The inner confusion began when I read this post on Feministing, a fantastic blog which I highly recommend. And I'll admit, upon reading it, my initial, heartbreakingly logical thought was "Well, that's logical" (don't worry, it does get better). They had a job opening, they filled it with who was available. It's not like she lost her job. And as was pointed out at TAPPED, if they wanted Griffin, they were going to find an excuse to use him. And besides, it's just logical. But had she been hospitalised due to appendicitis, kidney stones, or a herniated vertebrae, would the Justice Department have used that as an excuse? I think not.
Parenting demands inherent sacrifices, as it should. But when you get right down to it, these demands are disproportionately born by women. Child-bearing is a necessarily female endeavour, in spite of however involved the father may be. Because these demands are so predominantly woman's, the sacrifices most often are, as well. But why? If my husband and I want children equally, but also desire our careers equally, why must my future suffer, while his goes unencumbered? It only seems logical because that's the way it's always been.
It is argued that we choose to have children, so the sacrifices forced upon us are also our choice. But in examples of couples having children, it is also a choice on the part of the father, yet his career-sacrifices need be few if any.
Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision of this Court in Bliss, which reached the opposite conclusion, is inconsistent with the Court's approach to interpreting human rights legislation taken in subsequent cases and should no longer be followed. Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination simply because of the basic biological fact that only women have the capacity to become pregnant...Those who bear children and benefit society as a whole should not be economically or socially disadvantaged. It is thus unfair to impose all of the costs of pregnancy upon one half of the population.
But back to the confusion in my brain. So I'm thinking all these things, but everytime I would make an argument to myself, I would think "But children are a choice; children should require sacrifice". And this morning, sometime around 5, I realised something rather disturbing about myself. I read feminist blogs and I get all riled up inside, and I respect and admire the women who write these posts and books and articles and think they're fabulous, but I never picture them as mothers. I certainly don't intend to cease having a feminist brain once I am a mother. On the contrary, it will be of more necessity to me as a mother than it is now. But something (shall we blame the patriarchy? yes, let's!) has informed in me the great misconception that hard-core feminists are not mothers; that they have chosen to have successful, meaningful, rewarding, but very demanding careers instead of children and motherhood. And that's one of the more dumb-assey thoughts I've had in a good long while.
I'm looking at feminism in a whole new light this morning. It's whole purpose - truly, the entire impetus behind the movement - is inclusion: that women may be included in all the rights, freedoms, privileges, joys, sorrows, sacrifices, and advantages enjoyed by free men since the dawn of time. That ALL women may be included: those who are mothers, and those who haven't a maternal bone in her body.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go dig out my copy of Simone de Beauvoir.