The post ponders the question of the alleged absence of feminist lawyers, and prescribes the creation of a “coordinated, active group of feminist lawyers or law students” as a cure for this apparent malaise.

The post refers to the “ever-impending prospect of starting a career at the bar without knowing who to look to as a feminist leader in the field”. You want role models? For goodness sake, didn’t she even do a cursory google search before paying her BVC fees? Can it be possible that someone can gain entry to the profession without being able to use Wikipedia?

Try these (a sample only):

Helena Kennedy QC (Amongst many other things, Author of President of The Helena Kennedy Foundation)

Baroness Hale (First woman in the Supreme Court, )

Theis J DBE (Mother, Barrister, QC, Former Chair FLBA, High Court Judge)

Shami Chakrabarti (barrister and one woman campaigning machine for human and civil rights, now panel member on the Leveson Press Inquiry)

So, in answer to your question “Where are all the feminist lawyers?”:

We are out there working, achieving, juggling, surviving. In amongst it all some of us campaign for justice in small ways, some in big ways, others just get on with doing a job that would not have been possible for their mothers, and doing it well. Many work quietly to improve diversity at the bar, by mentoring, guiding and supporting young women and young men of talent. They put in extra time to give them a helping hand and to keep an eye out for them. Most challenge discrimination and backwards attitudes when they encounter it. Very occasionally, some of us write about feminist issues.

The law, particularly the bar, is not an easy environment for a woman, or at any rate for a woman with children. There have been many improvements, and although it remains only in isolated pockets, I speak from experience when I say that direct sexism still exists at the bar. But I’ve learnt that feminism is about more than challenging minor acts of chauvinism (women committee members being habitually referred to as “girls” for example). Every time a woman returns from maternity leave, successfully juggles caring and professional responsibilities and achieves in her career it is an achievement that feminists should be proud of. It is to the credit of the individual women (and their supportive others), and to some extent to those within the profession who have pushed change through, that this is possible. Just doing my job day in day out, quite apart from the fact that many of my clients are vulnerable women, is a feminist act. I do being a feminist every day. I don’t particularly feel the need to be a member of any club to prove my feminist credentials – I am a member of the bar.

But that aside, I have to take issue with the proposition that there is “no coordinated, active group of feminist lawyers or law students”. Apart from the Association of Women Barristers obviously. Or the Association of Women Solicitors. Or organisations like the Haldane Society. Or the various Specialist Bar Associations with their Equalities / Diversity Officers and subcommittees.

Maybe we could do with a whizzy new organisation, but based on the examples of “feminist” issues set out in Ms Watson’s post I gather its focus would be on law reform not on legal practice per se. Those matters it seems to me are primarily matters for politicians and for political, representative and lobbying groups to deal with, although professional bodies and specialist bar associations etc often contribute to public debate and consultations about such matters that affect their members or their client groups or that raise points of general public interest (eg FLBA or Sound Off For Justice).

Why is there not more? Because we’re busy people who prioritise our clients. Because we represent those clients, fearlessly, independently of our personal views or convictions – be they female victims of violence, or male perpetrators. When we campaign we campaign for justice. When we gather it is to defend it.

I don’t have F branded on my forehead like some feminist Rimmer. Instead I wear a wig*.

So, to Kat Watson: You may think we’re invisible. But you’re not looking hard enough. You are emphatically NOT the first / only feminist lawyer.

Prescription: more experience. Advice: learn from observation not keyword searches.

* in point of fact I rarely wear a wig as I practice in family law, but I do wear the “dark suit” uniform. I don’t understand the offence taken at the wig – it isn’t gender specific. In fact it renders uniform all members of the bar, be they male or female and thus is a neutralising device rather than a sign of male domination.

Most legal eyes this week have been on the various Legal Walks taking place in London and elsewhere, to raise funds for Law Centres and Pro Bono legal advice (and in Bristol it was an Access to Justice Walk). Not satisfied with that, half of my chambers seems to have participated in the Bristol 10k run at the weekend for charidee. But this post is about a whole other kind of walk. The SLUT WALK. Some of you may have seen Paxman last week (see 27.45m on iplayer) apparently oscillating between overexcited, bewildered and just plain petrified, pinned between a pair of variously vociferous and voluptuous women arguing the pros and cons of the proposed SLUT WALK – the contrast between their visual appearance was surely no coincidence – one tight lipped, pinned back, steely and contained; the other wild haired, verbally passionate and physically demonstrative (guess which was the Tory MP). I myself found it a strange mix of amusing and excruciating – I could almost hear the boys from my school chanting “Bitch fight!”. The polarised comments on twitter during and after carried on the theme and kept me absorbed for a whole glass of chianti.

But the quaero-erotic tableau contrived by the producers of Newsnight last week is not the topic of this blog post. I do actually want to talk about the slut walks. You can read about them here, if the whole concept has passed you by. Because to me the real issues have been slightly lost in the (predictable) media hoo ha (And in the coalition style drafting “pause” before publication of this post a further broo-ha-ha on the topic of rape has arisen from Ken Clarke’s outrageous suggestion that not all rapes are of identical degrees of gravity).

Back to the sluts. Let’s just take the offending word “slut” out of the equation and place it to one side. We will deal with it later. Now we can look a little more objectively. What we are left with is Police Constable Sanguinetti’s suggestion that young women may expose themselves to greater risk of sexual violence depending on how they dress (incidentally I am trying SO hard to fight the persistent visual image of Canadian law enforcement qua Malcolm the Mountie). The notion that women should take some responsibility for the consequences of their actions rather than rely upon unrealistic expectations of male behaviour is not new (see for example the always controversial Camille Paglia – sorry, can’t find a quote and my copy of the book is lost / leant out / hidden by toddler). This is not the only thing that Paglia has said that has made her unpopular, but it certainly has been one of them. It’s a very delicate topic – for good reason, because of the tension between how the world is and how it ought to be (or how we would like it to be).

But, lets put Paglia to one side (she too makes people too hot under the collar to focus properly) – there are a number of really important questions here (to which I do not know the answers, and which I cannot see anyone asking let alone attempting to answer):

• Statistically speaking, does a woman’s choice of clothing whilst out in public impact upon the risk of her becoming a victim of sexual violence?
• As opposed to (say) whether or not she is alone, drunk or taking a poorly lit route?
• And in any event, what proportion of sexual violence takes place in the snatch and assault stranger rape scenario that Sanguinetti apparently has in mind, as opposed to rape at home or by an acquaintance or (ex-)intimate partner?
• Which leads on to important questions about who rapes, and why / when do they do so? How much rape is opportunistic rape arising from an impulsive response to a woman’s choice of clothes? If I had to guess I would say a pretty small proportion.

It seems uncontroversial to me that in the course of their crime prevention duties (as distinct from detection, prosecution and punishment) it is right for the police to educate the public about risk factors and help them to keep themselves safe and avoid becoming victims of crime. I think that includes sexual crime. But that’s the easy bit. What I don’t know is whether the risk factor to which PC Sanguinetti is alluding is in fact a risk factor at all. And I wonder if there are even statistics available to answer that question – my guess would be not, but it would be great if someone could tell me in a comment. (The only stats I have been able to find are a reference to the 2004-5 British Crime Survey Interpersonal Violence Module which suggests that 51% of serious sexual violence was carried out by partners or ex partners, and that only 11% was committed by a stranger to the victim.

Because it is one thing to suggest that women can reduce their risk of sexual violence by modifying their appearance if there is an evidence base to support that as an effective risk management strategy, but quite another to put forward such a proposal based upon assumptions about how men and women behave and relate to one another. For me, the use of the word slut is telling – he could have said “don’t wear skimpy clothes” but he chose to equate a(n unspecified) mode of dress with a sexual attitude. “Slut” is evocative as well as provocative, but not objectively identifiable – it suggests to me that the guidance offered is based on assumption and stereoptype rather than evidence or analysis. But that may be a wrong guess.

We do not criticise other public education or health programmes such as safe sex campaigns, safe sun campaigns, anti theft campaigns etc, even though they in some cases urge us to modify what we consider socially acceptable or normal behaviour (including sexual behaviour). And I don’t see the provision of good information about risk as inimical to the right of women to make choices, to express themselves and their sexuality and to take risks if they want to. Sound information (as opposed to social assumption) enables us to make informed choices and to take known risks.

So let’s look at the word slut. What does it mean? What was it meant to convey when used by PC Sanguinetti? What does it’s use in this context reveal? Well, it connotes sexual promiscuity. How does one dress “like a slut”? Presumably by signalling through clothing that one is sexually available by choosing revealing clothing. Of course the notion that we can identify something we can’t even define is rubbish anyway. There are lost distinctions between sexually confident, sexually active and promiscuity, and more importantly a lost distinction between perceived or actual promiscuity and consent. Promiscuous individuals say Yes a lot. But that doesn’t mean their Nos don’t count as much as any other person’s.

It is abhorrent to think that a woman has to be ashamed of her body and deny her sexual self because our expectations of male behaviour are so low (religiously based codes of female modesty are quite difficult for me to come to terms with for this reason – why should women cover up because society doesn’t expect men to keep it zipped? Equally, biological determinist arguments about male socio-sexual behaviour give me the shivers). It would be abhorrent to think that the society I live in accepted any argument that men simply cannot help themselves when faced with naked flesh. But wouldn’t it also be stupid to ignore good evidence about risk factors if that evidence exists?

Society doesn’t accept burglary or car crime is socially acceptable; but we are educated by the police in how to protect ourselves and our homes from this unacceptable behaviour and we follow that advice even though it curtails our freedom and our autonomy (we lock doors, set alarms, clutch possessions) – we all judge for ourselves where the line should be drawn, but every day we take sensible steps to reduce risk based on advice because we know that crime is a reality. And if my car is nicked because I didn’t bother to lock it people might think I was daft, but they wouldn’t treat the taking of my car as acceptable behaviour. It would still be car theft. Like lots of other sensible people I get very uncomfortable, and angry whenever there is a suggestion that a victim of sexual violence was “asking for it” or that the violent behaviour is less culpable because of the victim’s own behaviour, but it seems to me that the tendency towards hysteria about the perceived minimising of the seriousness of rape, and the general hypersensitivity about anything that suggests women are to blame for male behaviour is a barrier to sensible discussion about women’s behaviour. To suggest that we talk about that is not inconsistent with the idea that sexual violence is not OK and should be punished. Women’s behaviour doesn’t make sexual violence more or less serious. But it might make it more or less likely. As I say, I’d like to see any statistics that exist on the extent to which dress actually impacts on the prevalence of sexual attacks.

Last time I was out in Bristol on a Saturday night I walked along the Waterfront by the Watershed. It was like a cattle market. I have a particularly memorable image of walking behind a gaggle of overweight young women, maybe 19 or 20 years old, all heavily dolled up, wearing short dresses and heels, and one with a dress so short that both bum cheeks were hanging out of the bottom of the dress, like a pair of cellulite pelmets. I’m still quite traumatised by it. But does their poor choice of dress make them vulnerable? Maybe. But I would guess that being rolling drunk and wearing shoes that would prevent a quick escape were their biggest risk factors. For me the bigger issue is why women feel like they have to put on a show of sexual availability as some kind of Saturday night ritual? I’m all for choice, and I’ve done my fair share of revealing clothes and drunken nights out (in days of yore), so this doesn’t come from prudishness – I’m all for celebrating our bodies, our youth and our sex. But I sometimes sense that what for young women of my generation was a choice, a rebellion – has somehow slipped into a way of conforming, of fitting in, and an expectation for girls growing up today – and it begins before girls even reach puberty.

What is most upsetting about the use of the word “slut” to me is that we seem to expect our girls to dress revealingly, provocatively and in a sexually adult way from a very young age (like sluts?), and then society tells them it’s their fault when they become victims of sexual violence. And in some ways reminding young women that they have choices about who they become, and they are responsible for those choices is no bad thing. How much of the way we raise our girls as sexually precocious eye pleasers is a barrier to changing social attitudes to and about women and sexual behaviour? That the choice of language used by PC Sanguinetti was so massively provocative is telling of the underlying reality – that male and social attitudes to women’s sexuality and sexual choices are not as far forward as they ought to be.

Our girl children are raised in an environment in which sex is just another commodity, they are under chronic social pressure to present themselves as physically appealing, and to conform to a pretty narrow and standardised version of physical attractiveness. That’s why, for me, the idea of reclaiming the word slut is missing the point – it’s symptomatic of the lack of intellectual rigour in the idea that young girls are somehow empowered women. How are they empowered when society condemns their very conformity as sluttishness?

.

This begins with Harriet Harman’s interview in The Times on Sunday (also here) . I take the point that Harriet’s turn of phrase that ‘men cannot be left to run things on their own’ sounds pejorative and is foolishly sexist. She does know how to put her foot in her mouth. But let’s look at the bigger picture. It is a fact that the business of politics and governance remains overwhelmingly male dominated and that HAS to change as a matter of urgency. As Harriet says – and this is plainly the thrust of what she says rather than the detail that detractors are homing in on - ‘it’s thoroughly bad to have  a men-only leadership’. The idea is that, even if women in government are outnumbered by men, things are still run in accordance with the principles of equality. To use the lingo this government is ‘striving to be’ an equal opportunities government (aka work in progress).

.

So I ask you, does John Prescott’s response on his blog smack of committment to and deep understanding of the importance of substantive equality of opportunity both in government and in the country as a whole? Does it ‘eck. Harriet Harman has stated an obvious and uncomfortable truth, and one which would be a significant vote loser amongst the female electorate were it not for the fact that all the other main parties are similarly terrible at getting women elected. And Prescott reacts by criticising her for doing damage to the party. Prescott’s clumsy attack on the only person prepared to put her head above the parapet on this is extremely unattractive and as a female voter a massive turn off.

.

What Prescott completely misses is that Harman is promoting a long needed public debate about this – and one which if embraced could be a positive campaigning line. Male and female members of Parliament alike should be engaging with this constructively to work out how we can redress the balance, how we can eliminate actual and perceived imbalance and male centred policy making, how they can win the trust and votes of women.

.

But, says Prescott, the all boys team have been successful, have done important stuff (and by implication this women’s issue is no more than a distraction). Waving your sporting trophies and sneering at what the girls want to talk about by reducing it to pink fluff is schoolyard stuff. It is unsophisticated and unconvincing.

.

And to attempt to undermine a woman’s own success by saying she got to the top by being a woman is utterly unimaginative (I am referring here to the significant phrase ‘in theory you were selected on merit not on gender’ which I am disappointed to report my other half finds completely unobjectionable – he is mystified at my wrath). What’s more, it fundamentally misses the point: lets assume that Harriet Harman was in part elected as a result of her committment to equality or to what Prescott may view as ‘women’s issues’ - that is not the same as getting elected because of your gender. A male candidate who was equally able to demonstrate his committment to the same ‘women’s issues would compete on a level playing field. That one remark from Prescott, rather emphasises the reason why we need more women in government. The John Prescott’s of this world don’t even get why there is a problem – he doesn’t understand what Harriet or the rest of us birds are whineing on about. ‘The system works fine’ says Prescott. If the system worked fine John, there would be a representative proportion of women in government. What’s your problem with that?

.

John Prescott should take a long hard look at himself and the effect upon the female voter of publicly attacking female colleagues for raising legitimate equality issues, and consider who it is that is damaging the party’s prospects of retaining power at the next election. He may have attracted some unpleasantly misogynistic comments on his blog post (which one rather suspects may reflect his views in rather rawer form than appear on a carefully crafted blog post which produces an uncharacteristically polished result in contrast with the off the cuff Prescott we are used to seeing on telly), but I can tell him that there are more women voters, than misogynists out there, more voters who want to see representative government and true equality than there are voters who want to keep everything as it is or fill a cabinet full of Prescotts.

.

Every time I attend an unfamiliar court I go through the motions when I sign in: I enunciate ‘Ms…Lucy…Reed…no it’s double E D…I’m counsel for the Respondent / Applicant…’ (it’s only four letters but 99% of people want to spell it Reid – my husband’s utterly unspellable name fortifies me against abandonment of both my principles and my surname for the sake of an easy life) and then I sigh as they write down ‘Miss Reed’. Even when the court staff don’t ignore what I say the judge inevitably does. As do most colleagues at the bar. I don’t even bother in my local court any more. Diversity training in the court service evidently covers the range of religious books upon which one might swear an oath, but not the respect for gender neutral nomenclature that one might wish to see from the machinery of justice.

.

And I am steeling myself for the inevitable day when I realise I look too old to be a Miss anymore, and will be forcibly promoted to a Mrs. Depressing, but at least then it will accurately reflect my marital status, even though it’s nobody’s business but mine (and my other half’s).

.

There seem to be very few women in my profession who do not describe themselves either as Miss or Mrs. Ms is not the done thing at the bar. It’s an awkward term, and for some I sense it marks the wearer out as a member of the awkward squad. Perhaps that’s a first impression which may be disadvantageous to the advocate trying to smooth her way into favour with the Judge? I don’t really think so – generally those who hold such views are quite capable of making assumptions about uppity women with or without the tag ‘Ms’ – but if it is the case, so be it. More fool anyone who prejudges an individual on such irrelevant trivia. In a profession where seniority is marked only by the starkness of ‘junior’ versus ‘silk’ and the gradual accrual of years of experience, for which a ready reckoner is the age of an advocate: titles matter. ‘Miss Reed’ is very junior and the term can be skillfully intoned (by Judge or opponent) to delicately undermine an advocate by connoting inexperience, just as ‘Mrs Reed’ can use her marital status to command authority (and particularly in family law to insinuate maternal experience or solid good sense). These nuances go unnoted by many, but they do exist and are and in play by way of both conscious manipulation and as a subconscious manifestation of gender or age based preconceptions. But if I’m to be prejudged I prefer it to be on my principles, not on my marital status: so Ms it is..

.

I know it’s difficult to remember – ‘Ms’. And I also know it’s an irritating sounding word, but I don’t have a better one that doesn’t divulge irrelevant information. We all get names and titles wrong (including  to our mutual mortification when I have, on more than one occasion when a newbie, called a female Judge ‘Sir’. This however was not so embarrassing as when a learning disabled client in an employment tribunal case I once did picked up on me addressing the Chair as ‘Madam’ and persistently referred to her throughout the hearing as ‘The Madam’ which has altogether less respectable connotations). So I don’t generally make a fuss (Unless someone is using ‘Miss’ in a particularly condescending ‘she doesn’t know what she’s talking about’ tone). I generally don’t want to point out that someone has been unintentionally inconsiderate or make a mountain out of a simple mistake. But it is annoying. Today I heard my opponent, a solicitor, gently correcting the usher ‘it’s Ms actually’. I sometimes do the same, but often make light of it to spare the blushes of the court staff who frankly have more important things to worry about. This article in the Guardian which I came across this evening says a lot I agree with (and has an astonishing 200+ comments, expressing a wide array of views on the issue – it is an emotive topic).

.

So no, I don’t stand on principle about my title. I don’t get all narky or insulted when people get it wrong (although I might occasionally write long rambly blog posts in order to relieve my moderate levels of frustration). And I have long since given up taking my wedding ring off during the working week and referring on principle to my ‘partner’ not my husband. There was a time when I was fearful that preconceptions about my personal life might adversely affect my career (that a wedding ring might be a sign of imminent pregnancy and a lack of commitment to my vocation), and although I no longer think it is either right or necessary to behave as if I am ashamed of my personal circumstances or my gender, I am also wise enough to know that my fear had some foundation - I have during my career heard astonishing remarks about why recruitment of women to the bar is best avoided, and this from senior members of the bar who should know better. But there are other ways of dealing with that. The answer is to surround oneself with good and clever people, to come out of the shadows, and to do what I do and to do it bloody well. And to quietly persist with getting my name known.

.

So…that’s Ms (NO ‘i’) Lucy (NO ‘i’) Reed (NO ‘i’). Write it down. There will be a test later.

.

I don’t usually post on Politics on this blog but this document is a detailed set of proposals about family law, including that residence decisions where parents are divorcing should be automatically be granted to the parent who successfully petitions for divorce on the grounds of adultery, repeal of the Civil Partnerships Act and banning of same sex adoptions, to give just three examples, along with a number of quite serious misrepresentations of the current law and its effect. Given the subject matter of this blog how could I not comment?

.

The BNP would have you believe they are so much more than a bunch of xenophobic crackpots – well, if this document is anything to go by they are much much more:  they are also mysoginist, homophobic, regressive and revolting. What they are profundly NOT is at all child-centred. I’m not quite sure what the status of this document is, but although I note it is the work of one former F4J activist (and as such may be borne in part out of the narrow perspective of personal experience) it nonetheless seems to be well on its way to being a fully ratified policy document, and the BNP appear to be quite happy for it to be freely available on the internet associated with the BNP logo. As such it represents a surprisingly candid snapshot of the types of people who are actively involved in the BNP and the views that they really hold when not polished and dressed up as respectable by their more PR savvy leaders. If their views on immigration were not enough to turn you off, their apparent views on family law ought to be ample reason for you to cast your vote elsewhere.

.

This I suppose is the guilt of the working mother. But it’s also something more specific: we are all used to the scenario where both parents work to make ends meet and professional childcare is a necessity. That is one thing, but somehow when economics permit one parent to stay at home and it is the mother who goes to work, leaving the father holding the baby - it is harder for society to understand (in fact my other half works part time and we do use some childcare, but he is the one responsible for the balance of care in the working week and I flit in and out as my unpredictable job permits). I am, I now realise, torn between being incredibly proud of my other half for doing the ‘Mr Mom’ thing, proud of us as a couple for not feeling constrained by gender stereotyping, and subconsciously ashamed that people might think I have opted out of what I ‘ought’ to be doing, namely raising my child. Whatever I might think intellectually, as I inadvertently eavesdropped on the conversation between my other half and the pregnant woman I imagined her wondering what kind of mother would choose such an arrangement, and concluding that such a woman must be very selfish or somehow not a proper mum.

.

Of course it’s not so straightforward. We set up our particular home arrangements because of what work was available to each of us and what made economic sense. It would have been financially foolish, indeed impossible, to have worked the roles the other way around. And one of us had to be reliably able to drop and collect at childcare – which is pretty much impossible in my line of work. So it’s not like I couldn’t be bothered. And as many fathers will tell you being the breadwinner is not an opt out of responsibility – I feel the weight of financial responsibility very heavily as I know my own father did when in my shoes. And it’s not like I don’t do the mummy bit either – of course I do my share whenever and wherever I can. But why do I feel the need to justify? Shouldn’t it just be ok that this is the way we do it in our family? Evidently it’s not quite so simple.

.

I am clear in my own mind that I have nothing to feel guilty for, but it’s both impossible and undesirable to strip out the emotion from such issues – parenthood after all is about love and emotion not philosophy or intellectual argument. But I will be more aware in future when bandying about the term ‘primary carer’ that such terms can raise powerful emotions, and engage complex issues about how we still continue to understand and articulate our roles as mothers and as fathers and our value as parents through the prism of gender. We might use ’primary carer’ as a gender neutral term to avoid the limitation of role inherent in traditional usage of the terms motherand father (is my other half the ‘mummy’ or just a daddy who does the majority of the care?) but those underlying social issues and prejudices are still there, even for those who have embraced non-traditional set-ups.

.

The show has aired before on Sky and has met with a similar response from other viewers (in 2006 and in response to yesterday’s showing).

.

One of the programme’s core propositions was that there are two types of women – those who have it ‘in them’ to abandon and those that don’t i.e. good / proper women and mothers (like Jane Moore and her perfectly manicured lady friends) and aberrant bad women with some kind of inherent defect. The show seemed to me to be an exercise in reassuring Jane Moore and women like her that they were different from the awful women who were pilloried in the programme, more than it was a genuine attempt to understand why women are driven to take this extreme action.

.

The programme was based upon the proposition that the Mother-Child relationship is somehow more significant than the Father-Child relationship, and that there was something unnatural in the breaking of that Mother-Child relationship by abandonment that did not apply to absent Fathers. Any parental abandonment must be heartbreaking and damaging for a child, but can we really say more than that abandonment by a primary carer is more awful than that of a less involved one? What is it about women’s abandonment of their children that rendered Jane Moore so utterly unable to understand her fellow women? I suppose the difficulty is that if one really explored all the myriad reasons why a mother might feel she had to leave her children, if one really understood that women may leave because of depression, mental health difficulties, violence, loss of self-confidence in her ability to parent, as a temporary arrangment which becomes for reasons outside her control permanent, or simply to reduce the conflict in the family home in times of relationship difficulties….if one really understood and accepted that these ‘environmental’ factors can affect any women (or any man) – one might then have to accept that it could be you. You could be one of those BAD mothers.

.

Moore briefly flirted with the idea that postnatal depression might explain some of the unfathomable behaviour of the mothers who commit this sin of abandonment, but her obvious viewpoint from the outset as confirmed at the end of the show was that this was simply an excuse for selfish women who weren’t prepared to martyr themselves in the way that proper mothers like Moore were doing.

.

The saddest thing in this programme was the lack of insight, the lack of solidarity, and the inability to admit that all mothers, all parents, are human and flawed and can buckle under the pressure of parenthood or difficulties in the home. The turning of her back in order to protect her own sense of self was truly depressing. Where do women like Jane Moore go for support when they are struggling with motherhood, for they surely don’t talk to their friends? The inability to perceive one’s own potential vulnerability is in itself a risk factor.

.

And of course only just below the surface was the evident belief that the reason that Fathers are less important than Mothers – we simply accept that Mums pick up when Dads abandon and that abandonment by dads is simply a fact of life, but the premise of this programme is that abandonment by Mums is of a whole different order. That devalues Dads and oversimplifies the explanations for female abandonment.

The thrust of what she says is: that the modern notion of the role of a father is just that – a creation of relatively recent social scenarios. That historically, fathers have been absent or distant and children have been raised and nurtured by women. Hence the proposition that having fathers around might be desirable but is not necessary. Poor chaps.

But the fact of the matter is that many many children are raised perfectly well by one parent, often a mother but sometimes a father. But even though many of those mums might tell you they were better off without the feckless, hopeless waste of space that is the father of their child, I don’t suppose many of them would say that a child is better off without a father – just that the one they have is a poor example. 

And the point which really slightly irks me about this piece is that there is a whole lot of effort expended in demonstrating the proposition that men are useful only for their earning power rather than their nappy changing or nurturing ability ‘hunter-gatherers…were off and away garnering the means of survival – a function that, by the way, remains the most useful role for the father’. This rather offensive and limited view of men distracts Sarler from the obvious corrollary of her own proposition – if fathers are not a necessary feature of a successful family unit, and if alternative family units are just as good as traditional ‘mum-dad’ groupings – what makes a mum any more necessary than a father?

The point surely is that children need to be nurtured and loved consistently by at least one parental figure. We all know it is easier and possibly more likely to be successful when there are two people sharing the load, both financially and emotionally. But it can be done and is being done by single parents up and down the country and frankly, the fact that dads have not been hands-on through centuries of history doesn’t seem to me to be at all relevant to a father’s ability to step up to the mark and do the job of ‘mum’ where a mother isn’t around. If fathers are dispensable so then are mothers – who cares which one does the job as long as they do it well? It is traditionally men who have relied on a history in which women are drawn as insignificant to sneer at the ‘limitations’ of the fairer sex – good at baking and raising bairns, hopeless in politics or gainful employment. Of course thats tosh, but its tosh in reverse too. Sarler uses the same technique – conflating historical roles with innate characteristics.

I don’t want to be constrained by historical gender -parenting roles and I don’t see why any man should be either. I am likely to be the ‘hunter-gatherer’ in our family unit when it becomes three and my other half may well end up being the one at the wrong end of all the nappies and the teething and the rest. Who cares about roles. If it works it works. My only anxiety is that my kids may end up needing their father rather more than their mother.

Sarler may well be historically accurate about the development of our notion of fatherhood, but it is rather distasteful to hear her sneer at those who want to cast off the traditional roles and approach parenting from a flexible or less gendered perspective. In writing a piece which challenges those who are anti-lesbian to step forward and out themselves, Sarler comes across as anti-dad. I don’t know if this is what she intended but if its upset me, then I’m guessing some men out there might also be rather irked at her tone and insinuations.

We are ALL potentially far more than our forebears – gay or straight, male or female, single married or otherwise. How does a pro-feminist, pro-lesbian piece manage to sound as if it doesn’t understand that basic proposition?