Art & Words by Fanitsa Petrou
Patriarchy glorifies marriage and parenthood only in reference to women, in order to JUSTIFY the sacrifice that is required of them in both.
Men’ s worth as human beings is never seen as being attached to their marital status, because their worth is unquestionable. It is not doubted or disputed when they are single (in fact quite the contrary) and it is therefore not increased when they are married. For as long as women are seen as inferior to men, their worth will be associated to their relationship (and usefulness) to them. And that’ s the gist of it. That’ s the reason why we still cling onto the age-old stereotype of the “happily married woman” and the “miserable spinster”. Despite the fact that women admit that their husbands stress them more than their kids, and despite the fact that divorced women feel like a giant weight has been lifted off their life once they get divorced … women still dream of marriage and still continue to get married. (see: #1 #6)
Marriage is seen – with a hammering insistence – as a morally acceptable, as a “normal” path for women, because they are required by patriarchal conditioning to always be ready (and happy) to sacrifice their own self to others. Any woman who deviates from the path of self-sacrifice and is not OK with disappearing into marriage, is still seen on some level as perverse and blasphemous. The impact marriage has on a woman’s dreams, is of course never examined (see: #6). It often takes a divorce (and if not that, then a health scare) for a woman to reconnect with her true Self and her long lost dreams and to find the courage to live wholly as an individual. The mere fact that she becomes, due to the break up of her marriage, able to actually control her time, to have a say in the way her days are being spent, are enough to replenish her heart and reconnect her with old dreams she was forced to burry underneath the endless chores, the pretences, the fight against ageing and fat, the muted existence of the married woman. (Being set free from the need to please a husband, frees up quite a lot of time and a lot of heart!)
Patriarchy glorifies marriage and parenthood only in reference to women, in order to JUSTIFY the sacrifice that is required of them in both. So that women’s giving up of their personal identities will be admired, and therefore be more desirable. Patriarchal religions came up with these notions much like I imagine some clever publicist working for the American government came up with the notion of verbally glorifying troops after 9/11. By encouraging the public to be publicly “thanking them for their service” every five minutes, they were encouraging more and more young men to be sent to bomb countries that have nothing but sand, so that the public’s attention would be kept focused away from sex scandals, the fact that seedy politicians are profiting from the rebuilding of the cities they themselves have obliterated, shady efforts to re-elect presidents, keeping the guns industry in business and the oil running towards the West, or the corrosion of civil liberties back home) On a similar manner women’s disempowerment in marriage is celebrated and glorified, so that more women will be “recruited”: much like the “call to arms” when it comes to young men, it is cleverly dressed up as the supreme female quality and seen as selflessness.
An unmarried woman used to be seen as someone who has been rejected by men: a desperate, pathetic, lonely, envious-of-married-women, worthy of pity creature. Nowadays a single woman is additionally seen as someone who rejects men: a man-hating, frigid, bossy, mouthy feminist who is too demanding for her own good and who therefore deserves loneliness, though certainly not pity. In both cases, a woman’s husbandless state defines her as an individual more than anything else. Even if the stigma of the “old maid” is somewhat diminished (though by no means eradicated), being single AND childless, is additionally being seen as an act of supreme selfishness for a woman. Because she seems to be prioritizing her own individual needs over her “gender destiny”. Such a notion is seen as dangerous, as it can imply that women are individuals themselves, having the same right to self-realisation as men! And we can’t have that! A man who chooses to live alone and have no kids, faces none of that of course. Even if he is a middle aged man still living at home, having his underwear being washed by his ageing mother, he is still not seen as selfish as an independent, wholly self-sufficient, childless single woman. (It takes a LOT for a guy to be seen as selfish after all!)
On the other hand, the women who know all that and do not need the wake up call of either a divorce or an illness in order to stand by their dreams, are not exactly being congratulated for the fact: single women who yarn for autonomy and dare to fight the odds on their own, and build a life of meaning and self-realisation, are never celebrated for their courage and self sufficiency. Their independent spirits, their integrity that forced them to separate relationships and money, their refusal to see men as providers instead of partners, their healthy self esteem that was not in need of validation by rings and wedding gowns and a borrowed name (and identity) are not admired – or often replicated. Not only do other women not see them as harbingers of a new age of equality, but they see them as bitter creatures who deserve pity, or as traitors and troublemakers who need to be put in their place. And that says quite a lot!
Despite all warnings made by conservatives and religious leaders that feminism has a negative impact on “traditional values”, the institution of marriage and the nuclear family, people still of course get married and weddings have actually become even bigger, even more extravagant affairs. We still glorify marriage as the ideal life choice for women, and view it as the supreme female accomplishment, as the ‘happy ending” to their life story. (Ironically, implying that their story DOES pretty much end by it) This is because we still value women as being less worthy than men, seeing them as incapable of living independent lives, driven by their own individual needs and dreams and sense of self, instead of pandering to someone else’s.
Female independence challenges Patriarchy and puts it in grave danger – one single woman at a time apparently… That is why single women are still ridiculed, shamed, put in their place, guided back on track – as we have seen for example in the many ways with which the American Republican party (and its countless replicants all over the world) is attempting to change legislation in order to control the reproductive Rights of women and by that, punish female independence and sexual liberation and force women to return back to their traditional destinies as breeding stock / wives. (If in doubt, see:*5) That is why all choices that are not related to marriage or motherhood, are for women still seen as not quite “right”:
SINGLE MOTHERS for example, are globally marginalized in a number of ways: they are often seen as sluts who were reckless in their selfish and shameless pursuit of sex. Not a second thought is wasted on their partners’ s morals of course. Not even if a woman or underage girl got pregnant after she was raped! It is also automatically assumed that they are not contributing anything to society, that they are draining the State’s welfare resources – even when they are not on wellfare. They are on top of that, automatically seen as bad mothers (because a married woman’s good mothering skills are directly related to her having a husband – ANY husband – obviously!) and are censured for not offering a “proper” family to their kids and a “father figure”. Even when the father is her rapist, or when he is an abusive one, or even if he does not wish to know his own kids (let alone help raise them), a single mum is still being seen as irresponsible for not “doing the right” thing and marrying him, (and offering to her children the option of having an abusive, unsuitable man for a father…) Because any man is seen as preferable to no man. And a horrible father preferable to any mother.
On the other hand, UNMARRIED CHILDLESS WOMEN are daily being humiliated by friends, family, and random strangers and are being told they are “wasting their life”, they are “missing out”, they are not “fulfilling their roles as women”, they will one day “regret it” and it will of course be “too late”, because they have a time bomb in the center of their ovaries which is ready to explode at all times and by that destroy the entire world, not just their own lives… The idea that a woman is allowed a choice resides obviously outside the realm of their understanding.
Even MARRIED WOMEN WHO CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE KIDS are being told they are being “selfish” (because apparently you’ve misheard: there is no overpopulation problem in the world, and them giving birth to one more child would save humanity. In fact according to statistcics, people are “morally outraged” with both men and women who are voluntarily childless (see: #2) When asked what they thought of childless people, the participants in the study (all undergraduate psychology students by the way!) described them as being “psychologically unfulfilled” and admitting that they felt “disapproval, anger, outrage, annoyance”, and even “disgust” towards them! (Similar studies conducted in the 70s, 80s and 90s have had similar findings. In short, that being childless is not just uncommon but also “morally wrong” and a sign of a mental disorder!) In a world full of unsuited, clueless or cruel parents, it is the childless people who are seen as a plague.
But of course the stigmatization of childless women is particularly strong. They are of course seen as “selfish” because they are wasting their only TRULY permissable quality as females: that of motherhood. Without it, they are as in The Handmaid’ s Tale world, “unwomen” (see: *3 ) That’ s because all women are still being seen as bodies above all: their biology, their ovaries, their fertility status, their pregnancies, and of course their looks and age (their fuckability, which leads to pregnancies that is…) are always considered to be the most important things about them. That is why their choices to marry or not, have kids or not, are all-important and seen as public property.
This rage (and it IS that) that is being directed towards CHILDLESS WOMEN, stems from the common belief that motherhood is every woman’s “higher” and ONLY purpose. It is her “gender destiny”. (Women are still being seen as nothing more than “hosts” of men’s sperm by Christian, Jewish or Muslim religious leaders – and American Republican politicians – after all – see:*5) Having a child is also seen as a selfless act, and the supreme form of altruism, and yes, it can be that. Yet we fail to admit that it can also be the very opposite of that: a very selfish act that is motivated by one’ s own personal desire το feed one’ s own need to be loved, to perpetuate the “bloodline” of a family, and let us not forget, to satisfy that gigantic maternal biological yeaning that most women have (though not all) that urges them to nurture others – preferably tiny, adorable little others – and of course on a more primal level, to have one’ s genes be replicated and survive in new versions into the next generation, and most commonly, to be compatible with what is seen as the”norm”, to be valued as a ‘worthy woman” by the husband and society at large, etc, etc. None of these reasons are 100% selfless. And it is OK. It is human. But saying that procreation is a wholly unselfish act all on its own, is not OK. Taking care of a child may be an act of supreme selflessness, sure, but wanting a child in your life, not necessarily.
By becoming a mother, a woman is entering a phase when she will have to put her own needs second, so that the needs of her child are met, which is of course not often expected of the father. Even though motherhood can offer fulfilment, it is next to blasphemy to say that it also has aspects which are more of a tedious, tiresome, thankless journey, full of pain, loneliness, disappointment, sleeplessness and exhaustion. Even though the moments of joy tend to make up for it, mothers (much like married women in general) are not supposed to need anything other than that. Women’ s individual needs, their sense of Self, their dreams, are not supposed to matter when they get married or have a baby. Their family needs “to come first” we say, while we don’ t expect the same of husbands and fathers who are of course allowed to keep their sense of Self, their professional identities, their ambitions, their dreams, their habits, their hobbies even, and idiosyncrasies intact, regardless of whether they get married or have kids. It is only women who are expected to be lost in marriage and what more, to be glad of it.
That is why HOUSEWIVES /STAY-HOME MUMS are still to this day, seen as exercising a“higher”, “nobler” form of womanhood and a more altruistic form of motherhood, and are considered to be the ones who get to have the “right” to feel superior to all other women. Even if they are trophy wives whose children are being raised by an army of nannies and maids, they are seen as better at this mothering business than working mothers (and most definitely better than all the working SINGLE mothers put together!) The unspoken bias runs deep: the stay-home mums are just doing things “right” even when they don’t. Not depending on a man’s money and submitting to his power, working for your living and raising a kid at the same time, is still not being seen exactly as worthy of respect, as staying home and baking pies (or at the very least supervising those who do).
Even married WOMEN WHO ARE OPTING FOR ADOPTION are still being seen as “selfish” if they haven’t first tried and failed to have kids. And if they express a wish to be informed of the health status of the child that will be chosen by others (adoption agencies, government officials of foreign countries, etc) they are being reminded that such thoughts are “selfish”. Yet, isn’t every woman who is pregnant making the EXACT same wish? A pregnant woman is of course not at all seen as selfish if she expresses the same wish (namely to have a healthy child), and goes on to have examination after examination to make sure of this! Not even if she goes through amniocentesis which can literally pierce the fetus with a giant needle that can cause a miscarriage (in 1 in 200 cases!), or injury, infection, preterm labor and other serious complications, all so that she can be sure she is not carrying a Down Syndrome baby. This is seen as her right, not an act of cruelty or selfishness, but a woman who wants to make an informed decision and so prepare herself about the realities she will be facing, or has mixed feelings about adopting a child with say, serious mental issues, or who at the very least, wants to know if she will be changing her adult child’s diaper when they will be well into middle age, (when she will be an old woman and possibly in need of some diaper changing herself) is seen as utterly heartless. And this is a very likely possibility actually, especially in the case of single women: a single woman who is trying to adopt from an orphanage, is more likely to be offered a child with serious mental / physical health issues, since healthy babies are usually “saved” for couples, who “deserve” them.
Interestingly enough, a MARRIED WOMAN TRYING TO ADOPT from certain places around the world (which are again NOT her choice – another misconception – but are decided by government officials of her own country because of treaties being signed between countries and so on) also needs to provide medical documents that proof that she is not fertile! (A document that is NOT required of her husband of course! The stigma of infertility must be wholly hers…) Wanting to adopt because you feel the need to help a hopeless child and bring positive change into their life, is not a sufficiently good reason. You have to be doing it because you have run out of options obviously… (Otherwise it might mean that you are wasting perfectly good eggs and that might mean that you are betraying your purpose as a female! Because what are you if not a set or ovaries?)
On the other hand, A SINGLE WOMAN WHO IS TRYING TO ADOPT from certain Eastern European countries, can also on top of all that, be asked to provide proof that she is not a prostitute! (Because apparently being single is a morally suspect thing, and being a prostitute is the only alternative to being married) Now take a minute to think about this. To picture the conversation, she will need to have with police officers, lawyers, government officials, priests and psychologists of her own country, who will need to sign such papers! Try to picture the kind of questions she will be forced to answer, the kind of innuendo she will be forced to face… (Men who are trying to adopt are of course not asked to provide documents declaring they are not gigolos, or the buyers of women, or even pedophiles, but women need to perpetually prove their moral standing…)
Whether married or single, a woman who manages to jump all those hoops and actually (eventually) adopt, is of course still not seen as quite as worthy as A WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH. Even after she has spent her life being a mother to her kid, she will not be seen as quite the same as other mothers. Yes, she may have raised her child, made the sacrifices, spend the sleepless nights, and all that, but since she has not given birth to it, she is just not seen as belonging in the same category as “proper”, “legit” mothers. In fact an ADOPTIVE MOTHER, is often seen as less of a mother than the one who gave birth to the very child she is raising. Even when the woman who gave birth to it, has tossed it in a trash bin. Literally.
Even biological MOTHERS WHO GO FOR A CESARIAN either by choice, or for medical reasons, are shamed and seen as just not exactly “up there” with the “real” mums who gave birth “naturally”.
On the other hand MOTHERS WHO HAVE USED EPIDURALS are also not seen as up to par as women who have not…
Similarly, MOTHER WHO ARE BREASTFEEDING are seen as superior to MOTHERS WHO ARE USING FORMULA (even if it is for purely medical reasons)
In short, every choice a woman makes that deviates from the path shared by our great grandmothers is seen as suspect. If single women are chastised when they have ambitions that are not centered around men and matrimonial ceremonies, you can imagine how MARRIED WOMEN WHO HAVE OTHER DREAMS OR PURSUITS THAT ARE NOT FAMILY RELATED, are seen. Who remembers that legendary statement made by Hillary Clinton for example, (back in the early nineties when she was not so constricted by political correctness)? I refer to that time when she was reprimanded severely for working as a lawyer, while her husband was running for president, instead of giving up on the career she has spent her entire adult life building, to which she replied: “what do you want me to do? I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas”
Can you imagine the husband of a female politician being asked to give up on his career for the sake of his wife’s own?! Needless to say, her statement (which just for that, turned her into a real life heroine to my – then – young eyes) was seen in America, as a declaration of war on “traditional values” and as an insult to housewives everywhere. Working women who want something more than a life of baking cookies and having teas and living in their husband’ s shadow as his personal cheerleader, are not of course allowed to take offense in the choices made by housewives, but housewives have a “legitimate” excuse for judging working women, and branding them (as they have branded Hillary Clinton at the time) as “overly ambitious” – ambition being of course an “inappropriate” quality, not at all compatible with femaleness. Housewives can (and do! Daily!) judge working women, (like married women can and do judge singe ones) but not the other way round! That’s just a fact of life… Not to mention that when twenty-three whole years later Hillary was running for president, it was not her academic accomplishments, her career as a lawyer or the fact that she was Secretary of State that endeared her to people, it was the fact that she was a grandmother! For a female politician (or a female anything!) being competent, well educated, articulate, intelligent and accomplished, just doesn’t cut it as much as being a mum or a grandma… Not to mention she is to this day (despite her many accomplishments) seen as Clinton’s wife, above all else. The American public (well, let’s face it, un unexpectably big part of it) fell in love with the despicable Sara Palin a few years back, for no other reason that she was a good looking mum. That’s all it takes obviously. Every vile, ridiculous, ill-informed thing that came out of her mouth, was somehow ignored, because she looked good and talked about her kids…
The bottom line is: anything that does not fall into the tiny box of the atavistic, traditional feminine role that belongs more in the biblical scriptures of the Iron Age, than in modern times, is still largely seen as a deviation from the “path” women were supposed to take: women who refuse to marry, women who get divorce, women who marry but don’ t want kids, women who don’t want to marry but still want kids, women who have cesarians, women who have epidurals, women who use artificial insemination to have their kids, women who are trying to balance family and work instead of being satisfied with being homemakers, women who adopt instead of giving birth, women who use birth control, women who are gay, women who have abortions, women who pursue knowledge and want a multitude of things out of life that are not limited to marriage and motherhood, women who have dreams ambitions of their own, they are all still being seen as not exactly the “right” sort of women, the “right” sort of mothers. Still not as worthy as the stay-home mums. Still not as good as the “married-with-kids-housewives” of the world. Who “stay home and bake cookies”. They still (on the 21st century!) face prejudice on some level or other, and are still being treated as second class citizens by governments as well. Not to mention in most countries they are not offered sufficient childcare services or support of any kind or the same sort of tax benefits as married women.
Not only things have not evolved for women, ever since that time of the Hillary remark, but they seem to have devolved: according to a new research, millennials, despite their seemingly “progressive” views on sex, and sexual “fluidity” and gender politics, are in fact embracing more traditional gender roles, and are again considering the man to be the rightful “head of the household”. According to a new report from sociologists Joanna Pepin and David Cotter, young people – who by the way are tutored very early on in the “traditional” roles of the male “punisher” and woman who takes a beating-and-“likes”-it-stereotype in porn and pop culture – are in fact “more likely to embrace traditional attitudes about male breadwinning, female homemaking and male authority in the home”!
And it doesn’t surprise us one bit!
Posted on the 17th of July, 2023. Art & Words Copyright © Fanitsa Petrou. All Rights Reserved. Any unauthorised use – copying, publishing, printing, reselling, etc – will lead to legal implications. Feel free to share on social media, by using the link.
Read Also: “The Fetishisation of Motherhood – Motherhood Within Patriarchy, Part II”: https://www.fanitsa-petrou-blog.com/archives/5892
ART by Fanitsa Petrou: http://www.fanitsa-petrou.com
