like what I was feeling.
The translation from the French was not great but I got used to it. Not surprisingly, the book is wrapped up by pretty much implying the French are doing things right.
I had a big issue with what the hell she was trying to get at with this book but it's so much to delve into now.
She pretty much thinks the La Leche League is some kind of paramilitary conspiracy organization. Okay, not exactly but pretty much the devil. Whatever, I read their famous book. It had some useful information and what didn't work for me, I dropped. You know why? Because I'm a big girl. With a brain. 🙄 They didn't brainwash me into breastfeeding on demand, co-sleeping, ignoring my husband and quitting my job. FFS.
One thing I do agree with is we pay an inordinate amount of attention to those who choose not to procreate and not enough to the thought devoted by those who choose to do so.
I marked this one "to read" 4 years ago so who knows what I was thinking.
May 1, 2012
Thought provoking ideas about modern feminism, exhaustively researched and presented in 113 pages. I'd love to be able to point my friends, dates, and coworkers (I'm talking to you, Mr. "Women Get Stupid After They Have A Child") toward this book for a better understanding of the economic and social realities a woman faces as she attempts to hammer out her identity as a woman and a mother. Unfortunately, the book's lackluster translating and editing takes much of the thunder out of the rhetoric-- frequent French idioms and too-literal translations are a distraction, and worse, Ms. Badinter's deadpan irony often reads as literal. As a result, there are important stretches of this book that might be completely misunderstood if the reader didn't already have a good idea of where Ms. Badinter was going. If you are in any way worried about the social confines of motherhood, of losing your job or identity to parenthood, of "being a slave to the child at your breast", this book will resonate. Otherwise, the rhetoric might easily miss its mark.
December 12, 2017
Kadınlık ve annelik kavramına farklı bir pencereden bakış. Toplumlar, hükümetler, örgütler ve en önemlisi kadınların anneliğe bakışı. Nerde hata var, kim der ki çocuksuzluğu seçmiş kadın eksiktir diye? Erkek egemen yapı düzeltilemeden neden üstüne bir de çocuk egemen yapının altında ezilsin kadın soyu? Çocukla ilgili bütün sorumluluk anneye yüklendiği sürece kadın erkek eşitliğinden söz edilemeyecektir.
August 12, 2017
The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women by Elisabeth Badinter is a non-fiction read. While I didn’t agree with all of her conclusions from her data, the points that she raises are thought-provoking and an important consideration, not only for feminists, but for mothers and fathers. The connections to Rousseau’s naturalism as a school of thought are interesting as is the historical perspective on motherhood in France contrasted with other countries.
March 11, 2012
I struggled with Badinter's theories in this book, at times becoming angry at her and wanting to scream that being a stay at home mother by choice is no less honorable than working up the corporate ladder. Giving all to my children does not make me less of a woman or put those woman who wish to climb the corporate ladder back many years in the fight for equality.
January 21, 2015
A One-Minute Review
Elisabeth Badinter’s The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women will delight and annoy all points of the political spectrum. This usually indicates a great book. From page one, Badinter launches a reasoned, but powerful, feminist critique at the worrying results of the cult of all-encompassing motherhood. She describes a society pushing mothers to be mothers. Mothers aren’t mothers and workers, mothers and women, or even mothers and lovers. Mothers are mothers, and those who step out from this identity immediately encounter guilt-laden social judgment. At the heart of this pressure is the re-invention of “traditional” motherhood underscored by naturalism – no epidural, no formula, and definitely no daycare. "No way," says Badinter. Such motherhood excludes fathers, breaks up families, and pressures women to forego careers, social life, and equality, she argues. Badinter isn’t against women choosing 24/7 motherhood, but she is alarmed at the social pressure that presents this as the only acceptable choice. Society may judge childless women selfish, but it’s even harsher on guilt-ridden working moms. Choice emerges as Badinter’s rallying cry, and she sees its absence, particularly in North America, undermining women’s equality. Arguing for choice, freedom, and also responsibility, The Conflict grasps a social third rail – wait for the sparks to fly.
Elisabeth Badinter’s The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women will delight and annoy all points of the political spectrum. This usually indicates a great book. From page one, Badinter launches a reasoned, but powerful, feminist critique at the worrying results of the cult of all-encompassing motherhood. She describes a society pushing mothers to be mothers. Mothers aren’t mothers and workers, mothers and women, or even mothers and lovers. Mothers are mothers, and those who step out from this identity immediately encounter guilt-laden social judgment. At the heart of this pressure is the re-invention of “traditional” motherhood underscored by naturalism – no epidural, no formula, and definitely no daycare. "No way," says Badinter. Such motherhood excludes fathers, breaks up families, and pressures women to forego careers, social life, and equality, she argues. Badinter isn’t against women choosing 24/7 motherhood, but she is alarmed at the social pressure that presents this as the only acceptable choice. Society may judge childless women selfish, but it’s even harsher on guilt-ridden working moms. Choice emerges as Badinter’s rallying cry, and she sees its absence, particularly in North America, undermining women’s equality. Arguing for choice, freedom, and also responsibility, The Conflict grasps a social third rail – wait for the sparks to fly.
July 28, 2020
As Badinter said: “To this date, no family policy is 100% effective in promoting gender equality.” It is difficult to describe my shock upon this conclusion. It shattered my last bit of fantasy. Before reading this book I still thought that no matter how far away we are, we still have a direction to work hard, and now even this direction has proved to be a mirage. I am not to belittle the achievements Scandinavians had achieved in terms of gender equality. On the contrary, I also hope that this achievement is solid and reliable... But now it seems that there is no "correct answer" in this world, a perfect example that can be copied. Perhaps this is the limit that human society can reach.
Compared with the patriarchy, what disheartens me is the Achilles heel of women: love. Out of the need to love and be loved, they will never be able to say "no" to marriage (as a group), to draw a clear line between maternal obligations and personal needs, or to truly regard themselves as an individual person independent of children, husbands and other family members. As Badinter pointed out, "The responsibility of caring for babies and young children is more restrictive than gender discrimination in the workplace and the family. A woman can resist her boss or husband, but cannot leave her children." As long as the family system exists, women are eternal caregivers. This identity is passed from mother to daughter, and then from daughter to her daughter, and never ending. Physiologically, women are completely self-sufficient—the ability to create life is unique to them and does not need to be attached to anyone. It is the spiritual needs that made them willingly castrate this self-sufficiency by themselves. A small number of women who realise this are regarded as aliens and traitors. They are stigmatised, attacked and expelled by groups, which is the dilemma faced by anti-marriage feminists in today's society: both men and women regard them as enemies. The irony is that at the moment when a woman is soberly aware of her situation, she becomes a "third sex" in a sense-a lonely ghost who drifts away from the accepted binary sex. Women who refuse to be recruited by patriarchy are not worthy of being women. And as a member of this lonely ghost, I couldn't even condemn the group of women who expelled me. They hate me and my kind more than their oppressors. They hate us precisely because we point out that oppression is oppression. I understand them. Yet I hate this understanding because they won't give me the same empathy, or even attempt to empathise. But despite everything...I understand them and felt a chronic pain for this.
Sexist men can celebrate now: for a long time, their ruling won't be threatened. They don’t need to use any arms or even say one word to win this war. The supporters of maternalism created all of this single-handedly.
Compared with the patriarchy, what disheartens me is the Achilles heel of women: love. Out of the need to love and be loved, they will never be able to say "no" to marriage (as a group), to draw a clear line between maternal obligations and personal needs, or to truly regard themselves as an individual person independent of children, husbands and other family members. As Badinter pointed out, "The responsibility of caring for babies and young children is more restrictive than gender discrimination in the workplace and the family. A woman can resist her boss or husband, but cannot leave her children." As long as the family system exists, women are eternal caregivers. This identity is passed from mother to daughter, and then from daughter to her daughter, and never ending. Physiologically, women are completely self-sufficient—the ability to create life is unique to them and does not need to be attached to anyone. It is the spiritual needs that made them willingly castrate this self-sufficiency by themselves. A small number of women who realise this are regarded as aliens and traitors. They are stigmatised, attacked and expelled by groups, which is the dilemma faced by anti-marriage feminists in today's society: both men and women regard them as enemies. The irony is that at the moment when a woman is soberly aware of her situation, she becomes a "third sex" in a sense-a lonely ghost who drifts away from the accepted binary sex. Women who refuse to be recruited by patriarchy are not worthy of being women. And as a member of this lonely ghost, I couldn't even condemn the group of women who expelled me. They hate me and my kind more than their oppressors. They hate us precisely because we point out that oppression is oppression. I understand them. Yet I hate this understanding because they won't give me the same empathy, or even attempt to empathise. But despite everything...I understand them and felt a chronic pain for this.
Sexist men can celebrate now: for a long time, their ruling won't be threatened. They don’t need to use any arms or even say one word to win this war. The supporters of maternalism created all of this single-handedly.
September 18, 2012
I was excited when I was notified of my library hold coming up on this book. I couldn't wait to read it, because I felt it must be expressing what I live every day in terms of conflict between professional fulfillment and present parenting of my children.
While I was disappointed, some of Badinter's arguments are interesting. I found the discussion surrounding the status of parents in scandinavian countries relevant. I was interested in her claim that a majority of women in sweden are employed in the public sector, and discussion related to how that shapes the government's social policies related to high quality childcare and support of working parents. she argues that men do not take family leave in equal proportion to women in those countries because a majority of men are employed in the private sector, where the work policies are not as strongly supported as the public sector.
Mostly, however, I found her arguments against la leche league, its influence on breastfeeding and post partum bonding to be lame. Before reading the book, I had heard that the author is related somehow to Nestle. I'm not sure if this is true, but this book reads as a propaganda piece.
I also found her discussion related to the history of French mothers, and their historically high status due to the prevalence of wet nurses and governesses to be unconvincing. she seems to be saying that it is better for women to be "enslaved" by a societal notion of what a woman should be, than "enslaved" by the constraints of parenting.
All in all, I am completely underwhelmed by this book!
While I was disappointed, some of Badinter's arguments are interesting. I found the discussion surrounding the status of parents in scandinavian countries relevant. I was interested in her claim that a majority of women in sweden are employed in the public sector, and discussion related to how that shapes the government's social policies related to high quality childcare and support of working parents. she argues that men do not take family leave in equal proportion to women in those countries because a majority of men are employed in the private sector, where the work policies are not as strongly supported as the public sector.
Mostly, however, I found her arguments against la leche league, its influence on breastfeeding and post partum bonding to be lame. Before reading the book, I had heard that the author is related somehow to Nestle. I'm not sure if this is true, but this book reads as a propaganda piece.
I also found her discussion related to the history of French mothers, and their historically high status due to the prevalence of wet nurses and governesses to be unconvincing. she seems to be saying that it is better for women to be "enslaved" by a societal notion of what a woman should be, than "enslaved" by the constraints of parenting.
All in all, I am completely underwhelmed by this book!
July 18, 2012
This book was comforting to read. Most of the statistics cited in the book are European. It is nice to know that there are many other women in the world who are "child-free", since it feels like society labels you as they would a leper if you don't have children.
December 27, 2020
Kitap 2010’da yazılmış ama ilginç bir şekilde 80’ler 90’lar hissi var. Ekolojiye karşı eski bir perspektiften yaklaşıyor ve sert eleştirel olduğunu düşündüğüm için bu kısımları doğru bulmadım. Eleştirel bir kitap bir çok konuda kafa açıcı, özellikle ideal mükemmel annelik kavramının kadınlığını köleleştirme halini çok iyi özetlemiş. Fransız Kadınları özelinde onların kadınlık ve annelik algılarına dair gösterdiği tarihsel perspektif önemli. İskandinav deneyiminin de önemli olduğunu ancak yine de ev içi emeği ortaklaştırmadığını söylüyor.
Çocuk 17.yy da önemsiz bir varlıkken, günümüzde çocuk krallığına geçiyoruz. Annelik üstüne inanılmaz bir baskı varken, mükemmel olmaya çalışan anneler hep yetersizlik hissiyle bocalıyorlar. Kadınlara atfedilen ve verilen tüm sorumluluklar politik de aslında. Feminist perspektiften annelik okuması yapmayı kafa açıcı oldukça. Emzirme, biberon konularında kadınların üzerindeki inanılmaz tarihsel baskıyı farkettim. Çocuk Beslenmesi eğitimi de almış bir insan olarak bu konu üzerindeki sabitleme gerçekten yapamayan kadınlar üstünde bir baskı oluşturuyor.
Childless yerine childfree kavramınızda çok sevdim. Çocuktan özgürleşenler kategorisi:) Ayrıca postponers gibi diğer kategoriler de düşündürücü. Çocuk sahibi olmayı kim gerçekten düşünüyor ve seçimleri ne kadar kendinin? Ya da seçmemeyi. Yaşamsal sorular...
Çocuk 17.yy da önemsiz bir varlıkken, günümüzde çocuk krallığına geçiyoruz. Annelik üstüne inanılmaz bir baskı varken, mükemmel olmaya çalışan anneler hep yetersizlik hissiyle bocalıyorlar. Kadınlara atfedilen ve verilen tüm sorumluluklar politik de aslında. Feminist perspektiften annelik okuması yapmayı kafa açıcı oldukça. Emzirme, biberon konularında kadınların üzerindeki inanılmaz tarihsel baskıyı farkettim. Çocuk Beslenmesi eğitimi de almış bir insan olarak bu konu üzerindeki sabitleme gerçekten yapamayan kadınlar üstünde bir baskı oluşturuyor.
Childless yerine childfree kavramınızda çok sevdim. Çocuktan özgürleşenler kategorisi:) Ayrıca postponers gibi diğer kategoriler de düşündürücü. Çocuk sahibi olmayı kim gerçekten düşünüyor ve seçimleri ne kadar kendinin? Ya da seçmemeyi. Yaşamsal sorular...
May 11, 2019
A very French navel-gazey book but backed with a lot of statistical research. This argument highlights how women took on the mantle of "ideal motherhood" at the same moment of gender liberation in the 60s thus cutting off true equality. I will definitely be using this argument as a discussion in class this fall. The line that struck me the most was:
"The irony of history is that it was precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home. Women had achieved financial independence vas well as control over whether they had children or not: they had no reason, it seemed, to continue to confront men’s power.
Yet, thirty years later, there is no denying that male domination persists. <...> Their increased responsibility for babies and young children has proved just as restrictive, if not more so, than sexism in the home or in the workplace. A woman might be able to turn her back on her boss or her husband, but she can hardly walk away from her baby.
The tyranny of maternal duty is not new…” (96-97)
"The irony of history is that it was precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home. Women had achieved financial independence vas well as control over whether they had children or not: they had no reason, it seemed, to continue to confront men’s power.
Yet, thirty years later, there is no denying that male domination persists. <...> Their increased responsibility for babies and young children has proved just as restrictive, if not more so, than sexism in the home or in the workplace. A woman might be able to turn her back on her boss or her husband, but she can hardly walk away from her baby.
The tyranny of maternal duty is not new…” (96-97)
February 3, 2024
daha felsefi tartışmalarda kendimi bulacağımı düşünmüştüm fakat pek öyle olmadı. çok daha sosyolojik ve politik konularla ilgili bir kitap. kadınların içinde dönenlerin dışa vurumlarını analitik şekilde incelemeyi denemişler. ben psikolojik bir yan da aradım kitapta doğrusu, bu şekilde eksik kalıyor gibi. pratik çözümler üretilse bile bu çözümlerin pek de sonuç vermediğini görüyoruz kültürel yaklaşımlarla, ve içsel durumlarla mücadeleler sürmeye devam ediyor zira.
ama overall, bu alanı merak edenler için değerli bir kaynak. kaynakçası çok yoğun. sistemini de ben yeterli buldum, iyi şekilde konulara bölünebilmişti. ellere sağlık.
ama overall, bu alanı merak edenler için değerli bir kaynak. kaynakçası çok yoğun. sistemini de ben yeterli buldum, iyi şekilde konulara bölünebilmişti. ellere sağlık.
December 19, 2020
Badinter ainda insiste em uma lógica liberal (e cafona, vamos combinar) de feminismo, se esquivando de discussões fundamentais sobre classe e raça ao discutir um tema tão importante como a maternidade.
Dito isso, o livro traz reflexões interessantes para as mulheres que tem, não tem, pensam sobre, ou nao querem ter filhos.
Assim como Lina Meruane, Badinter explora o conceito atual de “mãe ecológica/naturalista”, que exige como conceito de “boa mãe”, a entrega (quase) absoluta da mãe aos filhos - ex.: a censura em usar mamadeira, chupeta, fralda descartável; o imperativo da amamentação prolongada e sob demanda.
Dito isso, o livro traz reflexões interessantes para as mulheres que tem, não tem, pensam sobre, ou nao querem ter filhos.
Assim como Lina Meruane, Badinter explora o conceito atual de “mãe ecológica/naturalista”, que exige como conceito de “boa mãe”, a entrega (quase) absoluta da mãe aos filhos - ex.: a censura em usar mamadeira, chupeta, fralda descartável; o imperativo da amamentação prolongada e sob demanda.
November 15, 2023
Holy shit though, buku penting. Doesn't matter how you see motherhood or womanhood at this age, the content is worth to think over. Soal bagaimana standar-standar membesarkan anak ditekankan eksklusif dan berlebihan kepada perempuan, lalu kurangnya studi/bukti tandingan - seolah konsensus sosial soal ini ga perlu di-challenge lagi kalau anak itu wajib dibawah asuhan perempuan. "Kalau perempuan/ibu tidak melakukan A-Z, maka ia tidak baik". Ga heran kita sering mendapati ibu yang dipenuhi rasa bersalah atau merasa tidak cukup baik untuk anaknya.
Tone bukunya memang bold, agak ngompor, borjuis. Beberapa argumen pun ada yang mentah, ga semuanya saya setuju. But the general ideas of this book are pretty good, soal:
- pentingnya ekosistem yang lebih suportif untuk membesarkan anak
- berhenti mengutuki perempuan dan pilihannya; mau jadi ibu rumah tangga, ibu bekerja, wanita karir, semuanya baik as long as it is her deliberate choice
- menjadi ibu adalah salah satu dari sekian banyak identitas wanita, sebaiknya jangan dilihat sebagai fase yang harus ditempuh supaya ia bisa dianggap wanita utuh, karena...
- memaksakan motherhood, bahkan ketika si ibu (atau lingkungannya) tidak siap, sama bahayanya dengan ancaman lower birth rate. Yang satu berpotensi melahirkan anak2 dg perkembangan fisik/psikologis buruk, yang satunya lagi berpotensi ngurangin jumlah populasi. Tapi cara kita memandang kedua hal tersebut cenderung ga seimbang.
Tone bukunya memang bold, agak ngompor, borjuis. Beberapa argumen pun ada yang mentah, ga semuanya saya setuju. But the general ideas of this book are pretty good, soal:
- pentingnya ekosistem yang lebih suportif untuk membesarkan anak
- berhenti mengutuki perempuan dan pilihannya; mau jadi ibu rumah tangga, ibu bekerja, wanita karir, semuanya baik as long as it is her deliberate choice
- menjadi ibu adalah salah satu dari sekian banyak identitas wanita, sebaiknya jangan dilihat sebagai fase yang harus ditempuh supaya ia bisa dianggap wanita utuh, karena...
- memaksakan motherhood, bahkan ketika si ibu (atau lingkungannya) tidak siap, sama bahayanya dengan ancaman lower birth rate. Yang satu berpotensi melahirkan anak2 dg perkembangan fisik/psikologis buruk, yang satunya lagi berpotensi ngurangin jumlah populasi. Tapi cara kita memandang kedua hal tersebut cenderung ga seimbang.
June 27, 2016
"elisabeth badinter points her finger at a most unlikely force undermining the status of women: extreme motherhood, in thrall to all that is "natural." attachment parenting, co-sleeping, baby -wearing, and on-demand breastfeeding— these hallmarks of contemporary motherhood have succeeded in tethering women to the home and family to an extent not seen since the 1950s. badinter argues that the taboos now surrounding epidurals, formula, disposable diapers, cribs —and anything that districts a mother's attention from her offspring— have turned child rearing into a singularly regressive force."
este es el comentario en la contraportada. un comentario atractivo que me invitó a querer conocer la opinión de la autora esperando fluidez entrelazada con cuestionamientos acerca de su propia perspectiva -a fin y al cabo el comentario recuerda que badinter es feminista y filósofa... <.< ese combo me sugiere que no será sólo encontrar enlazar a su conveniencia sino hacer el ejercicio de cuestionar sus bias, percepciones, etc.
desafortunadamente me encontré con pensamientos que me resultaron interesantes pero su defensa estaba más basada en si x entonces y lo cual no necesariamente es una línea de pensamiento atinada. "y" puede responder también a otros factores.
señalar que la mayoría de las mujeres realmente no quieren reproducirse y ejercer una maternidad pero deciden hacerlo porque temen optar por ese "no" o "child-free" que culturalmente es rechazado por tirarlo de hedonista, egoísta, et al... defender este punto poniendo como ejemplo a Francia como el país vale-madrista en donde señala, en varios de sus ensayos, el que las mujeres prefieren sus senos "perfectos" antes de lactar y entonces expresar cómo instituciones como La Liga de la Leche van ganando "batalla" en llenar de culpabilidad a las mujeres que deciden por cesáreas, no lactar, regresar al trabajo etc para entonces justificar "hey, las mujeres están sucumbiendo al paternalismo sin que éste tenga que abrir la boca si quiera"... me resulta simplista.
si francia es el ejemplo de una sociedad que "no se deja arrastrar por el sentimiento de culpa de ser mala madre" me parece que es igual de peligroso señalar como hedonista la "libertad sexual" y los "senos perfectos" y no como lo que pudieran ser: el reflejo del ejercicio sexista sobre mujeres que se han convencido de desearse como objeto aunque para ellas, y parece que para badinter también, digan que ESO es la expresión hedonista (materialista en pro del feminismo) que el naturalismo que pone en riesgo el trabajo pro equidad de género.
es cierto que el sentimiento de culpa en la mujer es grande pero igual el rollo del hombre que se encuentra en querer o no ser padre... peor aún porque socialmente "el hombre tiene que hacerse responsable" de la criatura. hmm.... ¿cómo le sacas ese rollo a la sociedad que le hace sentir culpable también al hombre de "abandonar" a esa criatura y a su madre? tsk tsk.
me parece muy limitado el libro y sólo acomoda a su conveniencia sin cuestionar si ese hedonismo no es un disfraz, el efecto paternalista sobre el hombre y la mujer, etc.
¿alguien conoce algún libro de la autora en donde recoja de modo más amplio estos puntos?
este es el comentario en la contraportada. un comentario atractivo que me invitó a querer conocer la opinión de la autora esperando fluidez entrelazada con cuestionamientos acerca de su propia perspectiva -a fin y al cabo el comentario recuerda que badinter es feminista y filósofa... <.< ese combo me sugiere que no será sólo encontrar enlazar a su conveniencia sino hacer el ejercicio de cuestionar sus bias, percepciones, etc.
desafortunadamente me encontré con pensamientos que me resultaron interesantes pero su defensa estaba más basada en si x entonces y lo cual no necesariamente es una línea de pensamiento atinada. "y" puede responder también a otros factores.
señalar que la mayoría de las mujeres realmente no quieren reproducirse y ejercer una maternidad pero deciden hacerlo porque temen optar por ese "no" o "child-free" que culturalmente es rechazado por tirarlo de hedonista, egoísta, et al... defender este punto poniendo como ejemplo a Francia como el país vale-madrista en donde señala, en varios de sus ensayos, el que las mujeres prefieren sus senos "perfectos" antes de lactar y entonces expresar cómo instituciones como La Liga de la Leche van ganando "batalla" en llenar de culpabilidad a las mujeres que deciden por cesáreas, no lactar, regresar al trabajo etc para entonces justificar "hey, las mujeres están sucumbiendo al paternalismo sin que éste tenga que abrir la boca si quiera"... me resulta simplista.
si francia es el ejemplo de una sociedad que "no se deja arrastrar por el sentimiento de culpa de ser mala madre" me parece que es igual de peligroso señalar como hedonista la "libertad sexual" y los "senos perfectos" y no como lo que pudieran ser: el reflejo del ejercicio sexista sobre mujeres que se han convencido de desearse como objeto aunque para ellas, y parece que para badinter también, digan que ESO es la expresión hedonista (materialista en pro del feminismo) que el naturalismo que pone en riesgo el trabajo pro equidad de género.
es cierto que el sentimiento de culpa en la mujer es grande pero igual el rollo del hombre que se encuentra en querer o no ser padre... peor aún porque socialmente "el hombre tiene que hacerse responsable" de la criatura. hmm.... ¿cómo le sacas ese rollo a la sociedad que le hace sentir culpable también al hombre de "abandonar" a esa criatura y a su madre? tsk tsk.
me parece muy limitado el libro y sólo acomoda a su conveniencia sin cuestionar si ese hedonismo no es un disfraz, el efecto paternalista sobre el hombre y la mujer, etc.
¿alguien conoce algún libro de la autora en donde recoja de modo más amplio estos puntos?
December 31, 2015
Very interesting topic, makes some really good points, kind of annoyingly written (almost a little sarcastic). Also, quite short and with weirdly large text and margins. Like... There's obviously a lot of information here, and this seems to be deliberately just skimming the surface.
Focuses on the naturalist movement of the last few decades (co-sleeping, attachment parenting, increased emphasis on breastfeeding, etc.) and on how government policies and cultural norms about motherhood are related to each other. On the contradictions women face:
"The first... is social. While boosters of the traditional family condemn working mothers, companies resent them for their children. For many, motherhood is held as the highest form of fulfillment for women even as it is devalued socially. Full-time mothers are unpaid, suspected of doing nothing all day, and deprived of a professional identity because their work requires no qualifications...
The second contradiction is conjugal. Couples tend to expect and desire children, yet, as many have noted, a child is not conducive to a couple's love life... A good number of young couples admit that they only realized the demands of the job after the fact ("no one warned me," they say). Increasingly, partners are taking a hard second look before launching on this adventure.
The most painful contradiction is personal, affecting every woman who does not identify with motherhood, every woman who feels torn between love for her child and personal desires, between wanting the best for her baby and wanting the best for herself. A child conceived as a source of fulfillment can, it turns out, stand in the way of that fulfillment. And, if we pile up a mother's responsibilities to the point of overload, she will feel this contradiction all the more keenly.
These contradictions are rarely given serious consideration. And by expecting ever more of mothers, the naturalist ideology not only fails to offer solutions, it makes the contradictions untenable. Wherever the prevailing ideal conflates [womanhood with motherhood], women who cannot fulfill the expectations pinned on them are increasingly likely to turn their backs on motherhood. [This is in reference to low and dropping birth rates in industrialized countries, and an increase in couples who are "child-free by choice".] In countries where being a woman and being a mother are seen as distinct identities, where the legitimacy of multiple women's roles is recognized, and where motherhood does not overwhelm all other possibilities, women do want to have children, even if it means falling short of the ideal of motherhood."
Focuses on the naturalist movement of the last few decades (co-sleeping, attachment parenting, increased emphasis on breastfeeding, etc.) and on how government policies and cultural norms about motherhood are related to each other. On the contradictions women face:
"The first... is social. While boosters of the traditional family condemn working mothers, companies resent them for their children. For many, motherhood is held as the highest form of fulfillment for women even as it is devalued socially. Full-time mothers are unpaid, suspected of doing nothing all day, and deprived of a professional identity because their work requires no qualifications...
The second contradiction is conjugal. Couples tend to expect and desire children, yet, as many have noted, a child is not conducive to a couple's love life... A good number of young couples admit that they only realized the demands of the job after the fact ("no one warned me," they say). Increasingly, partners are taking a hard second look before launching on this adventure.
The most painful contradiction is personal, affecting every woman who does not identify with motherhood, every woman who feels torn between love for her child and personal desires, between wanting the best for her baby and wanting the best for herself. A child conceived as a source of fulfillment can, it turns out, stand in the way of that fulfillment. And, if we pile up a mother's responsibilities to the point of overload, she will feel this contradiction all the more keenly.
These contradictions are rarely given serious consideration. And by expecting ever more of mothers, the naturalist ideology not only fails to offer solutions, it makes the contradictions untenable. Wherever the prevailing ideal conflates [womanhood with motherhood], women who cannot fulfill the expectations pinned on them are increasingly likely to turn their backs on motherhood. [This is in reference to low and dropping birth rates in industrialized countries, and an increase in couples who are "child-free by choice".] In countries where being a woman and being a mother are seen as distinct identities, where the legitimacy of multiple women's roles is recognized, and where motherhood does not overwhelm all other possibilities, women do want to have children, even if it means falling short of the ideal of motherhood."
June 21, 2012
Hm, well: not quite what I was expecting. Elisabeth Badinter has written this rather polemical work on the modern concept of Motherhood (the capital letter is deliberate, as Badinter finds the concept to be almost mythological in its power and scope) and the ways in which it confines and oppresses modern women. So, FYI: don't be thinking this is a research piece. She cites research but does not discuss it in depth; mostly this is a big strop on the sheer weirdness of the cultural shift away from female equality and back to the iconic Guardian Spirit of the Home.
And don't get me wrong: I actually agree with some of this. I am watching women my daughter's age crucify their "friends" on Facebook for sins against Proper Mothering: They feed their child two French fries instead of whipping up organic baby food! That sling they use is completely out of date! Have they taken pictures of that baby to record every hour of its life? No? Whyever not? A Good Mother would.
Badinter minces no words. She is disgusted by the current trend which makes mothers completely subservient to their infants, hyper-vigilant to their every whim and fancy; and she is even more disgusted by the impact this will inevitably have on women's ability to obtain higher status in society. A women tethered to her baby for years and years of nursing is not a woman with a high-status job; but, as she rightly points out, a woman who cuts any corners is rapidly becoming a pariah, judged mercilessly by her peers and by society as a whole as a Bad Mother.
I was interested in all that. The things I did not like were: the polemical nature of the book; the fact that it is written in French and translated into English, which causes the prose to be rather clumsy; and Badinter's ultimate conclusions, which seem to include praise for French woman who are bucking the trend by smoking and drinking during pregnancy and refusing to breastfeed. Unlike women in other European countries! She seems to link this to Frenchwomen's history of turning their children over to nannies so that they could concentrate on holding literary salons and whatnot. So that was peculiar. But still: a worthwhile read, if only as a counterweight to the endless onslaught of Being The Perfect Mommy books.
And don't get me wrong: I actually agree with some of this. I am watching women my daughter's age crucify their "friends" on Facebook for sins against Proper Mothering: They feed their child two French fries instead of whipping up organic baby food! That sling they use is completely out of date! Have they taken pictures of that baby to record every hour of its life? No? Whyever not? A Good Mother would.
Badinter minces no words. She is disgusted by the current trend which makes mothers completely subservient to their infants, hyper-vigilant to their every whim and fancy; and she is even more disgusted by the impact this will inevitably have on women's ability to obtain higher status in society. A women tethered to her baby for years and years of nursing is not a woman with a high-status job; but, as she rightly points out, a woman who cuts any corners is rapidly becoming a pariah, judged mercilessly by her peers and by society as a whole as a Bad Mother.
I was interested in all that. The things I did not like were: the polemical nature of the book; the fact that it is written in French and translated into English, which causes the prose to be rather clumsy; and Badinter's ultimate conclusions, which seem to include praise for French woman who are bucking the trend by smoking and drinking during pregnancy and refusing to breastfeed. Unlike women in other European countries! She seems to link this to Frenchwomen's history of turning their children over to nannies so that they could concentrate on holding literary salons and whatnot. So that was peculiar. But still: a worthwhile read, if only as a counterweight to the endless onslaught of Being The Perfect Mommy books.
June 26, 2017
Прочитать отзыв в блоге.
Читается как сборник эссе по разным темам. Подойдёт для кого-то, совсем незнакомого с women studies. Ожидала большего. Потом дополню.
Читается как сборник эссе по разным темам. Подойдёт для кого-то, совсем незнакомого с women studies. Ожидала большего. Потом дополню.
November 17, 2021
I adored this book. When I read the contemporary advice about having children it devastated me and made me think this is the only way to raise children and if I can't do that I might as well not have kids at all. As someone who struggles with their mental health, breastfeeding on demand, which would result in me not taking medications I need, staying up all night, and being isolated from other people would cause me to have a literal mental breakdown.
Badinter argues natural parenting is regressive and bad for women. She clearly connects it to low birth-rates because the standards placed on mothers are so high many women feel they shouldn't have children at all. The ones who do have few children because they're expected to be a slave for their child, according to one woman in the book, and dote on them so much it becomes impossible to have more than one or two children. There must be some truth to this. In the US Christian fundamentalists with large amounts of children use complete opposite methods of natural/attachment parenting.
All the gross reviews here and on Amazon illustrate exactly what she is talking about. We're not forcing our ideology on you, but you say every woman must follow your ideology or else she's a selfish, terrible person. Never mind it's completely impossible for poor people and disabled people and is a regressive ideology pretending to be liberal telling women our true place is in the home.
Badinter argues natural parenting is regressive and bad for women. She clearly connects it to low birth-rates because the standards placed on mothers are so high many women feel they shouldn't have children at all. The ones who do have few children because they're expected to be a slave for their child, according to one woman in the book, and dote on them so much it becomes impossible to have more than one or two children. There must be some truth to this. In the US Christian fundamentalists with large amounts of children use complete opposite methods of natural/attachment parenting.
All the gross reviews here and on Amazon illustrate exactly what she is talking about. We're not forcing our ideology on you, but you say every woman must follow your ideology or else she's a selfish, terrible person. Never mind it's completely impossible for poor people and disabled people and is a regressive ideology pretending to be liberal telling women our true place is in the home.
July 30, 2012
This book really thoroughly addressed the issue of how the "naturalistic" (emphasis on breastfeeding etc) form of parenting inspires guilt within young mothers, and in their efforts to live up to these pressures, are further tied to the home, which was a perspective I had not really considered before. It has a lot of relevant stats, and while Badinter is obviously attempting to paint a certain picture here, she does a good job of not being preach-y. She had a lot of interesting ties to history and how this new wave of ultra involved mothers was actually a form of rebellion against their own 1970s feminism era moms. Most of her statistics and points were about America and Europe, I would have appreciated to get a bit more of a global perspective to see how far these trends stretched. The book was very statistic and graph heavy, and while, as a stat major, I felt like the numbers told a compelling story on their own, I would have appreciated some more real-life anecdotes, I can understand how some people would find the book dry. It also seemed a little repetitive at points, but the book was short enough that that didn't really bother me.
July 24, 2012
Although this book isn't much more subtle than the title suggests, it's still worth a read for Badinter's explanation of the post-60s-feminist backlash embodied by the cult of natural motherhood as woman's highest achievement. Among some otherwise liberal and well-educated women, the anti-crib, anti-bottle, attachment parenting (read: mothering) method has become so doctrinal that it's a relief to hear Badinter stubbornly ask why, given the environmental and individual costs of children, remaining child-free isn't the default. Parts I could have done without: Badinter's examination of female French exceptionalism (it has something to do with socialites of the 18th century) and her obstinate refusal to acknowledge that drinking alcohol regularly, while pregnant, might cause fetal harm. Still, very much worth the read, in my opinion. I just wish this book was the kind of best-seller that women traded each other, rather than Gilbert's paean to self-actualization in a bowl of pasta: Eat, Pray, Love.
August 18, 2013
What was an intriguing idea as a read came up pretty short as a rant against women who choose "extreme motherhood" (co-sleeping, attachment parenting, etc.). We've heard of the "Mommy Wars" and I was curious what this French feminist had to say about it all. Unfortunately it's a really boring read. I don't know if it was a translation issue or the author's style, but I was really bored by it all.
Badinter offers a lot of statistics and studies to back her thesis of society moving towards women who choose not to work when they become full-time mothers and what becomes of that. She seems to have a lot of issues with those who choose to breastfeed (Amazon.com reviews note she sits on a board of a company that is involved with infant formula).
I was hoping this would be thought-provoking and might leave me with some debates to think about. But this book was really more for the author to rant rather than to give answers or solutions. I also wonder whether that she is French (and I assume raised her children in France) has to do with how her work has been received in the US.
Badinter offers a lot of statistics and studies to back her thesis of society moving towards women who choose not to work when they become full-time mothers and what becomes of that. She seems to have a lot of issues with those who choose to breastfeed (Amazon.com reviews note she sits on a board of a company that is involved with infant formula).
I was hoping this would be thought-provoking and might leave me with some debates to think about. But this book was really more for the author to rant rather than to give answers or solutions. I also wonder whether that she is French (and I assume raised her children in France) has to do with how her work has been received in the US.
May 6, 2012
Provocative book in the era of perfect parenting, I'm-not-perfect parenting, and every style in between. The irony of reading this on my kindle while nursing my infant at 4am was not lost on me. However the author did seem to miss that all of these styles are choices that individuals can chose to make. She did correctly identify that American parents are much less supported in child rearing than are French parents. I have to wonder if all of the "attachment" parenting is a protest of government policies that do inhibit women's parenting choices and perhaps these are the actions needed, in all forms to demonstrate to elected officials that they too need to think differently about how to better support parents.
January 8, 2016
"Milet' li Tales, neden çocuk yapmaktan kaçındığı sorulduğunda 'Tamamen çocuklara duyduğum sevgi nedeniyle' yanıtını verir. [...] Kim oğluna ya da kızına gerçeği, yani ölümün kaçınılmaz olduğunu, insanlar arasındaki ilişkilerin riyakarlığını, dünyanın çıkar dünyası olduğunu, ücretli emeğin zorunluluğunu, bunun hemen her zaman külfetli ve zorunlu olduğunu, aksinin istikrarsızlık ve işsizlik getirdiğinin açıklamayı arzular? Hangi nahif, budala ve şaşkın ebeveyn soyuna sunacağı sefaleti, hastalığı, yoksunluğu, yoksulluğu, yaşlılığı, mutsuzluğu sevebilir?[...] Sevgi, bu alçaklıkları biricik yavruna aktarma sanatı mıdır ? "
"Ne tuhaftır ki toplum, sahip oldukları sorumlulukları inkar edenlerden çok, onları ölçüp biçenleri sorgulamaktadır."
"Ne tuhaftır ki toplum, sahip oldukları sorumlulukları inkar edenlerden çok, onları ölçüp biçenleri sorgulamaktadır."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews