The case for autonomy

I have a lot of people ask me why women’s collective and the women’s room are only for women. Often these people are supportive and enthusiastic men who describe themselves as feminists; sometimes they are women who believe their male feminist friend should be able to come to meetings with them.

Firstly, there is often some confusion about who the category of ‘women’ includes. Let me say that the women’s room and women’s collective are open to all those who identify as a woman or have lived experience as a woman. If that definition is still too vague, feel free to contact Emily or myself at any time.

Women’s collective is only for women because it is autonomous. Autonomous (in this context) means decisions affecting women should be made exclusively by women. Throughout history, decisions that directly affect women have been made by men. Autonomy is a conscious effort to give women back the power to make decisions that affect them. While men may care deeply about these issues, some issues will not affect them in ways that they would affect women.

What should also be noted here is that The Women's Collective has historically been responsible for pre-selecting the next year's women's officers. This important tradition has always been respected by the (thankfully progressive) SRC council, who, constitutionally, have the opportunity to not respect this tradition. This tradition has been important in maintaining a strong women's activist culture on campus as women are directly responsible for deciding who will represent them. 

Women’s collective is also only for women because differing socialisations mean that some women can be hesitant to fully participate in political discussions. Women’s collective allows women to come to a safe and respectful space and share their views, which can then be expressed collectively. This system takes the pressure off women, who would otherwise not participate in decision making processes at university (or anywhere). It is important to make sure that all women’s voices are heard about issues that affect them, without making them engage in situations which make them feel vulnerable.

Another reason women’s collective is autonomous is because alot of the issues we discuss are highly sensitive. We may discuss reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, sexual assault and harassment or gender based violence. Many women may have experienced these issues and often don’t feel comfortable discussing them in front of men.

The women’s room also serves as a space for mothers to come and breastfeed. Mothers are still subject to shaming from society for breastfeeding, and as a result may feel more comfortable breastfeeding in a quiet space that is guaranteed not to be judgemental. Further to that, since primary caring responsibilities still fall to women, it provides a safe room for mothers to spend time with and look after their babies or children if they need to take them to university.

Despite women’s collective being autonomous, there are still ways men can participate in and positively contribute to women’s activism and feminism. The USU Clubs and Societies program has a non-autonomous feminist society; the Women’s collective regularly puts on non-autonomous events, or men could simply take instruction from Kelly Temple (NUS UK): “Men who want to be feminists do not need to be given a space in feminism. They need to take the space they have in society & make it feminist.”.

As always, please get in contact with us at any time through our email: usydwomenscollective@gmail.com or visit women’s collective on Wednesdays at 1pm in the Women’s room!

Hannah Smith

Now You See Misogyny – Bridget Harilaou

**SPOILERS**

I recently watched the French-American film ‘Now You See Me’ directed by Louis Leterrier, which delves into the world of stage magic while intertwining high-speed car chases, balloon animals and an overarching revenge plot. It spans across several film categories: thriller, action, comedy, but there were enough niggling little annoyances to get me thinking. Its downfall begins with the overwhelming cast of straight white males, with a token man of colour as a secondary antagonist. But by far most disturbing were the portrayals of the two female characters, who were of course straight and white. I’ll be focusing on the character of Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher), in a self-indulgent critique of Hollywood’s misogyny, which I feel might have been overlooked in this film.

With an opening image that is overtly sexualised, Henley Reeves is immediately identified as FEEEEMMMAAAALLLLEEEE, complete with a sparkling leotard and sexist joke, “Every girl needs a pair of handcuffs,” (with a wink for good measure). This was an immediate turn off. Really? A sexually subordinate joke directly related to her identity as a woman to kick everything off? Unfortunately for Henley, it doesn’t get better.

Her first encounter with another main cast member, J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), blaringly screams that her weight is obviously a point of contention. How could it not be? I mean, she’s a woman. Duh. J. Daniel’s immediate barrage of insults results in her exclaiming that, “No one could fit through that trap door!” As her ex-boss, J. Daniel immediately compares her to an unshown superior magician’s assistant, “Rebecca fit through the trap door.”

Everyone knows this girl. She’s always thinner, infinitely better and entirely preferable over you. But as exemplified in the fact that ‘Rebecca’ has NO onscreen time, this girl is non-existent and serves solely to make Henley (and every other woman in history) feel inadequate. So far, Henley’s character revolves first around her gender, then her weight and next? That’s right, her sexuality.

Merrit McKinney (Woody Harrelson) begins his sexual advances towards Henley from their first meeting, and at one point he explicitly propositions her with casual meaningless sex. But Henley only has eyes for J. Daniel, despite his condescension, disrespectful treatment and seething jealousy after she dumped his sorry show and became a successful Escapist.

Correspondingly, one of Henley and J. Daniel’s most ‘romantic’ moments is when she falls through the air into his arms: a damsel rescued. His disgusting response of, “You really have lost weight,” just serves to reinforce negative body image and romanticised misogyny! Plus, it really drives the knife in for me, about how Henley’s weight is worthy of a RUNNING joke throughout the movie.

Finally, in Henley’s only moment of emotional depth (thanking her partners for their shared journey before everything might blow up in their faces), she is cut off mid-sentence thanks to – you guessed it – J. Daniel. In another supposedly beautiful gesture (of interrupting Henley instead of letting her express herself), he asserts, “I know. Me too.” Romantic? Or just egotistical and assuming? Oh, and just in case you wanted Henley to grow as a character and realise that she is a strong, independent, successful escape artist, with no need of J. Daniel to validate her… A close up shot of their hands poetically clasped is one of their closing shots. Ugh. The guy gets the girl, as per usual, even if he’s done nothing but be a fuckwit the entire movie. Despite my disappointment with Henley’s portrayal, Now You See Me is actually more subtle than most films in its sexism, which is partly why I wanted to draw some attention to it. Many could be distracted by the awesome street magic, Escapism, card tricks, and Mentalism. It’s definitely entertaining, the twists are unexpected and Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is a gem. Although lacking in character development and interaction, I really did enjoy watching this film – it was clever and exciting, and I definitely recommend it. See if you noticed more than I did, or different things to me. The point is everyone should be critical of sexism in its more underhanded forms, so these standards aren’t unknowingly internalised.

As a parting gift, I’ll make Hollywood a promise: If female characters can stop having nothing to offer but their gender, weight issues and sexuality, I’ll stop illegally downloading movies. It’s possible… Now you see it, now you don’t. Right?

Ella Chivers' NOWSA review

Hilary Bowman-Smart and her co-presenter Rebekah* filled their presentation ‘Social Media and Feminism’ with more pictures of cats than written words. It was the second-to-last day of NOWSA, and I think everyone present at the workshop was emotionally drained enough to appreciate taking regular five-second breaks to see a tiny Russian Blue play with a ball of yarn. I had shown up wondering whether I would finally gain access to the underground workings of tumblr, but the cats seemed far more soothing to my weary mind. In fact, Hilary and Rebekah weren’t there to show us how to set up a new Twitter account, and the cats were actually relevant to their point – in a way.


You may have heard of Hilary’s brainchild, the Australian Cat Ladies. Back in April Hilary noticed that the Australian Christian Lobby had left the domain name australianchristianlobby.org unregistered, which meant that it was open for anyone to move in and claim the space as their own. Hilary seized the opportunity to hit back at the group, who are often extreme with their conservative social values. (Most recently they claimed that supporting marriage equality “sets up a new Stolen Generation” as it "ignored the consequence of robbing children of their biological identity through same-sex surrogacy and other assisted reproductive technology"). Sporting a fantastic rainbow logo and plenty of cartoon kittens, the Australian Cat Ladies took over the lobby group’s domain name and advocated for body autonomy, sex education, same sex marriage and ‘frequent tummy rubs’. The website went viral on social media after it’s launch, and clicked 260,000 views overnight.


The Australian Cat Ladies became an internet sensation because it managed to undermine the authority of one of Australia’s largest and most powerful lobby groups in a humorous and non-aggressive way. It gave people a punch-the-air moment as they discussed it over Facebook, or laughed about it at the pub with friends – and this is the heart of Hilary and Rebekah’s point. In contrast to academic theorizing (which can be quite exclusionary for those who do not have the time or inclination to sit down and read lengthy discussions over lofty concepts), this particular stream of feminist thought springs organically from the ideas and frustrations of women across the world with much less regard to their life situation or background. Like graffiti reclaims the streets, the internet can be a place for all women to take control over the tone of social commentary and hijack the public narrative with their own values or perspectives. Rebekah and Hilary argue that we should take these ideas and movements seriously – even as seriously as we often take academic writing – as they are anthropological markers of our own society and culture.


While I broadly agreed with the pair on most points, throughout the workshop I found there was an underlying assumption that the internet acts as some sort of over-riding ‘equalizer’ which is blind to race, gender or sexuality, and I thought that this was problematic. Anyone who has found themselves constantly referred to as a ‘he’ on reddit can attest to the fact that, outside of the safe spaces where autonomous groups have pooled, it is often simply assumed that every individual behind the computer screen is a white middle-class male. If you happen to ‘out’ yourself as a member of a minority group, it is not uncommon to be hounded or harassed, and you may find yourself treated differently because of the perceived change in persona.


One prominent example of this was the uproar caused when it was revealed that a woman named Elise Andrew was behind the popular I F*cking Love Science Facebook group. Andrew innocently posted a link to her twitter page, and received a poop-tsunami of responses to her ‘unexpected’ gender, including: "F.ck me! This is a babe ?!!", "holy hell, youre a HOTTIE!" and "you mean you're a girl, AND you're beautiful? wow, i just liked science a lil bit more today ^^". ** The presence of these inherent prejudices online means that it can still be difficult for many people to speak up about social issues for the fear that they may be shouted down by the hive mind, and this closes up discussion whilst maintaining systematic oppression.


Despite these issues, Hilary and Rebekah make some valid points around the shifting nature of feminist discourse, and I left their workshop with a thoughtful mind. Online actions like the Australian Cat Ladies website are becoming pivotal aspects to all social movement, and I think we should be reminding ourselves of their worth in getting our ideas out or staging an opposition to those values we dispute.


I also liked all the cats.

* Note: to the best of my knowledge, Rebekah didn’t give a last name.

** Quotes from The Guardian.

Radicalising Rihanna

CONTENT NOTE: SEX. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

The relationship between pop culture icons and politics is always a site of contention. I, like many others, am guilty of projecting feminist ideals onto the image of pop stars. I think I avoid it now, especially since I make an active effort to humanise public figures, and think of them of people who only know so much. I like to imagine Beyonce doing mundane things, like cleaning her teeth, and she can only think of so many things while she's doing that, but despite her public image I can only speculate what her thoughts are. Anyway, the intersection of pop culture and politics can often be found when you think about ideas of the public and the private, intention and humanity, ideas of respectability and responsibility.

Much like Beyonce, Rihanna has copped a gigantic amount of criticism from all sides of the room. She's too feminist for non-feminists, yet her decisions, especially regarding Chris Brown, cause her to be disparaged by certain feminists. But her position as a younger black woman of colour and her push to present herself in an authentic way, especially through her notorious Instagram account @badgalriri, is simultaneously ordinary and extraordinary. It's extraordinary in its ordinariness, in the ways she shows her multiple dimensions as an otherwise extremely commodified woman of colour.

As a woman of colour working through the same systems as Rihanna, I find inspiration in her agency. Not in terms of her economic capital (which incidentally is nothing but large if you listen to 'Pour it Up') but in terms of her expression of self in a society that rejects her, either as a human being or as the Bad Girl pop star she's constructed. Her choice to reside on one side of the virgin/whore dichotomy was partially enforced by the Chris Brown incident, and she decided to make the most of it, culminating with her most recent album titled 'Unapologetic'. When the sunny pop princess image shattered, it seemed that Rihanna made the most of the transformation and rebirthed as a sexually independent, expressive and fun-loving woman. Her songs reflect this transformation, and while she leaves room to express emotional turmoil, she also articulates a sexual hunger that revolves around her own wants and needs rather than pleasing others. Songs like 'Rude Boy', 'Cockiness (Love It)', 'S&M' and 'Birthday Cake' express a sense of sexuality that is often placed as exterior to ideas of love and intimacy, rebuking the idea that feminine sexuality is more emotive and centred around relationships rather than the more straightforward idea of pleasure for pleasure's sake. In 'Watch N' Learn', she emphasises reciprocacy and the idea of a partner pleasing her sexuality as representative of their feelings for her. This attitude is unique in mainstream pop culture, as the majority of other sexual songs are implicitly or explicitly centred around male pleasure. Rihanna makes it clear that she is not purely instrumental in that pleasure, reclaiming it as something that she definitely benefits from (sooner or later): "Make me a priority; there's nothing above my pleasure."

I could go on about the various ways Rihanna inspires me, in terms of body image, the way she subverts classic survivor narratives, and her strength in the face of public scrutiny. But largely I want to emphasise that while structurally Rihanna is complicit in neo-liberal blah in her highly commodified music/self, there is an element of authenticity that I think is irreducible, from her expressions of her lower-class Bajan background, to her subjectivity as a woman of colour.

NOWSA WORKSHOP: Engaging in Online Activism to make changes in the area of Reproductive Rights

As presented by Casey Burchell. Casey Burchell has been volunteering with Reproductive Choice Australia (RCA) and in 2012 was involved in redeveloping RCA’s social media presence and planning the Let’s End the Stigma campaign. 

**TRIGGER WARNING** Discussion of abortion 

The internet has now provided us with one of the most effective mediums for activism yet. Today petitions can be passed around simply by sending out a link, sharing articles online spark debates within a matter of minutes and social media means that important ideas are easily shared through a short, snappy status in an instant. It has therefore never been more important than now for women to use this online world to fight for their issues. While there are a number of issues women need to campaign for online, this write up will focus on the fight for reproductive rights in Australia.
Prior to attending Casey Burchell’s workshop on online activism, key note speaker Leslie Cannold, founder of RCA, informed us of why we should be angry about the system which women currently have to navigate through in order to choose whether they have a child or not. In Australia there is a large silence around what the law actually says because generally practitioners will refer a woman to have an abortion if she wishes to have one. So, we may know friends, mothers or sisters who have had an abortion and therefore believe if we wanted to have one, we could. However, due to this silence we tend to forget, or not know at all, that in NSW and Queensland, and in Victoria up until quite recently, abortion is in the criminal code. Women in our very own state of NSW do not have the right to choose, the choice is in the hands of their doctors. These vague laws also make it difficult for doctors to be able to determine whether they are within the rights of the law to advise an abortion, meaning some may avoid doing so, to the detriment of the woman’s choice. So, you can see why it is important that we campaign for law reform and an end to the silence around the laws which govern the administration of surgical abortions.

The first thing to think about when starting an online campaign, is what direction do we want the campaign to go in? What do we want to address? When dealing with the issue of reproductive choice there are a number of different angles one could take it. One of the most recent campaigns by RCA has been the End the Stigma campaign. This campaign was a focus on ending the cultural shame that is so often surrounded by abortion. This is quite an effective direction because if can we break down these cultural stigmas, normalising abortion would mean that legislators would be less inclined to put up these barriers which claim to be designed for something that is a ‘sensitive issue’. While of course, the procedure can be quite upsetting for some women who have had to make such a choice, it is important to keep in mind that a surgical abortion is actually one of the safest and most common medical procedures. However, due to this cultural stigma, abortion is treated like no other medical procedure. This sort of direction for a campaign is incredibly powerful as it can gain a mass of support in the community in order to reform laws, rather than just having a few passionate activists lobbying for legislative change. It speaks to the wider audience rather than just to legislators.
Once a direction has been thought of, it is important to think of whom to aim the campaign at. For a campaign that seeks to end the cultural shaming of abortion, initially it would perhaps be important
to aim it at women who have had abortions to be able to speak out about their experience. Due to the very real stigma though, RCA has found this to be a challenge in the past. Therefore, it is important to aim campaigns at people who have the potential to make women feel less ashamed of getting an abortion. One option would perhaps be partners, to encourage them to be more supportive of a woman’s choice to get an abortion, and inform them of how they can be supportive in ways that does not put some kind of pressure on their partner choosing this option. Another group of people are medical practitioners. Too often medical practitioners are left out of the abortion debate, and yet they are the people who essentially decide if one is to get an abortion. It is important to include them in this conversation, so that they will also begin to treat this like another medical procedure that sometimes has to be performed. Lastly, it is of course important to aim online campaigns at legislators, as they will be the ones who can eventually reform these laws. This is easily done through tagging them in Twitter posts, to let them know how the general population are feeling, what needs changing and put pressure on them to support law reform in this area.

Lastly it is important to decide ways in which to carry out an online campaign. Often straight to the point is the best for online campaigns, particularly if accompanied by a clever, informative picture. Videos are also a useful tool, as they can be simple to make (with the right tech-savvy friends), get across a point easily and can go completely viral if they are particularly good. A great idea which came up when brain storming in our workshop, was using two pictures of two different people. One picture might say, “Had my appendix out” or some other common medical procedure with very little risk associated with it and an image next to it would have a person saying, “Had an abortion”, to show that abortions are actually just like any other medical procedure, it is the stigma that makes it so difficult for some people to accept. We felt that whatever method we used, it would have to challenge thoughts and be informative. Too much of the time live protests that we see are often violent and do not achieve much in the long run because the message gets lost in this violence, no one receives any information and no one wants to take these protests seriously. Online activism therefore offers an avenue for information to be spread and to actually be absorbed.

I learned from this NOWSA workshop that there is a certain way to engage in online activism in a way that gets a point across. Online activism is particularly important in order to dismantle cultural norms which see abortion as some sort of taboo procedure, because it is easy to reach out to the general population and show them how in actual fact, abortion is a safe and common procedure. Without this kind of activism, there will be no law reform, and without law reform women who find themselves with an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy will continue to be left with limited options. With the expansion of social media technologies, now has never been a better time to use them to get our points across and win the battle against those who seek to control the lives and bodies of women in Australia.

If you are keen to learn more about online campaigns by RCA and how you can get involved visit their website http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au/ or contact them on Twitter

What Leaning-In really means

“It’s time to cheer on girls and women who want to sit at the table,” writes Sheryl Sandberg; former McKinsey Consultant, Chief of Staff to U.S. Treasure, Vice President of Global Online Sales and Operations at Google, and now as the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook; in her book Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead.

Sandberg’s book pushes buttons and reignites debate borne out of the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s. Her book is about gender equality, but it is not a Feminine Mystique because back then, women were non-existent in the boardroom. Today, gender equality in developed nations faces new challenges: a woman’s right to work, but more importantly, a woman’s access to work.

Sandberg dares to talk about the unspoken conversations that men and women have in their professional lives, the challenges that come with shattering the glass ceiling, and the cost of embracing ambition.

Much of the criticism fired at Sandberg is that she is in a position to be able to make these choices, and too far removed from the issues facing women struggling to make ends meet because they are from low socio-economic backgrounds or lacking support at work or home. It’s easy to tell someone to “lean in” when they have a degree and are already in the workforce, it’s harder when they can’t find a job or afford childcare facilities because their choices are limited.

My first job was at Kentucky Fried Chicken, and some of the women I worked with back when I was 15, are still there. These women are not able to have same work-life discussion that someone like me will have in a few years time, or someone like Sandberg has working for Facebook.

Whilst Sandberg’s book doesn’t cater to these problems specifically, it still has merit. Because whether one calls it a non-ideological boardroom approach, a “fourth wave” of feminism, or the privileged leveraging of women who already have power and success, Sandberg’s approach brings something new and different to the table.

Why? Because it is important to recognise that Sandberg didn’t write this book for every woman. We live in a world where discrimination and disparity is nuanced, complex and difficult to read. Real challenges still exist for women whether they are at home, in the workforce, from low socio-economic backgrounds, or of colour.

But for the women who are in a position to get the skills, the education and the access to lean in, it means that there is a conversation happening where women can have a say in creating and forming a variety of support systems, such as education, health care, and affordable housing, in order to change the status quo. This is where women can change the whole dialogue when it comes to choice, feminism and work-life balance.

Choice is something critical in this new movement of gender equality in the workforce. We have the freedom to make choices – to get higher education, to work, to have a family. But sometimes one choice means sacrificing another, at other times it's a struggle to balance both. It is not as simple as just saying yes or no, it’s about doing more.

It’s been less than a century since women were given a right to vote, and since The Feminine Mystique created a buzz in the lives of women who didn’t have access to education, and beyond marriage, motherhood and jobs beyond nursing and teaching. It has taken legislation, but more the voices of women in the workplace to break through barriers and fight for inclusion.

If feminism’s goal is to give all women an equal shot based on their abilities regardless of their gender, then maybe the Lean-In movement does exactly that – it challenges young women by reviving a debate that affects us in our everyday lives, where we ask questions such as why Australia ranks first in terms of women’s educational attainment, but 45th for their labour-force participation.

Astha Rajvanshi

The Choice to be Childless

I don’t hate children, at all. Babies are adorable once you get over the fact that they poo and have oversized heads that look kind of extraterrestrial. Toddlers provide hilarious entertainment by trying to walk and continue the general trend of adorableness. New mothers might not have realized, but you can now get all these kicks from watching cute animal videos on YouTube rather than having to go through the inconvenience of pushing a baby out of your vagina.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic’s 2000 estimates, a quarter of Australian women in their reproductive years will never have children, which is slightly higher than estimates of 20% and 22% in the United Kingdom and United States respectively. These are sizeable portions of the population, yet there is still cultural hang up over childless women. If you have trouble conceiving and IVF doesn’t work then we pity your plight. Though if you choose to not have children, you’re either a lonely spinster or oddball. Looking at cultural messages around children, it is clear that our society just cannot accept the reality of women not wanting to be mothers.

Rejection of motherhood goes against everything that we’re traditionally taught to think about children. Firstly, that women are naturally maternal and nurturing. Females of the human species are fair and delicate, said the patriarchy last century. These gender norms are still reflected by the fact that women dominate in professions of teaching, child care, nursing, and hospitality. Secondly, unless you have aggressively feminist (or just sane) parents, most girls grow up with something akin to a ‘Baby Born’ or Barbie Doll with Kelly in a pram which instills these ideas of motherhood being their destiny from a young age. Alongside the overwhelming number of female characters in popular culture who are desperate to have a baby. What to Expect When You’re Expecting stands out among the other shitty blockbusters as a whole movie dedicated to showing us that even though life is tumultuous, women will always be comforted by the joys of motherhood. According to media buzz, Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer’s split was apparently because Aniston was too desperate to have a child. This leads to thirdly, the imposition of a timeline onto when you fulfill your destiny and have that child. Among my twenty-something tertiary educated friendship circle (who are statistically speaking far less like to have children, and will do so later on average) I still hear “I want to have kids by the time I’m 35”, “No way, 35 is too late! If you’re not dating the father by the time you’re 27 you’re in trouble town”. Apparently these self imposed reproductive time limits are such a problem that men need to be warned of these ‘undateable women’ flooding the dating market, according to Australian website ‘Ask Men’, which published an article on how to identify and avoid these female desperados. Quick tangent: it is a truly humorous, if not scarily stupid, piece. Apparently having pets can be a sign of desperation, and men are advised to leave the room immediately if she refers to her pets as children. I don’t care what you call your budgerigar. Instead, I want to know why we are always told women are desperate to have kids when the truth is that the majority of women expend a lot of time and effort trying not to fall pregnant.

The problem is also obvious when you evaluate prominent women who have chosen not to have children. Julia Gillard was called “deliberately barren” by Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan, who claimed that she therefore “had no idea what life’s about”. Whilst his comments were widely criticised, they have also been echoed by the likes of Tony Abbott and Mark Latham. More recently, the labelling of Gillard as a ‘witch’ plays into these notions that she is not a good and proper woman; that she has done something evil by not being maternal. Gillard chose not to have children to pursue her career as a politician, because having a child impedes career progression. Sheryl Sandberg questions the motivations of women who lock themselves out of certain career paths if they want to have kids, years before its even a reasonable prospect. If a man prioritises his career over children, that’s perfectly normal, but if women do so that decision comes under extensive scrutiny. It’s often described as a selfish choice, ignoring the fact that people choose to have kids for selfish reasons too, and moreover the planet simply doen’s need more gluttenous and resource-draining first world babies. In contrast to the selfish career driven likes of Gillard, politicians like Sarah Palin play the mother card to garner popular support. Palin brought out her line up of children for each photo, and marketed herself as the hockey mum that other women could identify with.

It seems that a key issue is the fact that women are taught to connect with other women through the common fact of being a parent, in ways that men generally are not. Baby showers are normally for female friends only, and mothers groups meet up to share the joys of breastfeeding and compare the best brands for prams. The fact that men now take on greater parenting responsibilities is great, but only a very recent development. Newsagents are full of magazines on motherhood, but I’ve never seen a magazine on fatherhood.

This message that the female destiny is motherhood implies that there is something wrong with those women who choose not to have children. All the discussion around the need to have children as a biological issue (because your body clock is ticking, and its chemicals in your body that make you maternal) makes it seem that there is something biologically deficient with those who don’t want kids. This harms women in general because it encourages the idea that women should be defined by their role as a mother. Many women enjoy motherhood, but Betty Draper from Mad Men is a great example of an intelligent woman driven to unhappiness by feeling trapped in a role she did not choose. Not matter how great it might be, someone’s identity as a person should never be subsumed by another (as a mother, or wife or carer for that matter). Rather than accepting the early stages of motherhood are difficult, there is a huge stigma attached to women with post-natal depression. New mothers are expected to be glowing and overjoyed with their newborn, despite its drastic discord with most women’s real life experience.

This isn’t just a historical problem stuck in the 60s before the Women’s Liberation took off. The ongoing obsession with parenting ‘correctly’ and staying up to date on the proper method of parenting can be a powerful regressive force if it is so systematic as to take over your life. Mothers are made to feel guilty if they don’t breastfeed for long enough, because studies claim extensive health benefits from natural milk. Only dreadful mothers would cause their baby to have a lower IQ, asthma and other ailments by lazily supplying them with synthetic supplements.

I’m not trying to discourage anyone from having children, or begrudge the great work most people do raising children – but we need to stop thinking that there is something wrong with women who choose not to have children. If men are able to choose a life of independence and solitude, women should not be damned for doing so as well.

Christina White