(This is a slightly edited version of a post that first appeared on The Iron-On Line)
Complete the following: “A mother is…”
a) An embodiment of what it means to be feminine.
b) Someone who gives birth.
c) A female parent.
Depending on the context, b) or c) could be the appropriate response. c) includes adoptive mothers, which I think makes it a better fit to what we usually understand by the term, but it’s not hard to think of a context where b) would be a better fit.
I’m very suspicious of a). The linking of motherhood and femininity is so intrinsic in some people’s minds that it seems insane to question it, but I’m questioning it. Motherhood as an ideal is only linked to femininity as an ideal because our culture has defined it thus. And therein lies the danger.
Some of the most painful emotional abuse I’ve suffered in relationships has come from men who see their mothers as goddesses on lofty pedastals. They respect women only to the extent that these women match the divine example set by their mothers. Any deviation from this, and the respect vanishes.
That’s the harm on an individual scale. On a cultural scale, the idea that any woman who is a fit mother will automatically be classically feminine hurts every woman who struggles to fit into the mould. Women who choose not to become mothers are seen as denying their femininity, hence the ubiquitous question, “But aren’t you worried you’ll be unfulfilled?” Women who are incapable of bearing children are objects of pity.
For those who choose motherhood but reject classical femininity, the world’s judgement can be even harsher. If a woman raises a child alone, whether through choice or acceptance of necessity, she cannot be classically feminine enough to satisfy certain groups. “Children need fathers” not just to provide them with positive male role models, so the logic goes, but also to protect their mothers from having their femininity – and therefore their motherhood – eroded by adapting to the practicalities of life.
And why is it so horrifying to consider a lesbian having a child by artificial insemination? Or even – God forbid – a trans man giving birth? It attacks the link between femininity and motherhood; it calls into question whether this link is really as intrinsic as it once seemed. And that’s an uncomfortable line of thought to go down; far easier to say that “those people” shouldn’t be allowed to have children.
When I first started to explore the question of gender identity in my fiction, I was drawn to the idea of an amazon-mother, a woman so masculine that her motherhood becomes masculine by contact with it. It has always fascinated me, and I’m sure it will continue to fascinate me as I move up into this category myself. Come November, barring miscarriage or other disaster, I will be a mother in sense b). To the extent that I’m female, I’ll also be a mother in sense c), although I probably won’t be in a hurry to pin that label on myself any more than I use any other female-specific label.
I will not be a mother in sense a). For the sake of my sanity and the sake of my baby, I’ll save my energy for the tasks that are not futile from the outset.
I always bristle at any discussion of “femininity” and what is supposed to be “feminine”, because historically women have not had any voice in determining what is feminine! It’s a construct that has been deliberately set up to disadvantage us; just getting through your life, or even the day, as a woman, and you’re already crossing the line of “femininity”. Bah. It’s a patriarchal concept from the beginning, and I’m not having any part of it.
I would also balk at the characterization of the amazon-mother as “masculine”. I’d say she has been labelled as “masculine” by the patriarchy for usurping the male perogative of self-defense and defense of her children. That particular brand of fierceness is something I see as quintessentially feminine, yet the right to use force, especially deadly force, to protect oneself is a trait that has been historically taken away from women. Even in certain feminist circles the use of force is regarded as something women shouldn’t be doing; that we should be pacifists. Which is fine for those who are privileged enough not to have to deal with having to protect themselves physically, but that isn’t most of us.
The whole trope of “femininity” has historically been used as a way to limit the strengths, talents, and opportunities of women. To truncate our lives. To try and slam us into that box when we become mothers, precisely when we are in most need of calling on all our resources, isn’t just done to put us in our place, but our children too. Especially if we are single mothers. It’s all about how to indoctrinate our children into a world where women are lesser beings.
just found you, and totally love this blog :) it makes me feel all fired up and illuminated.
am about to link to you, if that’s ok.
hippie x
Growing up in the deep south, I heard this constantly from my female friends and acquaintances: “I would never want a man who does not treat his mother with absolute respect!”
I agreed with their concept, but only because I felt everybody deserved absolute respect. My relationship with my mother is particularly rocky, mostly because she’s an uber-conservative Biblical literalist and I’m a uber-liberal evolutionary biologist… but I would never respect or disrespect her more than any other person. The idea has always stuck in my craw, but I have never quite grasped why. Thanks, Nick, for helping me with a little bit of insight.
If motherhood is the only culturally accepted route to power, then a woman will put her efforts towards defending motherhood and becoming a mother.
Attacks on ‘motherhood’ are the attacks on the only power said woman wields, outside of the unreliable, temporary and dangerous sexual ones.
A few months ago, I went to my parents’ church’s annual garage sale fundraiser, and paged through a book by Pat Robertson. Or maybe it was Rush Limbaugh. Anyway, what I managed to read before slamming it down in disgust was his disclaimer regarding the word feminism.
“Feminism, not to be confused with femininity.”
Now, at the time, I was quite annoyed (but unsurprised) at what I took to be an affirmation of the stereotype that all feminists are ugly androgynes who find beauty to be treasonous to The Cause. But Nick’s post helped me define what Robertson’s (or Limbaugh’s) comment really was: “Feminism is not femininity because in feminism, women, rather than men, set the standards for women.” Bite me, Pat. Or Rush.
I think this is what the anti-feminists have problems with: women setting their own standards, and women having a voice in setting society’s standards. They make fun of women who forego shaving, for example, and of women who look “butch.” A couple posts ago on the link to Baghdad Burning is another example, a Muslim man telling a Muslim woman to “dress appropriately” next time she comes by, and there’s others who back up such demands with acid or even a willingness to kill. Allah forbid women interpret the Qu’ran’s modesty demands for themselves, nooo, some male stranger gets to do it.
And who hasn’t met a troll online who thinks he, rather than women, should get to decide what rape is. Or some guys at a party who think that when a girl who says “no” when sober, it’s perfectly all right to “work a yes out” by getting her drunk, drugged, or passed out. Or even the guy who yells “Nice tits!” from his car as he drives past, and expects you to respond favorably because “It was a compliment, bitch! What’s wrong with you?”
Imagine what would happen if a woman said to such a guy, “Oh, you look like you have such tiny balls!” and then responded to his indignation with “Well, I’m a lesbian and small balls means you are more like a woman than most guys, so you see, it was a compliment.” What makes the difference between an insult and a compliment is what the recipient takes it as. Ever been called a feminist, or a liberal, by someone who means it as an insult? And said, “Yes, I am.” or “Thank you.” ? That’s what I mean.
If a mother is an embodiment of what it means to be feminine, then a father is an embodiment of what it means to be masculine.
Are these notions true? In one sense, yes. We have the parts, including chromosomes, that make us masculine and feminine for one biological reason, to cause us to become mothers and fathers. Masculinity and femininity are not urges, they are the behavior of the two forms of Homo sapiens sapiens whose union is necessary for the survival of the species itself. Nonetheless, men are more than their masculinity, just as women are more than their femininity. Otherwise, men and women would have nothing in common really.
Hmmm. I tend to be one of those females that qualifies as being more than her masculinity. Care to explain that one, FC?
c) A female parent.
I’ll take this a step further. As far as parenting goes, what is important is that they are a parent, not whether they have female or male parts. In this sense, sex matters only of the context of pregnancy, really, but not all pregnant people become mothers and not all mothers have been pregnant. Furthermore, if you are the parent of a child you are pretty much done being pregnant with them, and you are most certainly done fertilizing the egg that created them.
I thought I knew where I was going with this.
I think it had something to do with a term that basically says, “the parent with the female parts,” which is saying the same thing but makes it sound a bit ridiculous. “Hi, Junior, can I speak to the parent with the vagina, please?”
See why I don’t comment much? Ah, well.
Man, that transman-bearing-a-child thing really threw me for a loop–I mentally wrestled with what, exactly my reservations were with that:
“But childbirth is inherently gendered!”
“Yeah, but what about Arnold in Junior?”
“Well, yeah… but for a man to essentially feminize his body for at least nine months indicates a level of fluidity in gender that’s not in the term “transman””
Eventually I came to the realization that I sometimes unfairly suspect some FTMs of using surgery to gain male privilege the easy way–because if you’re willing to live in an intensely feminized body for nine months, you must be okay with it for the rest of your life, right?
Wait–that doesn’t follow. There’s also the possibility: “I hate my body like this, but I’m willing to endure it and worse for nine months more just to experience pregnancy”–which I can deeply sympathize with.
Correction–that should be “have deep sympathies for that view”.
Well…I’ve been around long enough to know several men who once idealized their mothers, who eventually came to see them more clearly, and going through that (the de-idealization) was a very painful process. In one of these cases that I was more intimately familiar with, the mother also idealized the son. So, if that’s going on, it can certainly make it hard for a son to relate to a normal, non-idealized and non-idealizing woman–because according to the rules of their relationship, there’s not supposed to be the give and take of a relationship, but rather something along the lines of a joint Nancy Reaganish gaze at each other.
Anyway, you have my sympathy and if you’re with a mother-idealizer now, may he be in recovery.
Whoops–I read your LJ, and I realized that I had been assuming that “transman” equaled pre/post-op, not non-op.
At any rate, I’m sorry if I offended you, and I know you’ll make a great dad.
>>”But childbirth is inherently gendered!”
“Yeah, but what about Arnold in Junior?”
“Well, yeah… but for a man to essentially feminize his body for at least nine months indicates a level of fluidity in gender that’s not in the term “transman””
Eventually I came to the realization that I sometimes unfairly suspect some FTMs of using surgery to gain male privilege the easy way”“because if you’re willing to live in an intensely feminized body for nine months, you must be okay with it for the rest of your life, right?
Wait”“that doesn’t follow. There’s also the possibility: “I hate my body like this, but I’m willing to endure it and worse for nine months more just to experience pregnancy””“which I can deeply sympathize with.>>
Some transmen are gender-fluid and use “transman” to include gender-fluidity, although this has nothing to do with willingness to become pregnant and bear children. I think that “transman” admits a level of complexity such that those willing (or even overjoyed) to be pregnant should be included; if you can have a uterus and still qualify, you should be allowed to use your uterus and still qualify.
Then again, many transpeople think that’s a really stupid way of looking at things.
I’m also not sure that hatred is true for most–that implies a level of personal disgust that tends to get confused with misogyny. It’s more like lack of comfort, lack of suitability. Like (and this is a crap analogy, I know) dropping out of medical school to become a painter. I don’t hate doctors, or see medicine as inherently unpleasant or without value. I’m not merely complaining about the unpleasantness of medicine as practiced in this society. It’s just…not for me.
Or maybe endurable is a wrongheaded standard. I know transguys who see living in a masculinized body as necessary, but who see pregnancy and bearing their own children as an equally vital experience. They would feel bereft if they did not have the opportunity; they may not have to struggle with feelings of gender dysphoria in the context of pregnancy.
completely OT, but yo, what’s with the anti-evolution ads on the sidebar?
I have to wonder whether this pedestalization you refer to isn’t the result of these men having been attended to, in excess, during boyhood. My younger brother was my mother’s favorite; he personifies the kind of man who’d sing that old standard, “I Want to Marry a Girl Like the Girl Who Married Dear Old Dad.” It’s never surprised me that the woman he did marry was the stereotypical demur and deferential Asisn woman.
There are all kinds of transmen, but I’m still not completely sure whether I am one. I’m not offended, but I tend to run away from gendered labels, so all I’ll cop to for the moment is “parent”.
>>I have to wonder whether this pedestalization you refer to isn’t the result of these men having been attended to, in excess, during boyhood. My younger brother was my mother’s favorite; he personifies the kind of man who’d sing that old standard, “I Want to Marry a Girl Like the Girl Who Married Dear Old Dad.” It’s never surprised me that the woman he did marry was the stereotypical demur and deferential Asisn woman. >>
IOW, wanting a wife who’s like your mother as in willing to become your new mother?
It’s slightly random, but one of the two areas not affected by the UK Gender Recognition Act- arguably the most progressive piece of legislation anywhere regarding trans people- was parenthood (it’s in Section 12 of the GRA if you’re interested.) As I understood it, it was in there precisely because it was felt that the idea of a man giving birth was so controversial and it seemed that it was specifically men giving birth, rather than women donating sperm that was the problem.
It’s also notable that some countries in Europe and elsewhere require trans people to be sterile as well as post-surgery before they’ll formally recognise post-transition identity. If I remember correctly the recognition of post-transition identity is even revoked in Germany if the individual becomes a parent after recognition. Japan even goes as far as to require that trans people be childless and unmarried if they want recognition.
Whilst it certainly shows that motherhood\femininity are linked I’m not sure that that link isn’t the much stronger example of the belief that parents should model gender roles, and as such should be the best example of each that they can manage (the anti-SSM children deserve a mother and father refrain springs to mind.) Although I’m not sure of that argument as the link between motherhood and femininity seems part of a much wider cultural system dictating acceptable female behaviour, whereas I’ve only ever seen the father\masculinity link used in the debates around SSM.
Not that this makes transparental standing under the law any less creepy, but isn’t sterilization a medical requirement for bottom surgery? I know that most doctors won’t perform any kind of ftm SRS unless the candidate has had a hysterectomy.
And can I just say, Nick–since I haven’t yet–that I really appreciate all of these posts, and the posts on your livejournal? There needs to be more discussion of transpeople as parents and biological parents. I know a lot of guys who are very interested in the idea, and who are thankfully aware of the possibility, but who have virtually nothing in the way of social or medical resources. These conversations are really useful.
I agree with Tarn, I think. Since the requirement frequently covers all kinds of parenting, it seems to indicate an unwillingness to trust transpeople around children, period, or see them as safe parents. So it’s not merely that _pregnancy_ is specifically gendered, but that children cannot be exposed to people with unstable genders.
Or maybe it’s an unwillingness to allow us to breed.
Did I just say that? I’m gonna go have some more coffee.
Nicky, i think you’re a lot more feminine than you realize.
John, I think that you, of all people, should not be calling anyone out on lack of self-perception.
Don’t you have any gay marriages to prevent or something? Maybe some gay parents to harass?
FWIW, I think that the discomfort with the idea of transpeople being parents has more to do with people’s unease at having their ideas about gender roles challenged than it does with a reluctance to trust them around children. I suspect that to the extent that there is discomfort about the idea of transpeople being around kids it ties into the way a lot of people assume that gay people in general can’t be trusted around kids. It think that a lot of people think that trans=gay, which is clearly a dumb assumption but seems to be widespread.
>>FWIW, I think that the discomfort with the idea of transpeople being parents has more to do with people’s unease at having their ideas about gender roles challenged than it does with a reluctance to trust them around children. >>
I agree that laws requiring sterility support this thesis, but what about laws requiring childlessness?
My guess, which may be wrong, is that the laws requiring sterility come from the perception of trans people as “gay”. Frankly I think they’d make having kids illegal for gay people too if they thought they could get away with it. Think about how adoption is handled.
c) A female parent.
I notice you are using this in a way that doesn’t include you as a parent at the moment, during the pregnancy. And that’s fine. But I’d think there are other people who would consider themselves parents during the pregnancy , and wouldn’t be wrong.
BritGirl and piny, I think you might both be right. I think it’s the challenge to gender roles that makes people think transfolk can’t be trusted around children. The poor little things will grow up confused, not knowing whether they’re little boys or little girls (and sod the studies showing that the children of transfolk are just fine in their own gender identities).
Uh, it was my impression, at least in my generation (middle age), that most tg people actually came to acknowledge / act on their tg identity in mid-life, often after having married and having children. So the “can a tg person be a parent” issue seems moot – they are!
I am non-tg, and my social circle has relatively few tg of my age, all of whom seemed to test other identities until at least their 30s.
NancyP: Sadly, there have been cases of transpeople being denied access to their children once they are open about what they are, due to whatever muddleheaded ideas the courts have about a trans person’s fitness to be around children.
Also check out this article about the various requirements for transpeople to be sterile before their gender can be officially recognised.
>>Uh, it was my impression, at least in my generation (middle age), that most tg people actually came to acknowledge / act on their tg identity in mid-life, often after having married and having children. So the “can a tg person be a parent” issue seems moot – they are!>>
Also, this is starting to change, in much the same way as GLBQ people are coming out in high school rather than after a decade (or three) of marriage. Increasing acceptance of transpeople means that more transparents are openly fighting transphobic custody decisions. A more open clinical model means that (for example) transmen are allowed to transition and have an interest in eventually getting pregnant. Greater acceptance and knowledge of transpeople by health care providers means that transpeople are able to speak comfortably and constructively with their physicians about parenting options. Greater acceptance of LGBTQ families means that couples in which one person (or both) is trans are better served when seeking alternatives like adoption and artificial insemination.
So our fitness to parent existing children is becoming a much more pertinent question for the mainstream, as well as our right to have and parent future children.
piny(#17): I never thought about it quite like that before, but it does make a certain amount of sense. I’ve noticed my sister-in-law never upbraids my brother about anything, though what they do in private may well differ from they do in front of me. My mother more or less followed the same practice; there was no jam she wouldn’t bail him out of, no mess she wouldn’t cover his ass for.