Belinda Brown: Female liberation damages men and women

This is a condensed version of a talk Belinda gave at a panel discussion on the relationship between feminism and the libertarian/free market movement. The theme was: Feminism and the free market: Does liberty entail liberation?

When I was invited to come and speak I was apprehensive as I’m not well versed in political theory. I did one module on the History of Political Thought– but missed many lectures and my revision consisted of reading a book called “From Plato to Nato” – I didn’t do very well.

However, when I started reading about liberalism and Hayek and Adam Smith I had that feeling of "where have you been all my life?”. One of the reasons that I was so pleasantly surprised was because I had come to understand liberalism through the lens of liberal feminism. Liberal feminists measure freedom in terms of equality of outcome and far from believing in minimal state intervention they rely on it to ensure equality is secured.

Perhaps this is partly because freely made individual choices would be so unlikely to fulfil feminist aims.

For example where paternity leave is transferable, it is women who choose to take most of it. When it becomes non-transferable uptake goes up but not because the fathers want to play an equal role in baby care. Rather fathers took the leave to support the mother, look after the other children, or because the mother expected him too.

When we turn to women the message is even more clear. Survey after survey [netmums, British Social Attitudes, Opportunity Now] shows that mothers are keen to maintain the lead role in the family. The outstanding stability of maternal responsibility has not seen a real shift in the pattern of gendered roles even where women have equal or greater participation in paid employment.

Feminists try to attribute this to deeply ingrained processes of socialisation. But as mothers are starting to protest at the way their role is not being taken seriously, I think feminist explanations are wearing thin. Processes of pregnancy, birth and lactation result in an incredibly strong bond being created between the mother and child and research shows that even the most dedicated full-time fathers recognise that their parental role is secondary. This needs to be taken seriously,not theorised away.

Women prioritise motherhood not because they are stuck in dull, less rewarding jobs. They are choosing dull, less rewarding jobs precisely because they prioritise motherhood.

This results in very high levels of occupational segregation in precisely those countries that have managed to get a lot of women out to work. Where women are under pressure to work, employment far from being the preserve of the most committed, inspirational, or ambitious women becomes the burden of the less careerist, who would rather be looking after their family and therefore choose less demanding forms of work.

So does feminist liberation lead to liberty?

No. As a result of feminist policies women are now feeling under enormous pressure to go out to work. This is reflected in the rise of a genuine grassroots movement like Mothers at Home Matter, made up of women who feel that they have to campaign in order to have the right to stay at home and look after their children.

Feminist policies are the cause of this. At the most benign level there are now many two-income, higher earner families and this reflects the interests of elite women who have chosen to prioritise work. This is entirely fair and it is absolutely right that women who want to should be able to do so, but that does increase the pressure on everyone else.

This is worsened by policies that tax everyone as individuals regardless of their family position. This results in an unfair system where two-earner families pay a lot less in tax for the same household income than a single-earner family where one person stays at home. These highly interventionist policies also have a serious impact on our private lives by increasing the tax burden on families and making it much more tempting for couples to go it alone.

Liberation has a negative impact on men. Data suggest low waged female employment has an impact on low waged male employment. Factor into this an on-going drive to increase female employment in all areas and an education system that is heavily stacked against boys. This feeds into male unemployment, particularly in the younger age groups and a dearth of educated, decently earning and motivated men.

Feminists should be concerned by this. For while privileged women have the full benefits of stable marriages and families, less well off women are much more likely to be single parents, and a large part of this is about the shortage of dependable, decently earning men.

Finally, of course, high levels of female employment and single parenthood have a very detrimental impact on children – our future – who are deprived of all the benefits of a proper family life.

To sum up: the whole feminist project appears to have been about trampling the most basic liberal principles of non-government intervention into the ground. The damage that this has produced also provides the clearest evidence of why this should not be done.

Liberalism is an amazing tool for achieving freedom and fairness and I would argue that some of the most useful achievements of feminism (equal access to employment for married women, getting rid of the stigma of illegitimacy, and making divorce viable) could have been achieved within a liberal framework without arguments about patriarchy and the enmity created towards men.

So how would I move the liberal project forward? I like Adam Smith’s invisible hand construct but a lot that we do is motivated not just by self-interest but by interest in the wellbeing of our families. I would like to see liberal theory developed in a way that took family motivations on board.

Likewise our understanding of freedom. All too often we understand freedom in terms of our ability to participate in employment or politics. We need to understand that family relations, which are often seen as being a drag on freedom, can actually promote it.

We need to re-think representative democracy. It is important that the interests of our families and local communities have proper representation in Parliament. This has little to do with numbers of women MPs who often have no real family experience. Rather it depends on having a strong private realm with people committing time and energy to it and channels of communication between this private realm and government.

Finally we need to re-think inequality. Inequality tends to be viewed as a negative thing and where it leads to human suffering it is. However, the problem is human suffering not inequality. We need to examine the possibility that a great deal of what we view as inequality and therefore as problematic is actually simply difference and therefore not.

Belinda Brown

  • Dr John Barry

    Great article. Rosie Boycott, founder of Spare Rib magazine, said a few years ago that second wave feminism made the mistake of underestimating the negative impact that ‘liberation’ of women into the workplace would have on children. The most reliable evidence is that putting a child into day care can have a lasting negative effect on their cognitve and behavioural development (see the paper by Vandell et al 2010 on their longitundal study of 13,000 children). Another recent longitudinal study found that the longer a child is breastfed for the better their IQ and educational achievment (Victora et al, 2015). Catherine Hakim (2000) shows that only about 20% of women would prefer a job to family life, so really the women’s movement has never really represented the wishes of the majority of women. I personally think it should be about choice, but the way things have changed very few women can afford to choose to be a full time mum any more, and those that do often are unfairly looked down on for not having a career. Crazy.

  • LJAR

    Nice article. regarding the invisible hand, I would certainly consider acting in my family’s interest to be acting in my own self interest. I don’t feel there is any real distinction to be drawn there. Self interest is not restricted to narrow individual benefit.

  • Jenny L

    This is a brilliant piece, and I totally agree with all you have written.

  • Groan

    It is becoming quite clear that the negative effect on boys education and ambitions of deliberately ignoring their development has it’s most dire effects in the “working classes”. Both for the men themselves but also women and “family formation” . It seems forming a family has almost become a counter culture . At the census there were literally 100s of thousands fewer single parent families than indicated by the benefits system. Suggesting that an awful lot of families have to be hidden from the state for financial reasons.
    It is somewhat ironic that the authors of the UN human rights and subsequent Charters actually have forming a family as a human right( rightly calculating it a bulwark against tyranny of the sort so devastating in the last century). The case for this human right needs to be made . We appear to be back in an age in which this right appears only to exist for those who can afford servants or services on their two salaries.

  • Barry Sheridan

    As I look back over the years as a single earner to my family, the resentments of my wife towards society’s attitudes to her devoted care of her children still stand out. While I tried to the best of my ability to reinforce the belief that what she was doing mattered beyond calculation, this additional duty extracted a wearying toll. In truth Britain does not care for the traditional family, never mind the children it ought to support. I would not say the powers that be are contemptuous of this institution, but it is clear they are more concerned with pursuing policies that erode its foundation, that of traditional marriage. The social cost of these lop sided attitudes have been simply disastrous.

  • Mez

    Evidence shows that marriage offers the most financial and emotional security for
    children, and poverty is most often created in single parent households, so shouldn’t we be asking ourselves why is it that so many of British families break down?. Aren’t we guilty of a normalcy bias by just focusing on outcomes in one way? Not all women will marry, not all women will have children, a high percentage of those who do will suffer relationship and marital breakdown.

    One in ten women will suffer infertility, those European women who have children will put off having children until their thirties, so many women spend at least half their working lives without or before having children, and then of those that marry and have children many end up unhappy and poor in broken relationships.

    It’s in the best interests of society that we all make choices about our future which
    enable us to look after ourselves, rather than have society look after us. That we make decisions about our lives which come from a position of strength rather than weakness, and that includes how we select our partners. This is the key issue with a society that wants to revolve around patriarchy, since the state then becomes patriarch of last resort, ultimately creating a situation for all which is opposite to liberty. Since libertarianism requires the right to decide on the outcome of our own lives, this I believe is the fundamental issue regarding liberty.

  • Doormat

    I would be useful if those who idealise Hayek et al and think inequality is not a problem could explain how any man or woman comes to believe he or she is worth several hundred times as much as the average wage ? Every single improvement in the status of women, working class people and those with the wrong skin shade had to be fought for against those who think themselves superior and that inequality is a minor consequence of their god given brilliance. The last sentence of this piece is simply nonsense.

  • Mez

    Inequality is a problem, because the socialist solution has been about equalising outcomes through regulation rather than creating more opportunity. This has resulted in a situation where one parent families are ‘equal’ to marrieds in the way govt supports them- ignoring that one parent families are automatically poorer in terms of emotional resource, income resource, working experience resource, often education level resource from the single parent. Where the state has attempted to create opportunity it’s been through opening up academic education resulting in thousands of young people now thinking they have to take on a degree course to compete in the job market even though many will find there’s no degree job at the end of it.
    Statistically wealthy parents will pass on skills that are not available through state education, eg investment, business development . That’s where wealth generation comes from, not from paye. The middle classes are more likely to buy a big house – buy a big car, buy a boat and tie themselves up in debt. The poor are less likely to have any aspiration, live for today and spend what they earn as they earn it ensuring continual poverty. Add single parenthood into the equation along with the assumptive position of state as provider of last resort, and that is what is passed on to future generations which goes to create a class of continual deprivation, along with a financial lead weight for the rest of society.

    • Colonel Bloodknock

      You know nothing whatsoever about how middle class or working class people live… Stop inventing nonsense and take the trouble to find out. You might start by reading Eleanor Marx to find out why we need trade unions and other bulwarks against the egoism and cruelty of the rich.