Badinter's "The Conflict": Oppression of Mothers Through the Lens of France's Hegemonic Masculinity
Sunday, April 29, 2012 
Last week, the English version of French feminist Elisabeth Badinter's book The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women was released. The Internet has been abuzz with discussion of her book. While the book raises many issues that could be explored, I want to examine her assertion that it is no longer men who are oppressing women, it is modern motherhood.
A Conflict Between Woman and Mother
In The Conflict, Badinter talks about the potential conflict between motherhood and a woman's quest for personal fulfillment. She notes:
Now that motherhood is no longer the only source of affirmation for a woman, the desire to have children might conflict with other desires. A woman with an interesting job who hopes to build a career - although such women are a minority - cannot fail to consider such questions as whether a child would harm her professionally. How would she manage to combine a demanding job with raising a child? What effect would that undertaking have on her relationship with her partner? How would she need to reorganize her home life? Will she still be able to enjoy her advantages and, more important, how much of her freedom would she have to relinquish?
The basis of the book is that despite advances in opportunities for women, motherhood and the ever-increasing expectations that come with it, are undermining the status of women. As a feminist, attachment parenting style mother and career-oriented white collar professional, I don't deny the importance of the questions raised in this quote, but I do take issue with the way she exclusively assigns them to women.
Not the Baby, Still the Men
In The Conflict, Chapter Four is called 'The Baby's Dominion'. Badinter concisely sums up her argument in the first two paragraphs [emphasis mine]:
The irony of this history is that it was precisely at the point that Western women finally rid themselves of patriarchy that they acquired a new master in the home. Women had achieved financial independence as well as control over whether they had children or not: they had no reason, it seemed, to continue to confront men's power.
Yet, thirty years later, there is no denying that male domination persists. Men's general resistance to the model of equality is indisputable, but this alone does not explain women's situation today. Their increased responsibility for babies and young children has proved just as restrictive, if not more so, than sexism in the home or in the workplace. A woman might be able to turn her back on her boss or her husband, but she can hardly walk away from her baby. The tyranny of maternal duty is not new, but it has become considerably more pronounced with the rise of naturalism, and it has thus far produced neither a matriarchy nor sexual equality, but rather a regression in women's status. We have agreed to this regression in the home in the name of moral superiority, the love we bear for our children, and some ideal notion of child rearing, all of which are proving far more effective than external constraints. As everyone knows, there is nothing quite like voluntary servitude. And men have not had to lift a finger to accomplish this fall. The best allies of men's dominance have been, quite unwittingly, innocent infants.
I could probably footnote and deconstruct each sentence in that passage, but I want to focus on her assertion that for once it isn't the men who are oppressing women, because she's wrong. It is still the men who are oppressing women. Parenting is not something solely in the mother's domain. Sure, there are things that are more easily and more naturally taken on by the woman (pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding). But with the amount of work that goes into raising a child, certainly there are equivalently hard or selfless tasks that a father can take on?
Did Badinter Give Up on the Revolution in Fatherhood?
In Badinter's other book, XY: On Masculine Identity, that she wrote two decades ago, she writes about the "conditions of the revolution in fatherhood":
The revolution in fatherhood, barely perceptible today, ought to cause great upheavels for generations to come and most notably lead to a new masculinity, more diversified and subtler. But it presupposes more democratic relations between members of a couple than those that we know today and is dependent on more than the good will of individuals.
She then talks about two models of equally shared parenting, one where parents split all tasks equally and one where the work, overall, is split equally with each parent tending to different tasks. Like me, Badinter prefers the latter model:
There is an economical use of time, access to the child by both its parents, and greater parental solidarity than in the traditional mode, thus strengthening the couple without threatening it. What is more, the children seem more secure and less anxious [than in the case where they don't know which parent is responsible for what].
Finally, she goes on to talk about the need to change what we perceive as masculine virtues:
It is time to tell our sons that Terminator, far from being a superman, is a miserable parody. Even more important, it is also high time to sing the praises of masculine virtues that are not acquired either passively or easily but that find expression in effort and struggle. These virtues are self-control, the desire to surpass oneself, a love of risk and challenge, and resistance to oppression, among others. They are the conditions for creation, but also for dignity. They belong to every human being in the same way as the feminine virtues.
But somewhere in the time between writing XY: On Masculine Identity and The Conflict, Badinter seems to have given up on men and the possibility of a revolution in fatherhood.
L'Homme
Badinter ends The Conflict with a chapter specifically on the situation in France, where breastfeeding rates are significantly lower than in other countries, where women go back to work quickly, and where fathers don't contribute much.
There is no moral or social pressure bearing on a woman to be a full-time mother, not even in the first year after birth. French society acknowledged a long time ago that the mother need not be the only party responsible for her child.
Although they are constantly admonished to take on their fair share of parental and householder chores, French fathers continue to contribute very little in this area. But in their place, the state shares responsibility for the baby's well-being and upbringing. And because the state's duty toward the mother and the child is universally accepted, that public opinion tends to be far more scathing about the state's shortcomings than about any failure on the part of the mother, or especially, the father.
So, writing from the perspective of French society (and in particular, a class of French society that would have had all the help necessary in raising children and completing household chores), Badinter sees trends towards more involved parenting as necessarily oppressing women. Rather than seeing greater involvement of men as the solution (or the lack thereof as the problem), she seemingly brushes that aside and advocates for women to be just as uninvolved with their children as most French fathers are.
Let's take another look at that paragraph from The Conflict that I quoted at the start. What if we replaced "woman" with "man", "she" with "he", and adjusted a few other key elements to ensure accuracy, while still posing the same questions?
Now that a career is no longer the only source of affirmation for a man, the desire to have children might conflict with other desires. A man with an interesting job who hopes to build a career - especially because such men are in the majority - cannot fail to consider such questions as whether a child would harm him professionally. How would he manage to combine a demanding job with raising a child? What effect would that undertaking have on his relationship with his partner? How would he need to reorganize his home life? Will he still be able to enjoy his advantages and, more important, how much of his freedom would he have to relinquish?
Do those questions sound ridiculous now that the roles are reversed? They probably do, because our society does assume that women will be the ones who sacrifice the most when children enter the picture. But in a society free of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity the questions shouldn't sound ridiculous.
- Why aren't more men taking years off of their career to stay home with their children if that is something the family values?
- Why aren't more men questioning whether it is still reasonable to head out to the golf course every Saturday morning?
- Why aren't more men asking what changes they might need to make to better balance their career and their family life?
Badinter says that breastfeeding and other forms of "intensive mothering" are problematic because it forces women into servitude and denies men "bottle time". I disagree. I think we should advocate for "intensive fathering" to complement that "intensive mothering". If men are wearing their babies, cuddling with them, playing with them, changing and washing diapers, taking them for walks, teaching them things, and later introducing them to interesting foods, the fact that he supported exclusive breastfeeding of the infant for the first six months shouldn't be equated with his exclusion or her oppression. If fathers are doing all of that, it also gives mothers the opportunity to find the balance they need and to meet their own needs.
Choosing a parenting style shouldn't be something the mother does alone. She should have control over her body (and therefore have the final say on issues like breastfeeding), but decisions about how to parent the child should be something that both parents make together and that both of them invest equally in. There are certainly mothers who choose very intensive parenting styles and take everything on their own shoulders. But I don't think the answer to that problem is to suggest that certain parenting styles (like attachment parenting) are wrong.
The solution is to ensure that fathers are equal partners in parenting, so that mothers are not the only ones to suffer physically, professionally and personally from the demands of parenting. Being a parent is incredibly fulfilling, but it also involves challenges. In my opinion, both the rewards and the sacrifices stemming from the decision to procreate should be shared equally by both parents.
More Reading on Badinter
There are so many problems with the arguments raised in Badinter's book, that it is impossible for me to cover them all in one blog post. But other people are discussing this too.
- Take a look at the conversation between Hanna Rosin and Katie Allison Granju on Slate, which explores some of the issues around attachment parenting as raised in Badinter's book and which also exposes Badinter's undisclosed ties not just to Nestle, but also the rest of the infant formula industry.
- Read the features on the Huffington Post, including Lisa Belkin's interview with Badinter, Badinter's own post, and Melissa Fay Greene's response.
- Take a look at the Blue Milk post on The Conflict, but more importantly scroll to the bottom to find links to her other posts about Badinter, including Oppressed by Breastfeeding and Feminism and attachment parenting and why they've more in common than in conflict.
Your Thoughts
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. On the one hand, I support the right of each family to make decisions for themselves in terms of how to balance the parenting workload between parents. On the other hand, however, I think that dismantling the patriarchy necessarily requires more men to take time off work to either be a stay-at-home dad or at least be the one rushing out the door to grab the kids from daycare on a more regular basis.
How can we encourage greater equality across society while still valuing and recognizing the ability of each family to determine what roles make sense to them?
Reader Comments (69)
@Cindy: Thank you! You're right, the image is another thing that goes into making being a SAHM more complicated. I had merely meant to point out one of the things that makes it really difficult for me -- obviously, whole books could be written and still not cover everything, since it's different for everybody. What is difficult for me might not be a challenge for you, and vice versa.
@Sarah: Maybe you're right, and it wasn't an attack, as that implies intent to harm. What Mrs Rochester said, however, certainly WAS both condescending and dismissive of people whose choices/needs/families are different from her own. Her statement: "So, why would any woman want to take on being a SAHM and doing the lion’s share of childrearing and housekeeping…because it is EASY." Then she talks about how not everybody wants a challenge and that she prefers "to have one foot in each world to varying degrees at different points of the child’s life as needed." Without knowing anything of my life (or of any other SAHM's life, I only use myself as an example) she judges me as taking the easy road, the one that is less challenging. She knows nothing of what is challenging to me, or to the incredibly diverse group of people who have chosen this lifestyle. This kind of condescension and judgement is exactly what keeps us sniping at each other rather than bonding together and supporting each other. It's even got me doing it, even though I try very hard to avoid becoming angry about these things. Truly, you can never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
Great deconstruction and many illuminating comments.
I also notice Batinder's focus on the infancy years and the intensity of mothering/parenting at that time of life. She doesn't seem to acknowledge infancy as a season of life that quickly passes. Even for a mother with a larger family (I have four, ages 10 to almost 2), there are seasons of intensity followed by seasons where I can focus more on my own needs and career.
It seems to me she misses the obvious point: equal parenting, in many ways, is not about a point in time, but is played out over 18 years of parenting. Mom is more hands on in that first year, sure, but it does not follow that she is therefore the primary parent for life. Children change, their needs change, the balance of who does what for whom changes.
She also seems to completely ignore the idea of changing work to suit the reality of femaleness (most of us will have children, which normatively requires pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding.) She seems to completely embrace the normative of maleness (and Western society) in working.
How is fully accepting the white collar culture, the 40-hour work week, the separation of family from work, in any way radical feminisism?
She ignores the reality that natural parenting equals a portable baby in most cases, a baby who fits into many parts of your life as you go. (I notice this more with my younger kids -- they fit into the family's life flow, rather than our life flow changing significantly when baby arrives.)
I also wonder where an older feminist gets off in telling the younger generation how to "do" their feminism in a stage of life she is no longer living. If we applied that logic to the second wave, they should have conformed to the ideas of first-wave maternal feminism.
The third wave and beyond need to struggle with remaking society as we find it, in solving the problems as we discover them. Generally, third wave feminists embrace the idea of including men in our solutions -- in even creating those solutuions -- in a way the second wave did not.
I find her view of men in this latest book, quite frankly, insulting to my spouse and his generation of fathers. My dad was a trailblazer in this area, a fully equal parent. I married a similar type of man. He is an active, engaged and wonderful father. We share this job equally. And it's dads like him who challenge other dads to step up to the plate. We need change agents amongst the men. She seems to completely dismiss that in her latest book.
OMG, I'm oooooold. My bad.
I actually said, if you read closely, that being a SAHM is not really inherently challenging (in my opinion, to an able-bodied, psychologically and emotionally healthy grown woman)...and that if such a woman wanted to experience intellectual (or other) challenges, she was free to do so, of her own choosing, without it being tied to a boss or employment, which I think is infinitely "easier" in that she only has to answer to herself (and to some general extent her husband and kids, but lets assume he's not a bastard and they are nice kids)...I say this as I experience it! The question was why do women choose this (other than conviction that it's "best" for the children...which, I too, share, for under 3's) and I still contend that the answer is because it's easy! There's nothing wrong with choosing an easy or pleasant day-to-day life! I say, more power to you!
Great post on owning our choices, by the way @Sarah.
Having a fully equal parenting partner was definitely a criteria for me in choosing a husband.
Here's why: Yes, I want to stay home with my kids. SOME of the time. And some of the time I want to be pursing my passions, my career, my social justice endeavors, and my personal growth. And I want that for my husband too.
For me, the major problem that needs to be confronted in society is the lack of a societal understanding and vision for a balanced life. I searched for jobs for 6 months, and was only able to find a full-time 40 hour a week position. Now I am negotiating that down to 30 hours so I can still have a satisfying career and have the time I crave with my children. Most companies aren't willing to hire and promote part-time workers.
I believe that working part-time, or from home, or with your children, or non-traditional hours is absolutely necessary to equally shared parenting.
"I also think we need a cultural change in workplaces that value work-life balance and prioritize family time. I think employers will see greater productivity from their employees if they have sufficient balance and down-time."
YES! YES! YES! This is my thought exactly. Why must one work 70 hours a week to have an impact in an organization?
Thanks for being the only Room for Debate columnist to point to the elephant in the room of American parenting: FATHERS!!
Just wrote a column of my own taking off from yours:
"No More Leave it to Beaver," on Transition Times: http://bethechange2012.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/no-more-leave-it-to-beaver/
I agree that fathers are what's missing. I'm so greatful my husband is the man he and is 100% involved including baby-wearing, daycare drop-off, cuddling, diapers, etc. If more men did this, what a difference it would make, not only in the family, but in our culture as well.
I've never been a true sahm, but I have had some portions of my working life where I worked very part time, nontraditional hours, so people assumed I either was a sahm, or practically so. I think during these times I empathized more with the sahm experience. I think each experience has its own unique challenges.
I think during the times where I worked less, and people assumed I was practically a sahm, I felt that this gave others the excuse to make requests of me that they might not have in other circumstances. These included calling me at seven in the morning and assuming that I want to watch your kid on a snow day while you go to work, requesting that we carpool to such and such activity, then both of the other parents involved in the carpool never taking their turn due to work related excuses, and assuming that I would not turn down various volunteer requests "because no one else could do them related to their work schedules"
[...] points out, “It’s About Parenting, Not ‘Mothering.” Urban takes on French author Elisabeth Badinter’s assertion that this form of parenting enslaves women, pointing out there are enough responsibilities [...]
Check out this great and FREE service I found for expecting or nursing mothers!
The Texas Pregnancy Riskline Information Service will counsel and give you potential risks if your baby has had any toxic exposures! Check out their website: www.ttis.unt.edu
or call 1.800.733.4727
[...] and feminism; one that I don't think exists as I pointed out in my post last week called Badinter's "The Conflict": Oppression of Mothers Through the Lens of France's He.... So when the New York Times contacted me and asked me if I wanted to comment on the issue, I agreed [...]
I agree with your critique of Badinter's unfair portrayal of attachment parenting and support what you say about the importance of getting fathers more on board. In light of Pamela Druckerman's book about French parenting, French fathers lack of involvement does not surprise me (though it bothers me). You can see my response to Druckerman's book in my latest Quizzical mama book. It's short because writing in any length about it would have prolonged the visceral pain I had to endure while actually reading the book. I appreciate that you made the effort to respond in length to Badinter's book.
I agree that parenting is not mothering but parenting by fathers and mothers, and that the challenge remains getting fathers on board. I am also a strong advocate for public state support for parenting, from paid parental leave to subsidized daycare and free preschool, as they are granted in France, but in a way that encourages gender equality and flexibility in terms of how mothers and fathers choose to divide the responsibilities of parenting. Here in the US, there are huge financial costs of pursuing attachment parenting and sharing the responsibilities. My husband and I managed to pursue both because I quit my job as a professor in order to devote myself to parenting and my own writing (when possible). And because my husband was a grad school student during our child's three first years of life. In terms of income, we had a writers fellowship I received and my husband's student income. It was not easy to manage for three years on those two things. I'm curious how you managed with your husband being home and you in grad school. I think Erica Jong brought up a good point in her New York Times piece addressing the Badinter conflict when addressing the practical challenges to involved attachment parenting in our culture and economy.
[...] Book covers telling you that motherhood is undermining your status as a women. [...]
[...] it get any worse than that? I'd better go read some Elisabeth Badinter to calm myself down, I thought. But no, I had deadlines and commitments, so I plugged away and [...]
[...] more discussion on Badinter’s “The Conflict” visit PhDinParenting. Annie does a great job taking on the false assumption that parenting is a mother’s domain. She [...]
[...] come as a surprise to those who pit feminism against attachment parenting, such as Hanna Rosin, Elisabeth Badinter, Erica Jong, and the New York Times. Based on my experience and knowledge, I can't help but [...]
"A woman might be able to turn her back on her boss or her husband, but she can hardly walk away from her baby."
And a man can walk away from his baby?
I also disagree attachment parenting with the mom nursing is what is keeping women "imprisoned". Nursing doesn't take all day away for years or even months. The author actually pinpointed it quite well - it is men who still refuse to really father.
And, I'd add, the system which makes it difficult to share parenting equally and combine work with family life in a way that helps most families.