I don’t normally do this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and what I think about something is very rarely the truth of the matter. I also don’t really like disparaging people and I think the blogsphere has become a place some people use to spread negativity from behind the protective screen of an unclear identity. But I’m afraid this latest piece in The Dail Mail by Carol Sarler could not go unanswered.
At times like this, I enjoy taking the argument of someone I disagree with to ridiculous but logical conclusions. Sarler argues (she quotes “research findings” but I find it difficult to believe that: A) These research findings are not made up and B) That the research wasn’t done by “Sexism masquerading as Science PLC) that women who choose not to have children lack an “essential humanity”. If you lack an “essential humanity” then that makes you less than human or, to some extent, not human. Or at least not as human as the rest of us. So, Nuns aren’t human. I knew it! Nuns, in most cases, choose to follow the spiritual path and that doesn’t usually include sex never mind procreation. So Nun’s lack an “essential humanity” and are therefore not human.
One of the best bits of Sarler’s piece is the line: “and most children don’t stay babies for long.” Sarler has her finger on the pulse there. I, myself, didn’t stay 14 for long. Round about a year as I recall.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do have to be careful here. If a woman were carrying our child (as in my child and hers), I may well have different views and opinions in that situation than I would in other situations. But outside of that situation, I know full well that it is a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to have a child or not. Sure, she may talk that choice over with her partner/boyfriend/girlfriend etc and come to a joint decision on the matter or she may not have a partner and decide to have a child through other means. Whatever a woman decides to do, it’s her private decision that is her business and the business of anyone else who is actually involved (i.e: the father). It is not the business of national newspapers or hacks from national newspapers who have become deluded enough to think and feel that their approach to motherhood is the right and proper way and all other approaches are crimes against humanity. It’s her body and whatever she decides to do, she remains just as human as she was before she made that decision.
I mean, if I chose not to have children (there’s not exactly a queue of women looking to be the mothers of my children but who knows what life will bring), does that mean I’d lose my “essential humanity”? Would I become less than human? I mean, if we’re all supposed to be following gender roles dreamnt up when Victoria was still the Queen, shouldn’t I be spending my time looking to have sex with as many women as possible to make sure that a new race of babies with an uncanny liking for Doctor Who and wearing jumpers they got for Christmas, inherits the Earth? Shock horror! I’m defying my naturally selected gender role by deciding to be a one woman guy. I’m going against what is expected of me as a man. What have I lost? My essential humanity?
Let’s get something straight: what it means to be “essentially human” is not in the gift of Carol Sarler or the “research” she quotes. If you want to be a Mum, that’s great. If you don’t, that’s great to. The point is, unless I happen to be involved in a relationship with you and it’s our child, I have no right to judge you and I would not seek such authority. I have no right to define you as “wrong” or imply that you would not be trusted in the workplace because of your decision. Mothers do an amazing job. I seriously don’t know how you do it. Fathers do an amazing job too and so do Guardians, Grandparents, carers etc. But deciding not to have children doesn’t make you any less of an amazing woman. Can we just get that straight.
Feminism and women in general do not need me to defend them. But, you see, this piece in The Daily Mail has, indirectly, attacked the women I’ve loved over the years. Friends, family and lovers. The piece in the Mail implies that those women I’ve loved and love would lose a piece of their humanity if they decided not to have children. The women I’ve loved and love do not need me to defend them. That much is true. And, before people point it out, I am aware of the irony of my being a man appearing to defend a feminist cause and the fact that, in writing this piece, I might be said to be implying that even the strongest feminist needs a man to champion her. I’m implying nothing of the kind but you really could get yourself caught up in ironies where this post is concerned and I’m not having “the op” just so I don’t have to worry about people misunderstanding my motives.
I love the way Sarler attempts to qualify her opinion. In this latest piece of drivel, she makes sure the reader knows she’s a Mum and an “ex boss”. I’m a man and I once watched a football match. So I know everything there is to know about men and football and if you’re a man who doesn’t really like football that much then may the universe protect you from my wrath because deciding you don’t really like football that much means, in my book, that you lack an “essential humanity”. You’ve let the side down and betrayed the “we’re natural blokes doing natural bloke stuff” order. Oh, hang on a second. I don’t really like football that much. So most of this paragraph is unqualified, hypocritical nonsense. Hmm..
I’m listening to Norah Jones as I write this. I like Norah Jones and I’m a man. If you’re man and you don’t like Norah Jones, I judge you as “lacking an essential humanity”. How dare you let the side down? I know what blokes are and what it is to be a bloke and I know how they are supposed to behave and what they should like and shouldn’t like. Oh no, wait…I’m one unique voice amongst millions and have no right to judge others who hurt, harm and humiliate none. Reading Sarler’s pieces can make you forget that.
