Subscribe
Previous Post
Maternity leave, abolishing the “mommy track” at work, and advocating for parents are all priorities with matricentic feminism — another division of contemporary feminism aimed to address the needs of moms. “Matricentic feminism” is a term developed by Dr. Andrea O’Reilly, an associate professor of women’s studies at York University and the founder as well as director of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement. Her anthology The 21st Century Motherhood Movement: Mothers Speak Out on Why We Need to Change The World and How To Do it outlines the motherhood movement as it stands now and its relationship to the larger work of feminism.
Why are motherhood and feminism so closely linked?
Women still overwhelmingly do the bulk of mother work. Mother work is predominantly globally performed by women. It’s often said that motherhood is the unfinished business of feminism and that’s not faulting feminism at all. Mothers have specific needs and concerns above and beyond that of women.
How would you define the motherhood movement?
I think that it’s emerging as we speak so it’s very hard to define. It’s still in the gestational stages. What makes it different from say second-wave is that it’s far more micro-based.
In the introduction, you write that motherhood and feminism have acquired some detrimental distance from one another. You write that modern motherhood and the struggles of mothers appear to be the new problem with no name.
Originally, feminism was largely single unmarried childless women but I think some issues got lost a long the way. Just like women of color got lost along the way or queer women got lost along the way and there have been measures to correct that. That’s what mothers are doing now. They’re not faulting feminism, they’re just saying you should include these things and get them on the agenda.
You write about technology and how that’s a really big part of the motherhood movement. So many women with children have taken to maintaining blogs and mothers with young children tend be very active on social media. Do you envision social media being a vehicle for the motherhood movement?
I do, absolutely. Organizations require money and social media enables activism at very minimal cost. Social media has some restrictions obviously- geographically – but it enables organizations with very limited funds to do activism which would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. But what we’re seeing very recently is that social media can organize more traditional activism — taking people to the streets and engaging in real front line activism. So I think it’s a really nice mix. One example is SlutWalk. That is the perfect example. It happened online but it’s actually on the streets. If it hadn’t gone to the streets, none of this would have happened.
We can’t forget the importance of conferences, gathering, letters to politicians, or organizing sit-ins around breastfeeding issues. It has to be spontaneous and organized and fun. Like with SlutWalk — it’s provocative, creative, fun, and artistic and I do think that the organizations that are succeeding are engaging in that more performative type of activism that gets the media’s attention, that gets people engaged.
Why do you think it’s important to distinguish the motherhood movement with the term “matricentic feminism?”
The term really suggests a mother-centered perspective or focus. Just like we have queer feminism and third-wave feminism — it now becomes another road of feminism that leads to the larger movement.
It is very difficult because in this book, I did not want to validate the new momism. It’s dangerously bad for women and children. I didn’t want to make another requirement of mothers. Not only do they have to raise the perfect kid but now they have to change the world!
But a lot of the organization of the book is not just talking about mothers — it’s talking about women who are caregiving with children. A lot of those organizations are clear that they need moms but they also make it clear that they’re talking about anyone who cares about children and the world we live — and that’s everybody hopefully. We’re talking about mothers strategically but that doesn’t exclude other people that care about our children such as fathers, aunts, the government. So it’s tricky. It’s just like feminism. You use the term “feminism” which implies women but we would hope that we have men. We would hope that we have people who are pro-mothers, pro-children whether or not they are mothers or have children themselves. I see “mother” more as a verb — something that you do, something that needs to be done, something that needs to be done well and can be done by anybody.
(photo: bitmorecomplicated.com)
While I agree with the previous poster that fertility should be discussed in schools and that the myth that you can *start* having kids in your 40′s is wildly optimistic and should be addressed, and while I agree that NOBODY should be taking a baby away from any mother only due to her age or financial position, I have to say, the ‘tone’ of the overall comment below IS ‘demonizing’ women, but it’s demonizing infertile adoptive couples as being ‘rich, older’ and while not said, ‘selfish monsters who just want to rip babies out of arms of young women’.
I agree that ALL women should be safe, and that INCLUDES infertile women. Where is the insurance coverage for IVF and other therapies that can bring the ONE thing that none of us would NEVER want to lose – our CHILD – to EVERY woman who wants one? I am amazed that ANY woman who has has had her own child can just ignore this issue. Do you know how it feels to try to have a child, month after month, for YEARS? Every time you want to do something as simple as go get a gallon of milk at the grocery store, you are likely to see a pregnant woman, overhear someone talking about someone who just had a baby, and even worse, COMPLAINING about being a mother? She is left to just go home and ‘suck it up’. Her health insurance will usually not pay for a dime, and if she can’t afford it, she is just supposed to get cats, I guess. People don’t CARE because they don’t identify. Everyone can identify with child loss, because it’s our worst fear. But if we’ve had our children and enjoyed good fertility, then we often wrinkle our noses up at these infertile woman and assume negative things about them. It needs to stop! Who will fight for THESE women?
Wow, what a thoughtful and sad comment. I have had these thoughts too (though I’m not involved in adoption in anyway), that there is a definite sadness for birth mothers and children. Not to be rude to the adoptive mothers but it seems common to read about that. I’ve often wondered why the govt in the us won’t support young single moms much. The pressure is very real not to be a young single mom( or you will be poor and undesirable .) this pressure also results in regretted abortions ( I’m sure I’m
Not the only one). We can’t have a supportive ‘mothering’ culture with people constantly recomending adoption and abortion as a solution for poor pregnant women in a first world country. You’ve hit the nail on the head about infertility issues (of the rich) preventing logical discourse on adoption pros and cons.
By the way, sorry for your loss.
I have to also wonder if the lack of a pro-mothering culture will eventually decline morality in a nation. Specifically I wonder about the us and china…
Problem is, like all of feminism, it is created by the upper echelon FOR the upper echelon and turns a blind eye to the needs of powerless and marginalized women and mothers.
If the subject of adoption is mentioned, it is from the point of view of those WANTING children to adopt! Those who see them as commodities and their mothers as uncaring, incapable or pathetic.
I am a twice published author on adoption and a mother who lost my first child to adoption in 1967 when societal pressures caused many young, white women to relinquish their rights.
Adoption as a loss for mothers is a subject that with two rare exceptions (Phyllis Chesler and Rickie Solinger) feminists have blatantly ignored. I and my colleagues have been rebuffed by feminist conferences and publications because our words cause discomfort for those who see adoption as a “cure” for infertility and a source of parenthood that should be available to single mothers by choice and for same sex couples.
While there is some debate among feminists whether prostitution is exploitation or a choice, for the most part those arguing the debate are not likely customers profiting from another’s exploitation.
Adoption – and surrogacy – pits women against women and the voices of the paying customers over shadow the cries of the victims. Just today China.org is reporting how the cash donations made to adopt a child from China support the black market trafficking of children for adoption there, as it does all over the world as poor women are used as brood stock HandMaids for more affluent Westerners.
if we are going to really look at feminism from a truly matricentic perspective, we MUST recognize and being to support ALL mothers – every women who given birth. We must protect the right of women and the children to remain together. hat means supporting family preservation programs and recognizing that adoption is often corrupt and encourages stealing, kidnapping and trafficking to fill a demand.
It is also inherent of feminists to work at the root causes of infertility to help stem the tide instead of taking others’ children as an after-the-fact “cure.” high school health ed curriculums needs to include preventative infertility.
We cannot continue to tell young women to secure their graduate education and a career before beginning to contemplate motherhood realistically and expect that delaying childbearing is without serious consequences, or that one can “just adopt.”
Instead we need to see that education and careers can more easily be delayed and resumed after one has procreated closer to women’s physical peak for safe, healthy pregnancy,
We need to stop demonizing young mothers, poor mothers, single by chance – not choice – mothers and instead help them to be the best mothers for their children they can be! We need to stop seeing the third world as a shopping mall for eggs, wombs and babies.
We are not safe a women until ALL of us are safe. Feminism – matricentic or otherwise – need to be equally for ALl women all over the world and protect all women from exploitation and protect their children from commodification.
Stop Margaret Atwood’s fictional vision from being so real, right now, today.
Mirah Riben, author, THE STORK MARKET: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption industry