I am currently working on an article for an academic journal
focusing on my own and others’ experience of being a nonmother with reference
to both biological families and political parties. In it my argument is that
childlessness is a personal, a public and a political issue.
I am a sociologist and (following eight years working as a
nursery nurse) my early academic career - as undergraduate and postgraduate student - gave
me the opportunity to engage in intellectual reflection on my own experience of
miscarriage (undergraduate final year dissertation) and subsequent infertility
and involuntary childlessness (PhD). From my own
experiences I felt that pregnancy loss and nonmotherhood were both
misunderstood and under-researched and during my own projects I came across many
others who felt the same. I met and
talked or corresponded with women (and men) who had had experiences more
distressing than mine; individuals whose reproductive ‘failures’ dominated
their lives completely. I also came across others for whom reproductive loss
and non-parenthood was less significant or something that they felt they had ‘dealt
with’ and ‘left behind’. *
A couple of weeks ago I read an article
by fellow sociologist Susie Scott who, through a focus on ‘non-identity’, ‘non-participation’ and
‘non-presence’, presents the case for a ‘sociology of nothing’. This is relevant
to my argument here in that women (and men) without children are often defined
negatively by others – as pitiable, as desperate, as selfish, as unfulfilled
and more - (e.g. Letherby, G. (2002)
‘Childless
and Bereft?: stereotypes and realities in relation to ‘voluntary’ and
‘involuntary childlessness and womanhood’ Sociological
Inquiry 72(1): 7-20) even though the reality is more often than not
much more complicated and complex. Furthermore, despite the non-identities of
non (biological) motherhood ‘being negatively defined by lack or
absence, they … [may be] constructed as meaningful’ by
nonmothers themselves (Scott, S. (2018) ‘A Sociology of Nothing:
understanding the unmarked’ Sociology 52(1): 3-19 pp.4).
Now self-defining as more
(biologically) voluntarily childless than involuntarily childless I credit
this personal shift in part to the opportunities my academic endeavours have
given me for detailed reflection on my own experience and those of similar
others. An opportunity, a privilege, that most people do not have. My friendships with
younger people including the children and grandchildren of others is significant
too as is my work - as teacher, supervisor, and mentor - in that all these
relationships give me much opportunity for satisfaction and fulfilment. Of course I can not know how my own life
would have turned out if I had carried my baby successfully to term or if I had
conceived and given birth to other children. I may have returned to education
and study I may have not. I do know that this (and other) losses (see for
example http://www.arwenack.co.uk/2017/07/bereavement-and-belongings-losses-and.html; http://www.arwenack.co.uk/2017/07/bereavement-and-belongings-losses-and_8.html; http://www.arwenack.co.uk/2017/07/bereavement-and-belongings-losses-and_72.html) have significantly
influenced by intellectual and personal development, opportunities and life experience.
My
long-term interest in, and support for, the politics of the Left was further
stimulated in the summer of 2016 (following the EU Referendum and the coup again
the Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn). Inevitably my concern with and
reflection on Party politics is influenced by my feminist sociological interest
in the personal as political and my first ‘political opinion piece’ written for
this Blog (there have been quite a few since) focused on gender stereotypes and
includes:
A short internet search and I found another, equally
ludicrous article [the first was about Corbyn's so called ‘left-wing beard’],
describing Corbyn as a ‘joyless vegetarian’ in need of a few good steaks. And
just this week yet another implying that it was inappropriate of him to attend
his allotment association annual general meeting given the current situation
within the PLP. The leader of the opposition, the article states, likes to
make ‘jam for friends and family’ with some of the produce he grows. So, this
is where he’s going wrong: doesn’t he know that it’s women who are closer
to nature, women who nurture and care, because, and only because, they give
birth? . . . . Enter Andrea Leadsom, Conservative leadership candidate, who
feels that, as a mother, she has a ‘real stake in the future’ and thus an
advantage over her childless and obviously ‘really sad’ opponent Theresa May.
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/all-hail-stereotype-left-wing-beards.html
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/all-hail-stereotype-left-wing-beards.html
Although Leadsom’s comments about her
rival’s reproductive state ended her ambitions this did not stop some of the
media running pieces on childless politicians with a focus only on women which were rightly
criticised by others (e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nicola-sturgeon-miscarriage-childless-theresa-may-explain-it-to-anyone-a7227106.html). Despite
complexity of experience, cultural depictions of women who do not mother
children or who mother children within relationships or in situations viewed by
some as different, inappropriate and/or even as ‘unreal’ (for example social motherhood of various kinds), have long drawn on oversimplified caricatures. Alongside this mothers, nonmothers and
other-mothers have always been labelled, by the media, as well as through
political and medical discourses as deserving or undeserving. With this in mind
I have been struck recently by a continuation of these discourses and an,
arguably, more sinister development with non and other mothers being
represented as a danger to themselves and to others. I have written more about this,
and other issues related to reproductive rights, experiences and identities here.
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/sex-gender-and-all-rest-hidden_30.html
Four years ago I stepped down from a full-time academic position (60+ hours a week being usual) to work freelance and I am now able to spend more time in voluntary activities and political activism. I have become more active in canvassing, protesting on the street and online and in political writing (including letters to newspapers, publishing on this blog and contributing to the social media presence of my CLP). I have written about a number of issues including school summer holiday hunger, the Grenfell Tower tragedy, homelessness, health, education and more. I do appreciate that such involvement and activity might be more difficult, not least in terms of organisation as well as time, for friends with children and grandchildren. And yet, as I have written previously (with Karen Ramsay) women without childcare responsibilities are often viewed as an 'institutional resource' in the academy (and elsewhere) as they are thought to be 'natural' carers with more time available to support students and colleagues (Ramsay, K. and Letherby, G. (2006) ‘The Experience of Academic Non-Mothers in the Gendered University’, Gender, Work and Organization 13(1): 25-44). Again a deterministic, simplistic explanation which takes no account of the other responsibilities, including caring responsibilities, that women might have. Nor does it acknowledge that men care too (Letherby, Gayle Marchbank, Jen Ramsay, Karen Shiels, John (2005) ‘Mothers and “Others” Providing Care Within and Outside of the Academy’ in Hile Bassett R Parenting and Professing: Balancing Family Work with an Academic Career Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press).
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/sex-gender-and-all-rest-hidden_30.html
Four years ago I stepped down from a full-time academic position (60+ hours a week being usual) to work freelance and I am now able to spend more time in voluntary activities and political activism. I have become more active in canvassing, protesting on the street and online and in political writing (including letters to newspapers, publishing on this blog and contributing to the social media presence of my CLP). I have written about a number of issues including school summer holiday hunger, the Grenfell Tower tragedy, homelessness, health, education and more. I do appreciate that such involvement and activity might be more difficult, not least in terms of organisation as well as time, for friends with children and grandchildren. And yet, as I have written previously (with Karen Ramsay) women without childcare responsibilities are often viewed as an 'institutional resource' in the academy (and elsewhere) as they are thought to be 'natural' carers with more time available to support students and colleagues (Ramsay, K. and Letherby, G. (2006) ‘The Experience of Academic Non-Mothers in the Gendered University’, Gender, Work and Organization 13(1): 25-44). Again a deterministic, simplistic explanation which takes no account of the other responsibilities, including caring responsibilities, that women might have. Nor does it acknowledge that men care too (Letherby, Gayle Marchbank, Jen Ramsay, Karen Shiels, John (2005) ‘Mothers and “Others” Providing Care Within and Outside of the Academy’ in Hile Bassett R Parenting and Professing: Balancing Family Work with an Academic Career Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press).
The (small amount) of political work I do is motivated by my strong desire for a better
world for all, now and in the future. Many of my concerns then are for all
‘our’ children, their life chances and choices. With all this in mind I was
disappointed (and hurt) for my difference, my otherness to
be highlighted yet again when I read of the launch of Mums4Corbyn at The World Transformed event
at the 2018 Labour Party Conference. From what I could see of planned events
many of the issues considered were those that affect all women, mother or not,
and shared concerns were part of my pitch for a piece for the New Socialist who
published a series of articles focusing on the contemporary politics of
motherhood in support of the initiative. Thus:
My concern is with the political significance of all
women whether mothers, nonmothers or other-mothers (women whose mother status
is considered lesser, even ‘unreal’). This is important because the
ideologies and expectations of ideal motherhood affect all
women, in our private and our public lives and the image of the ideal woman –
which is arguably synonymous with the image of the ideal mother – also affects
us all, whether mother, other-mother or nonmother. Feminism
can be criticized for focusing on motherhood at the expense of a consideration
of sisterhood. Yet any (political) understanding of motherhood and mothering
needs to embrace the experience of nonmothers and other-mothers. It is only
through such holistic reflection on our similarities and our differences that
as sisters together we can challenge that which divides us and holds us back
and celebrate our ‘collective and communal relations’ which will enable to us
work together for ‘transformative change’.
I
appreciate, of course, the particular challenges and inequalities that mothers
face
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-parenting-mothers-mums4corbyn-children-paternity-leave-maternity-a7895941.html but I
maintain that we can more effectively work on this together as, in with
reference to this issue, as in many others, we do indeed ‘have
far more in common with each other than things that divide
us’ (Jo Cox MP).
Sadly, the editors felt that my piece did not
‘quite match’ their intended agenda. Which in turn felt, to me, like a further
denial of the relevance of the very many of us who have an identity and
experiences often defined by society as lesser.
I
wrote (a variation of some of what I have written above) to Mums4Corbyn http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/an-open-letter-to-mums4corbyn-some.html and did
receive a generous reply but I remained, and remain frustrated by the lack of
attention to difference in the New
Socialist pieces. I appreciate that reducing the introductory article in
the series to one sentence is problematic. Yet, the opening one of a section
entitled ‘Why Mothers?’: ‘The ‘labourist’
tendency in the Labour Party has often excluded women and struggles around
reproduction, indeed it could be argued that it is constituted, to an extent,
by precisely this exclusion.’ highlights,
I believe, the importance of such debate and discussion to those who are not or do not mother as well as those who are and do. https://newsocialist.org.uk/the-politics-of-contemporary-motherhood-and-mums4corbyn/
I admit that this time around the ‘meaningful
identity’ that I have carefully built for myself felt threatened. I wrote a
poem about some aspects of my experience and about these feelings:
Being Other
Expectation (on
multiple levels), preparation, anticipation, expectation (joyful this time)
once more.
Loss, pain (lots of
pain, the physical far outweighed by the emotional), feelings of failure and
self-loathing.
Desperation.
More failure.
Gradually, slowly,
with lots of loving support, if not resolution as least an acceptance.
And there are
compensations both in relationships and through other opportunities to find
enrichment, fulfilment, value. For this I am grateful.
*
Yet, there remains
a sense of difference, compounded at times by exclusion.
Still feeling other
and sometimes being othered.
Being also, at
least at some level, an expert in my own experience, and through much
study and research the experience of similar others, does not always protect me
from distress.
So what of the
latest exclusion, that which forces me to relive my loss (yet again), and its'
social, emotional and material aftermath, more than thirty years on from
the life-changing night when all this started?
This time a denial
not only of our contribution
and our value but also
a rejection of my knowledge
and expertise.
I appreciate then
that my pride is hurt on top of all the rest.
*
I will recover, I
always do.
But for the
moment I’m left reflecting on the fragility of it all.
Contentment, self-worth, security
in one’s achievements and meaningfulness, perhaps even some small legacy.
In a heartbeat all
threatened.
Walking on ice.
Careful steps
now …
***
A recent
interview for House Magazine with the Labour MP Sarah Champion is available
online. The article includes:
… after six years fighting CSE [Child Sexual Exploitation] from the Opposition benches, the Labour MP
is concerned that for the current Prime Minister the issue has “dropped off the
radar”.
When Champion met David Cameron she was impressed
with his dedication to the cause following a visit to her constituency to see
up close the scars the abuse had left on the community. But she does not
believe that Theresa May shares his commitment.
“I do not feel with this government that it is a
priority at all,” she says.
“David Cameron got it and I think he got it because
I went to him as a dad rather than going to him as a politician. And I got him
to meet some of the survivors of Rotherham and one of the mums whose child went
through it. So, we engaged with him on that level, which is why he then
crusaded as a dad, wanting it for other people’s children.
“Theresa May was great when she was Home Secretary
and then as soon as she shifted to PM it’s dropped off the radar. It’s clearly
not a priority for them.”
Following this Champion responded to criticisms that she is ‘doing a Leadsom’ – i.e. suggesting that May is not
serious about CSE because she is not a mother/parent – thus:
@SarahChampionMP: For the
record, I have not - and would not - say anything about Theresa May’s ability
as a politician based on where (sic) or not she is a mother.
Absolute rubbish and lies.
I accept this and Ms Champion's additional comment: 'I judge people on their ability not their womb!'. But, if the
report of the interview is correct (as Champion tweeted a copy herself, I
assume it is) given the continued cultural and political discourse that
positions nonmothers/(parents) as other, as lesser, as absent, as invisible
(Letherby 1994, 2002, Scott 2018) it is perhaps not surprising that some people
find her words easy to manipulate. I agree with Champion that 'abuse is always about power' and greatly appreciate her DARE2CARE National Action Plan https://www.dare2care.org.uk/. I agree also that the issue of child sexual exploitation is not being given the attention it
deserves by the Prime Minister. Indeed, despite the rhetoric that the
Government is ‘BUILDING A COUNTRY THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE’:
- the voting records (see
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/) of many Conservative politicians,
- their political priorities and policies in many areas,
- and, in some instances, their less than respectful behaviour
towards others, including other politicians and the general
public. (I’m thinking here of more, much more, than Ben Bradley MPs recent necessary apology to
Jeremy Corbyn MP https://twitter.com/bbradleymp/status/967526680188375040 ).
strongly suggests that there is much that
the Prime Minister and her colleagues are not taking seriously enough.
In 1994 I wrote:
.
. .all women live their lives against a background of personal and cultural
assumptions that all women are or want to be mothers and that for women
motherhood is proof of adulthood and a natural consequence of marriage or a
permanent relationship with a man. A great deal of social and psychological
research has focused on women and the role of children in their lives and is thus
complicit in reproducing societal assumptions about women deriving their
identity from relationships in domestic situations and particularly from
motherhood within the family. . . (Letherby,
G. 1994 ‘Mother or Not, Mother or What?: problems of definition and identity’ Women’s Studies International Forum
17(5): 525-532)
Then in 1999:
For many people ‘childless’ implies a person
with something missing from her (sic) life. Mothers are perceived as proper
‘women’, while women without children are perceived as ‘improper’ and treated
as ‘other’. They are also treated as childlike rather than truly adult. Thus,
women who have no children are considered to have no responsibilities and thus
to be like children themselves. (Letherby G and Williams C (1999) ‘Non-motherhood:
ambivalent autobiographies’ Feminist Studies 25(3): 7-19)
And in 2016:
To suggest that a woman, or a man, who does not have any
(biological) children has no understanding of or interest in the next
generation(s) is ridiculous, to imply that they are less concerned about local
and global in/equality and in/justice offensive. http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/all-hail-stereotype-left-wing-beards.html
I am interested in, and intend to write more about, both the 'politics of hope' (e.g. https://overland.org.au/2017/10/corbyn-and-the-politics-of-democratic-hope/) and the 'politics of belonging' (e.g.: Nira Yuval-Davis (2011) The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations London: Sage; George Monbiot (2017) Out of the Wreckage: a new politics for an age of crisis London: Verso (for a review of this see Graham Scambler’s Blog
http://www.grahamscambler.com/politics-and-narratives/)) not least because of the links than can be made to the focus on the power of sisterhood within feminism and to my own particular academic and personal interest in non/motherhood. In the month in which we celebrate some women getting the vote through a struggle that involved women working ‘Shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend’ (March of the Women, composed by Ethel Smyth in 1910, to words by Cicely Hamilton) it remains (to me at least) ironic that the differences, rather than the similarities, between mothers and others still often dominates political, and other, agendas. My plea is that those on the Left, at least, engage with the concerns I raise here – I’m available for a debate.
* For information I have also researched issues surrounding the experience of pregnancy and motherhood/parenthood for a variety of different groups including young mothers and mothers with long-term health conditions.
To follow soon:
The Personal is Political and the Political is Personal (2)
| ‘Shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend’ (March of the Women, composed by Ethel Smyth in 1910, to words by Cicely
Hamilton)