More on 'The Conflict'—pushing me to be more progressive

So, I decided I just had to read the book—The Conflict, by Elisabeth Badinter—if I was going to participate in any discussions of it and I am glad I did.

First I must say I am sorry for calling her a "bitch" in my last post. I had some misgivings about giving her money from the purchase of the book, as she is a billionaire whose business promotes formula companies big time, so it could be said that there's a conflict of interest there, but, again, I felt like if I was going to comment extensively or have views on it, I'd better read it. (And I don't think her screed is some strategy to bolster formula companies' position, but to protect the French way of life as she knows it.)

In the book, Badinter's tone was not shrill or condemning of the individuals who would choose to practice what she calls "intensive mothering"—much of which is part of the suite of practices in what's more widely known as "attachment parenting" (AP)—but rather but more of a critique of the overarching societal effects of these practices (or what she believes them to be). I have to say, the synopses and articles on it don't have the subtlety of the book itself and Badinter herself comes across softer in parts of the book than in interviews she gives. Many of the ensuing responses from AP, 3rd wave types, kind of like myself, seemed defensive, too, and we have here a cycle of female defensiveness that's kind of funny.

Much of the book deals with discussion of  encouraging birth rates among nations (which is up for discussion of whether that's even a good thing) and how various family policies affect this, which I found interesting. America seems to be an anomaly since we don't really have any kind of government policies supporting families and yet our birth rate is solid. Still, after reading the book, I am leaning more toward support of the Scandinavian-style family policies, not to effect any boom in birthrates (which they don't seem to in Scandinavian countries, anyway), just because I think it is the right thing for a progressive society to do in order to bridge the inherent gap due to biological characteristics of women (we get pregnant and have babies!) and to foster equality, which I believe elevates a society. In my view, this would include ample parental leave (not just for moms) with special support for breastfeeding, part-time employment arrangements for mothers of young children, and high-quality early education—not infant daycare. I have had tendencies in the past to take the "people should be able to do it on their own" line, but if something is really good for families and children, and for women's status, then shouldn't a society work together to help all members achieve this? I'm not talking redistribution of wealth or everyone having to have the same size house or newest car, I'm talking about basics.

Badinter, for her part, predictably praises France (she seems very nationalistic to me), which has more state support for families than the U.S., but has not really gotten on board with the push for breastfeeding or for more egalitarian relationships among men and women. Badinter doesn't seem to get, or want, what's going on with many of the more egalitarian couples in the U.S. (and AP types tend to be progressive and egalitarian, not as a rule but often enough) and Scandinavian countries. She lets men off the hook way too easily (Ph.D. in Parenting focuses on this) and is too in love with traditional French culture and its almost cartoon-like obsession with "sexiness." The idea that babies and children create such a huge impediment to parents' sexuality feels very outmoded, simple-minded and immature to me.

The book is a weird mix of what seems to aspire to be scholarly and what is obviously coming from a very personal place for Badinter. The reader can feel this 2nd wave feminist's tiredness and frustration and worry. She spends a lot of time trying to take down "essentialist" positions about how women are supposed to have a maternal nature, I think because she herself does not have what would be considered a traditional maternal nature. But, I think she oversimplifies what this maternal nature thing is all about. I think her idea of what maternal means is a broadstroked, rubber stamped kind of this that she blames on longstanding pre-feminist cultural mores, but that I just don't see as relevant to most people outside of very conservative or religious corners anymore. The fact that women have more options these days and just because not all women feel "maternal" or want to have kids (all fair and good, fine things) doesn't negate the biological processes with hormones and such that do really exist and are alive and well in the vast majority of women, though. So, while I won't call myself an essentialist in the sense that women have to be a certain way if they don't want to, I do recognize that for most women, elements encoded in their biology play a significant role in their lives, whether anyone likes it or not. So instead of forcing women into the box of turning off their breasts and leaving their infants, so they can be more like men and work, work, work, we should be helping them reconcile their nature with the modern world by keeping room on our modern world for these primal things. (I just started The Continuum Concept now after finishing The Conflict.)

This, I think, may be a key difference between the old and the new "feminism" which has gained ground—we don't want to have to be just like men (or the old school caricature of the workaholic, non-caring, non-parental male) to have equal opportunities. We want to be a part of a progressive society that recognizes the value in what different members of that society have to offer and we want to further human rights to include children's rights—not gain rights for women at the expense of children.

The most disturbing part of The Conflict, for me, was a section toward the end in which Badinter blithely describes the long French tradition of putting children very low on the totem pole of society to the point where "babies were dropping like flies." It brings to mind the old line about how you can judge a society on how it treats the most vulnerable of its people. This concept is explored more in-depth in a piece in The Monthly that observes, "Badinter thinks of herself as a revolutionary and of child advocates as reactionaries, but who really are the reactionaries here, seeking to revert to the past?...The fact is, we don’t need to hark back to the ‘good old days’ to reconcile women’s emancipation with the new ethic of care for children. Nor do we need to apportion blame or guilt. The roadblocks on the path to liberation are not maternalists but government, business and the wider economy."Again, Badinter's views place her firmly in the regressive camp, she sounds very conservative, actually, which on one hand should not be surprising given her wealth and ties to business, but on the other, is counter-intuitive because aren't feminists "progressive"? Apparently they are not all!