Mackenzie Beltz

WMNST 301

10/28/16

Motherhood and Oppression in Various Feminist Viewpoints

The question of the inherent oppressiveness of motherhood is one that can be answered

from the point of view of various feminist theories. Each of these theories, which include liberal

feminism, radical feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, care feminism and existentialist

feminism, have their own opinions on the oppressiveness or empowerment of motherhood and

childrearing, and on the solutions for the problems that women and mothers face in society.

Liberal feminism has been influenced by many feminist thinkers from the eighteenth

century to today. It encourages positive social change through existing institutions and structures,

such as governmental and educational policy. Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote in the late 1700s,

was one of the early liberal feminists. Wollstonecraft advocated for womens education outside

of the home, insisting that womens emotionality was due to their social position, not a

biological given, and that intellectual stimulation would allow them to become as rational as

men. However, she wanted women to become more intellectual not to encourage them to enter

the public sphere, but to make them better wives and mothers (14). Thus, she is still subscribing

to a point of view that requires women to remain in traditional gender roles, forcing them to

accept motherhood as a given.

In the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, who were intellectual

partners and lovers, agreed with Wollstonecraft that women should be allowed intellectual

pursuits, but they also advocated for women to have equal economic and political standing to

men. Taylor, who believed that women would choose to remain in the public realm if given the

1
chance, nonetheless thought that women are naturally better mothers than men are fathers. As a

result, she encouraged women to have few children in order to give them the chance to work

outside of the home. Additionally, if a woman can afford domestic servants, she should employ

them to care for her children while she enters the public sphere (17-18). Taylor views

motherhood as an oppressive force that stifles womens professional success, but also as a

natural instinct for women.

Mill, alternatively, believed that women would generally choose to stay in the private

realm and be with their children, although they should be allowed to pursue an education and a

career first. Thus, he suggested that women live in communes, marry late, and have children late

(17). While Mill does not seem to view motherhood as especially oppressive, he acknowledges

that women usually must sacrifice their careers for their families. However, he believes that

staying at home is a choice that women will make on their own, rendering it non-oppressive.

In the twentieth century, Betty Friedan, a modern liberal feminist, believes that women

could be both mothers and career women. She hypothesizes that society overvalues motherhood

and marriage for women and as a result, makes it difficult for women to reach their full potential

in the public sphere (28). Later, when she wrote The Second Stage, she edited her point of view.

Expecting women to become superwomen who can effortlessly balance motherhood and their

careers had created a new form of oppression. To remedy this subjugation, women must partner

with men to escape both the feminine and the feminist mystiques (30). Only then can both men

and women absorb positive feminine and masculine qualities. Then, men and women will parent

children equitably and women will no longer be oppressed in the expectation of being able to do

it all.

2
 Radical feminism must respond to these questions with diverging points of view: that of

radical-cultural feminists, and that of radical-libertarian feminists. Radical feminists as a group

work to change the broad social structures, rather than to work within them, as liberal feminists

do. Radical-libertarian feminists see the act of gestating a child inherently oppressive.

Alternatively, radical-cultural feminists believe that to have a child ex utero would be to hand

over control of an empowering and uniquely female experience to men.

Shulamith Firestone, a radical libertarian feminist, saw the reproductive roles of men and

women as the origin of all female oppression. Natural birth is an unpleasant necessity forced

upon women, and it reinforces the possessiveness of men over women and children. Artificial

reproduction would allow women to be freed of this oppressive act and open the doors for the

formation of intentional families (75). Genetic ties would be irrelevant and women, men and

children could live naturally and androgynously in families of their own choosing. Thus,

motherhood is inherently oppressive, and the only escape from its ties is de-linking genetics from

families, and exclusively utilizing artificial reproduction.

Radical cultural feminists would not answer that motherhood is oppressive for women. In

contrast, they believe that bearing children ex utero is to cede mens only dependence on women.

If men were able to control the necessary technology to create life, they would be able to oppress

women in every single sphere (78). Today, men already have significant control over the

reproductive process. Radical cultural feminist Adrienne Rich comments that male obstetricians

counteract a womans natural maternal intuition and dominate a process that should be female-

driven, alienating women from their own bodies (79).

Rich, however, also believes that the patriarchy restricts women solely to the job of

mothering, making it difficult to enter the public sphere (86). Thus, while motherhood is not

3
naturally a source of oppression, it creates opportunities for men to oppress women. As a

solution, men must not expect women to take care of everything around the house while

simultaneously offering unnecessary comments on the womans mothering style. Women should

have the right to enjoy the empowerment that motherhood can provide, but not be limited solely

to a self-sacrificing mothering role.

Viewing motherhood through the lens of psychoanalytic feminism reveals a point of view

that prioritizes the reinterpretation of Freuds theories, focusing on the pre-Oedipal stage of

psychosexual development. In psychoanalytic feminism, motherhood is a source of womens

oppression, due to the objectification of the mother, the neglect of the sexual satisfaction of

women, and fathers I role versus the mothers it role. The problems of motherhood can only

be addressed by a dual-parenting model that challenges these oppressions in early childhood.

In the opinion of Dorothy Dinnerstein, a psychoanalytic feminist, womens identification

with the mother leads to their lack of insistence of sexual gratification, while mens dependence

and eventual ambivalence toward mothers makes them prone to sexual possessiveness of female

partners. Women reflect on their identification with their mothers, and realize that they will

never achieve that level of pleasure and symbiosis with a male partner, which leads them to

desire to be controlled by men, because nothing could ever rival their relationships with their

mothers (132). Additionally, women feel that achieving sexual pleasure would be an outright

rejection of their mothers, which leads to such intense guilt that they decide to remain

unsatisfied. Only a relationship with mutual love could hold a candle to the relationship a woman

had with her mother. Meanwhile, men are able to solely seek their own pleasure and to separate

sex from love, fearing another rejection from a woman like they felt from their own mothers

4
(133). This sexual oppression of women and prioritization of the sexual needs of men is a direct

effect of the mother-child relationship.

As an infant, a child is wholly incapable of distinguishing itself from its mother. The

child perceives its mother first as an object, because it has not developed enough to understand

the distinction between it and I beings. Later in life, the father takes on a more prominent

role in child-rearing, at a point when the child is capable of identifying the father as a subject

(133). This leads to the perpetuation of the objectification of women, as children automatically

objectify their mothers from birth. Fathers go out in the world and pursue careers in the public

sphere, avoiding personal relationships for fear of rejection, and mothers stay at home,

prioritizing symbiosis and furthering their childrens and partners objectification of them (134).

This leads to negative effects for both genders, but uniquely oppresses mothers by objectifying

them, compelling them to stay at home and forcing them to take sole responsibility for the pain

of their children.

Nancy Chodorow, another psychoanalytic feminist, focused her theories on the question

of why women would choose to mother when it is not necessary. She formulated a separate set of

theories for girl babies and boy babies. Chodorow suggested that infant boys have a sexually

charged relationship with their mothers and are forced to confront their otherness, eventually

emotionally distancing themselves in order to avoid their fathers fury. Boys then define

themselves as opposites of women, and realize that the loss of their mother is tempered by the

increased power that oppressing women gives to men (135-136).

Conversely, infant girls overidentify with their mothers, and eventually begin to reject

them when they realize that their fathers have much more identity and subjectivity. Chodorow

summarizes, Her turn to her father is both an attack on her mother and an expression of love for

5
her (136). This brings Chodorow to a conclusion not unlike Dinnersteins: boys become

independent but emotionally distant, while girls grow up to link their interests to others interests

and become less likely to be involved in the public sphere. The mother is the first love for

infants, but the mother eventually is rejected in some capacity by their child as the subjectivity of

the father becomes desired by the infant.

Ultimately, the best solution to the oppression of mothers, and as a result, women, is to

implement dual-parenting models. Dinnersteins model views men as worldbuilders who are

incapable of admitting any flaws in their designs. Women, meanwhile, are mother goddesses,

able to see past the smoke and mirrors of mens formulation of civilization and reveal the defects

within (135). If women and men could work together in raising children, women would be given

access to worldbuilding and be forced to be accountable for the failings of society, and mens

increased presence in childrearing would limit the scapegoating of mothers for all problems,

societal or otherwise.

Chodorow agrees with Dinnerstein that dual-parenting models are the ideal solution to

womens oppression. Chodorow, whose theory focused on the autonomy of the man versus the

subjectivity of the woman, posited that a dual-parenting model would allow children to absorb

both the masculine I quality of independence and the female it quality of interconnectivity

(137). Looking to their parents as examples, children would be able to see both men and women

in the public sphere, as well as the private sphere, which would lead to them viewing both men

and women as capable of self-interest and other-directedness.

Care feminism, while overlapping with psychoanalytic feminism in some regards,

prioritizes childrens psychomoral development over their psychosexual development. Boys and

girls different moral development creates a civilization that overvalues the masculine and

6
undervalues the feminine. While motherhood is not inherently oppressive to women, mothering

requires traits that are considered feminine and undervalued in society.

Nel Noddings, a care feminist, offers some commentary on this concept. Because boys

and girls are raised differently and held to different moral standards, as they grow up, they

develop different styles of moral reasoning. Women have a concrete style of moral reasoning,

that prioritizes emotion, ideals and care for others. Men, meanwhile, have developed a more

abstract method of moral reasoning that emphasizes justice and fairness (154). Although women

are socialized to be more care-focused than men are, both genders are equally capable of caring,

as it is an innate human quality.

Another care feminist, Sara Ruddick, focused on maternal and care ethics. Ruddick de-

links childbearing and childrearing: raising children isnt biologically a womans responsibility.

However, she acknowledges that in society, women are often the ones expected to raise the

children and maintain the household. Like Noddings, Ruddick believes that mothering is

comprised of a set of learned traits, including reflection and emotion. This mode of thought is

neither inherent in women nor lesser than traditionally masculine traits, although these maternal

practices often go undervalued in todays society (163-164). Thus, although motherhood can be

an engaging and fulfilling experience, the societal expectation of women cheerfully raising

children while simultaneously accepting that their skills are considered lesser is troubling and

oppressive.

Simone de Beauvoir, a contemporary of Jean-Paul Sartre, adapted the concepts of

existentialism to fit a feminist model. In her understanding, a woman is viewed as the other to

a mans self. In order to maintain their power, men must oppress women. Women, as a result,

absorb this oppression and accept themselves as the other. This oppression spills over into the

7
institution of motherhood, where the mother eventually allows herself to be objectified by her

own child.

Existentialist feminism posits that marriage limits womens freedom and self-

development. Women accept their role as wife, surrendering the pursuit of joy and passion for

contentment and comfort. However, even more oppressive than marriage is motherhood.

Physically, a woman must agree to rent space in her body to an alien other and experience the

pain of childbirth. After the birth of the child, the mother is briefly a subject, capable of caring

for and nurturing her infant, but then as the child grows, she is again reduced to an object, a slave

that cooks and cleans and provides for her child. Threatened, the mother then views her child as

an object as well (184). This object-subject-object transition is oppressive for the mother, who,

through gender roles that require her to sacrifice everything for her infant, make her the epitome

of an object in the eyes of her male partner and child.

One solution to halt womans otherness and make her a subject is for her to go to work.

Career women also often experience objectification as well, expected not only to do her work but

also to cultivate a feminine appearance (185). Women can also become intellectuals, allowing

themselves to explore literature and philosophy. Thirdly, women can encourage socialist social

change. Economic and intellectual empowerment will open up opportunities for women and

allow them to become subjects rather than objects (187). Sometimes, womens circumstances,

especially mothers circumstances, make it exceptionally difficult for them to seek work in the

public sphere or advocate for radical social change. These women must refuse to internalize their

otherness and insist on becoming subjects in their own right.

Different feminisms approach the subject of motherhood in varying ways. Liberal

feminists, who work within the existing system to enact positive social change, advocate for the

8
education of women and acceptance of women in the public sphere. They view motherhood as

oppressive because women are either expected to exclusively stay at home, or to do it all.

Equitable divisions of household labor and provisions that allow women to work more easily can

remedy this subjugation. Radical feminists are split: radical libertarian feminists view

motherhood as oppressive, while radical cultural feminists generally view motherhood as a

positive, but any attempt at male control of reproduction a negative. Both schools of radical

feminism agree that separating male influence from reproduction will liberate women from the

oppressions of motherhood, albeit in different ways.

Psychoanalytic feminists see motherhood as oppressive, and believe that the ultimate

solution is to implement equitable dual-parenting models. Care feminists do not consider

motherhood inherently oppressive, but acknowledge that maternal skills are undervalued in

society, and consider dual-parenting and the valuation of care essential to liberate women.

Existentialist feminists believe that motherhood and marriage are both oppressive, because the

partner and child come to view the mother as an object. To solve this, the woman must affirm her

own subjectivity by working outside of the home, pursuing intellectual opportunities, advocating

for socialist social change, and seeing herself as a subject. Each feminist theory views

motherhood through a different lens, and has discovered a unique solution for the lower societal

position of women and mothers.

9
 Works Cited

Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder: Westview,

2014. Print.

10