Doris Anderson, former editor of Chatelaine (1959-1975), a former president of NAC and former PC candidate, is a long-time feminist activist. At present, she is a columnist for the pro-abortion daily Toronto Star. – Editor

You say you would like to hear from “any woman who feels her lot hasn’t been improved by the women’s movement and who wishes it had never occurred.” I assume you are really prepared to listen to another point of view, and so I would like to respond to your invitation with my thought about “women’s lot” and the women’s movement.

Genuine need

The women’s movement certainly arose out of genuine and strongly-felt needs on the part of women. It seems to me these needs came from three interconnected areas.

  1. Before the industrial revolution most work was not separated from family life. For example, many people farmed or had a trade for which shop and home shared premises. Also, extended families lived together. These arrangements meant that women were around and involved in the work and “excitement” of daily living; and that other members of the family were also involved in child care. In the developed nations of the twentieth century, both these conditions changed. Nuclear families became the norm, with the father leaving the home all day to work somewhere else. Thus the women were left isolated, out of the mainstream of activity and basically on their own with the children.
  1. Being more and more separated from their extended families, women began to turn to “experts” for advice on child care instead. Perhaps because this came from men, this advice promoted a detached style of parenting, e.g., cradles and rocking the baby were discouraged; bottles became standard; rigid schedules were advised, as well as letting the baby cry; and leaving the baby with sitters because parents needed time away. Children were not to sleep with their parents, but in a separate bed and room instead. Pacifiers and teddy bears were substituted for comfort from mothers. In general, children were to be pushed to independence as early as possible. To my mind, this more distant relationship with their children would produce much less satisfaction with the one important job left to women. (Of course, there was also housework and cooking to do. I think these are significant in making a home for your loved ones, but not in themselves important work.)
  1. Both at home and in the wider world, women experienced a lack of power. Women were considered stupid and emotional, and unable to do many kinds of jobs – and therefore not permitted to.

So out of these needs, the women’s movement came into being. As I see it, the movement has focused mostly on the third area, by trying to enable women to have power, respect and the option to participate widely in the work force. The first area has been dealt with by encouraging women to be employed outside their homes. This enables them to participate in the working-for-pay world, but has led to the “superwoman” myth and exhaustion as women try to cope with two sets of work in two locations. Meanwhile, women have become even more distant from their children, often leaving them with nannies or in daycare at a very early age. The mission of caring for our children has become less and less valuable.

Equality and sameness

Where the women’s movement went wrong was in confusing “equality” with “sameness”. For men and women to be really equal should mean that their respective common and unique needs be equally respected and met. The obvious example is that only women can bear children, and only women can breastfeed them. Thus women are uniquely suited to care for their own children, and this should be recognized, respected and supported.

The approach taken instead reminds me of a parent who goes overboard to treat her children “equally” by treating them the same. If she buys an item for one, she will get the same or something similar for the other, whose needs may be very different and will not necessarily get met in this fashion.

Not the same

Men and women are not exactly the same, yet women have tried to meet their needs by becoming like men – going out into the work force like men to do jobs only men used to do; trying to move up the ladder and be successful in men’s terms. As a result, there are many occupations now open to women. I think this is good. But I also think it is a tremendous loss that the women’s movement has not focused more on trying to transform the working world into something that meets our needs as well. And that reflects the particular kinds of contributions we could make. Business might move away from competition and individualism and towards cooperation and greater caring about people. Work that met our need to care for children could include work done at home, work that you could bring your kids to, part-time work, shared work, flextime, and so on.

Children’s loss

The victims of this misdirection have been our children. We have really become like men, who got ahead at the expense of women – now women get ahead at the expense of children, an even more powerless group. The most tragic instance of this is abortion. In order to be like men, women have to be able to not bear children. Therefore, the women’s movement has been an ardent supporter of legal abortion on demand. Women have been willing to deny the humanity of the baby growing within them and have their own bodies invaded and abused. Of course, the movement has been completely unwilling to consider what the negative effects of this have been on women themselves.

Today’s situation

We now have a society where children are not respected or considered important. Women spend much of their lives trying to make sure they don’t have them. Children are expected to be seen and not heard, or better still, not seen at all. For instance, a noisy child on a bus or in church is frowned at. In fact, at church, children are usually expected to be in the nursery. God forbid that a mother should breastfeed a child in these sorts of places! The incidence of child abuse has risen, not fallen, since abortion became commonplace. While it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from this, since it’s hard to know how much is due to more abuse and how much to better reporting of abuse, it stands to reason there would be more abuse, since abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

So, has my lot been improved by the women’s movement? Yes, in some ways. I was able to get two university degrees and work at a reasonably well-paid job. But not in many other ways. I am at home now, very fulfilled, while making a home for my family and raising a child. I am doing this on a street that is rather empty of other children and especially of other mothers at home. The parks are often empty, too. All the kids are in day care or somewhere. The newspapers constantly suggest that I am part of a dying minority, and that our family’s taxes should help pay for other kids’ care! I am raising my child in a society that is not very accepting of children. How many stores are set up with young children in mind? How many places or events welcome children? And I am living in a society that – so we are told – embraces abortion. In denying humanity to a portion of humanity, we all lose out. Already this has spread to letting disabled newborns die, and calls for legal euthanasia. I won’t say I wish the women’s movement had never occurred, but I will say I wish it had taken a very different approach – one which would have benefited us all, men, women and children.

Grange Smith is a Willowdale, Ontario mother.