Round by Internet a few days ago a very interesting opinion article about the neomachismo, which is generating (I think), quite controversy for some of the points it touches.
Its author, Amparo Rubiales, University professor, lawyer and state counselor, defines the neomachismo such as the resurgence of machismo, the defense of patriarchal society and the subordination of women, without making an open criticism of equality (anyone who criticizes equality today would be rightly pointed out), but fighting against it through the harassment and demolition of the “side effects” that it generates:
They are manifestations of this fear of equality that the Neomachists try to extend in various ways: they sacralize, for example, breastfeeding, blaming mothers who cannot practice it; hold women responsible for the problems of minors, with the "empty nest" theory; and let's not talk about abortion, it seems to be a whim of some.
There are all who are, but not all who are
Neomachists flee, he says, from equality, because they fear it. That is why they make open criticism of the inclusion of women in the labor market, not from the point of view of their abilities or disabilities, but entering through the back door, criticizing the loss of their role as mother.
And Rubiales is right when he brings this issue to the fore, and he successfully opens his eyes to many citizens about the new weapons of machismo, however the article implies a double meaning that causes a misunderstanding: it is interpreted from his words that if Neomachists defend breastfeeding and agree with the empty nest theory, people who defend breastfeeding and who agree with the empty nest theory are Neomachists. And this is not true.
Many mothers who have chosen not to breastfeed their children with breast milk or who have failed to do so and many mothers who have returned to their jobs after sixteen ridiculous weeks of maternity leave, can see in this article a perfect defense of feminism and equality, being relaxed to Neomachists, as I say, any man or woman who made them feel bad (directly or indirectly) for not breastfeeding their children or for having separated from them with only 4 months of age.
I hope I'm wrong and nobody does this reading of this article, because it is a mistake.
It is critical and detestable that there are people who flatter breastfeeding and fight because mothers stay at home taking care of their children so that the man continues to dominate the system (there are all who are), however many mothers and fathers, we defend breastfeeding and childcare during the first years of life, not thinking about man and his reign, but thinking about children and their future (but they are not all that are).
Equality is not being equal
If the Neomachist people are the ones who talk about the empty nest, the people who accept that the woman joins the work when her child is still a baby should be feminists, since they struggle not to lose their job and to continue proving that they are so capable or more than men when performing the same jobs.
Many women return convinced that it is what they want / should do, but many others do it because they have no choice. So, is one feminist because one wants to, or because there is no other option?
The misinterpretation of this article has led many women who have chosen to take leave or stop working to take care of their children, to breastfeed for a long time thinking about the welfare of both or simply to enjoy everything that surrounds the breastfeeding, have felt attacked and wounded for feeling that they are called neomachistas and for turning our backs, therefore, on feminism and equality.
However, the equality of which the author speaks seems to be disrespectful also to women, since the struggle of feminism does not have to focus on being equal, but respecting differences, there are.
A woman has to fight to be respected as a woman, not to be a woman almost man. In the struggle to show that women can do the same as men, they have not only shown that they are capable of doing it, but that they have almost become one (and not everything that entails being a man is positive).
In this way, respect for the difference between men and women and women who want to be mothers with all the consequences and who want to stop working to raise their children or breastfeed them for a long time, have to lose privileges with respect to men, their work and even their image of women before society, because raising children at home does not entail any benefit in terms of status but, rather, implies a loss of it.
That is why I believe that the struggle for equality should be all that allows a woman to be able to act as a mother without losing her job. That he could take care of his children, raise them and breastfeed them during the years he needed without losing his job, his salary and his social status. That is to say "Hey! I am a woman, I am like that, I am different and I want to be respected for being one." Come on, that the fight should be to favor that each woman could choose her path.
Not all feminist speeches come from feminism
In the same way that we are not machistas or neomachistas all who work to promote breastfeeding and what we say, based on the latest research (and common sense), that children should be raised at home, with their parents and especially with their mother during the first years, Not all who hold speeches in favor of equality and feminism are feminist people.
If, as I have said, being a feminist is fighting for equality between men and women and accepting that the "empty nest" theory is nothing more than talk, an entrepreneur could also be considered a feminist.
“Women cannot walk with leave of absence or half-day, because they lose part of their economic independence from men and because they also cancel the possibility of growing professionally. In addition, the mother who takes care of her children overprotects and pampers them in excess, finally creating people with little capacity to receive life's setbacks. If we also take into account that babies are very busy in daycare and that their independence is encouraged, it is clear that the ideal is for women to return to work as soon as their maternity leave ends, ”is a discourse that could be defined as feminist (perhaps something exaggerated for containing several premises in a single paragraph very concentrated), but that in the mouth of an entrepreneur loses that intention.
Summarizing
Machismo, and consequently Neomachismo, undermine the equality of rights and opportunities using motherhood, or the fact of leaving the raising of our children in the hands of third parties, as a throwing weapon.
Those of us who believe that this society has many things to improve and that change will come, not from ourselves, but with the change of generation, we fight for women and mothers to take "the bull by the horns", to demonstrate that "behind every great man (and every great woman), there is a great woman, his mother”And that they raise and educate, together with man, the future adults of tomorrow from a more respectful perspective, attending to their needs for affection and learning accompanying them on the road until they are able to take their own.
The message is the same, but not the objective. Crossing out the seconds of sexists is a mistake as it would be to declare feminist entrepreneurs for wanting women to continue their careers and jobs as soon as possible and can continue to "compete" with men.
The Equality should not be to equate the lifestyle of all women to the lifestyle of men, but to accept that we are different and allow that woman who wants to dedicate her life to her work, like any man, can do it, that woman who wants to be able to work, but wants to be a mother and not “die trying”, can do it without losing anything and that Woman who wants to be a mother, can do it without being labeled as "macho" or "old."
Photos | Flickr (cauchisavona), Flickr (gcoldironjr2003), Flickr (milena mihaylova) In Babies and more | Attachment parenting, John Bowlby's Theory of Attachment, The first six years are vital to emotional development, according to Punset
