Are feminists getting played?

I think we should accept it, if its what people prefer

What, you think some women prefer experiencing financial and social deficits for bearing children and breastfeeding?

I know the stereotype is that we’re masochistic, but really ?

I think she meant that some people think that. Which is true. I think it might be true for that matter, it might always be the case that men and women will approach "being an employee" differently to some extent.

I think we should accept it, if its what people prefer, but fair enough if she doesn't.

I don't like the idea that women give birth and breastfeed so we have to accept some level of financial and social deficit and that's just the way it is

And who said that? You appear to be arguing against points no one has made again

Can I smell queer theory?

You haven’t answered my questions about what links all the unfortunate people I mentioned yesterday by the way OP

Implementing your policies wouldn't require sex differentiation

No, read Red’s post above

Women face s based on their perceived ability to become pregnant (in addition to the discrimination they face if they actually become pregnant)

It is important to be able to correctly identify the class of people who are subject to this form of discrimination

I don't like the idea that women give birth and breastfeed so we have to accept some level of financial and social deficit and that's just the way it is.

It would be 'just the way that is' without legislation and the ability to gather data on women in the work place.

Implementing your policies wouldn't require sex differentiation, because they are all based on parenthood status.

Again, gathering the data that shows that the policies are necessary does require sex differentiation.

sackrifice

But what can be done about something like that though? He was unusual saying it straight like that

He is not unusual.

In all my years of working experience (in the US) he isn't unusual at all. Every male employer I've ever had has asked me inappropriate questions about intent to have children, my fertility (since no children as late as late 30s) - some even have joked that I'm awesome but when the "baby bug" hits that I'll be USELESS.

To this day I endure jokes about menses/sexuality (I have quite a strong presence so the general consensus among the men is that I'm always on my period, or need to get "laid"). I have men say completely inappropriate things to me in passing (quietly out of ear range of others - walking down the hall etc) because they know that reporting sexual harassment will damage my career and my future job prospects more than it would ever harm them. In order for them to be reprimanded for their behavior they'd have to make a big show of the harassment which they are very careful not to.

Female (potential) employers have asked me direct questions about my intent to have children "off the record" - these conversations happened typically at a follow-up lunch which isn't an official interview.

It isn't about "pregnant people" or the possibility of "people becoming pregnant" or "people having periods" it's about the weight we carry as women because our sex is the bearers of children. I'm not discriminated against as a pregnant woman or a mother (I'm neither) or a "breast haver" or being "almost average height" I am discriminated against because I am a woman.

And if that word is taken from me in the eyes of the law I will be a non-man - likely less appreciated than TW as I don't over-perform femininity.

But what can be done about something like that though?

More financial support for employers to ease the burden of paternity and maternity leave.

Use it or loose it penalties to encourage men to take paternity leave.

Better paid paternity leave.

More government financed childcare.

Financial rewards and incentives for employers who provide work place creches and breastfeeding support.

It's a question of priorities.

Even after all of that you still have to deal with the reality that only women can actually give birth and breast feed, but you are never going to eradicate sexism by pretending that sex doesn't exist.

the idea of queering up gender to the point where nobody knows what sex people have.

This would be attempting to eradicate sexism by pretending that sex doesn't exit. It is ridiculous because

1. It involves people taking vast quantities of unnecessary drugs and undergoing unnecessary surgery at great expense.

2. Most people can't drastically change their appearance. If you are 5"2" you are never going to look like the Rock.

But what can be done about something like that though? He was unusual saying it straight like that

He is not unusual.

It also goes beyond discrimination questions. I think that women and men make different calculations around childbirth and childcare. That has implications for all kinds of things, at a systemic level. How can you talk about that if you don't have words?

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

Yes. Needs to be stressed.

Its the perceived potential to be pregnant, not whether you are pregnant or have plans to have children or not. Or whether you are physically able to have them.

Its potential

And since you can't be asked an interview of your family rearing plans or reproductive potential, decisions can and are made on the basis of sex / age based assumptions.

This means that if you know someone is a transwoman, either because they actively tell you, or because they don't fully pass this isn't an assumption that will be made of them.

They are NOT the same as an infertile woman of childbaring age for this reason.

An old boss of mine, did talk to me in the past about what my plans were to have children and the impact it would have on the company if I decided to (there were only him and three other employees of which I was the only female). I worked there for over 13 years and it was a real concern for him even with financial recompense he would get - it was the loss of skills and knowledge of the company and customers he'd have to cover. It did put real pressure on me, not to have children. At the time I was adamant I didn't want them for my own lengthy reasons and told him this much to his relief. My reasons were tied up with complex and long standing frustrations and unhappiness about being stuck with being the shitty sex that got the raw deal as they give birth. It certainly didn't help me psychologically. But I do KNOW I was definitely not given a pay rise despite my performance because of his concerns about having to cover maternity, as he ACTIVELY TOLD ME that was one contributing factor. I couldn't have ever raised a claim though as he didn't give a raise to the other two employees - due to their lack of performance - and I'd have never have been able to prove what he'd said to me. It would have been his word against mine.

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

Exactly. I am a child free woman. Yet, ever since I entered the job market I have dealt with employers assuming I would have children (even if I said I would not, not that it was their business but being a woman there were times I was in a position I felt I had to be clear on it because of the assumptions made that could affect promotions or postings). There was always an expectation that I would eventually take time off for 12+ months of maternity leave or possibly never return. It got worse when I married because of course now that I am married I would want to have children tout suite, and well, what would they do in 6 months when I needed to leave for a year or more? And no, these are not assumptions, they were comments I was given or told. And now that I am one of the employers, I see more clearly in these employer circles what other employers consider when they hire women. I see how much in 2019 both men and women employers express reluctance to hire a young women if a man is available because they operate on assumption not only will the woman have children, they will use all their maternity leave as they are legally entitled to, and they will possibly never return to work either. Never mind that men can also take leave, that’s seen as either unlikely or something worthy of handclaps for being progressive.

In my own healthcare I also had to advocate strongly for everything from IUDs to sterilization because IUDs has to be removed for pregnancy (I could not just decide on a whim I guess to get pregnant or have it happen in some unplanned fashion?) and of course did I know sterilization was permanent. Yes, Thad is the point. It was only when I was in my 30s I started being taken seriously in my desire not to have children, before that I was treated as a silly girl who did not know my own mind and I would be struck down by baby fever at any moment. I similarly had to advocate for years for my prophylactic mastectomies (hereditary risk) because did I know it meant I could never breastfeed? Yes. Of course I did. My sister is going through the exact same thing now, the first risk specialist she went to told her she was overreacting (to that genetic risk) and having prophylactic mastectomies would mean she would miss our on bonding with a future child by breastfeeding. She told my sister, who has watched both our mother and grandmother get breast cancer in their 40s and die in their 50s that being able to breastfeed was more important than her desire to take steps known by the medical community and the risk community to be effective to reduce her risk significantly, and she should probably wait until her 40s and after any children because you know, she might not ever get cancer anyway. Right, she might not but she also has a known risk and wants to take accepted steps to reduce that. I told my sister to register a complaint on that doctor.

(Thanks Bernard!)

I very much doubt that in a competition between 2 candidates of equal merit as employees that a 30 year old natal woman would lose out to a 30 year old trans woman. Who is going to fit in, who won't be difficult counts for a lot.

Why bother with either?

Why not just choose somebody who ticks all the establishment boxes?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lord

Great post Merrymouse

I can certainly think of many tech companies that would be quite relieved if they could count males as women hires and could, for the purposes of pay-gap info, count salaries paid to males as being paid to women.

Some of these companies are the same companies aggressively silencing female protest of genderism on social media.

Weird coincidence, innit?

@ThatDoctorEM Did I say anything about clothes? I don't remember meaning to.

Fitting in with the rest of the staff, not rocking the boat counts and I'm pretty sure that for many employers a natal woman or man for that matter would have the edge over a trans person.

I don't think the risk is that women would be pushed out of the work place by trans women. I think the risk is that legislation that is unclear and completely unenforceable would be ignored - a win for MRAs more than TRAs.

Which in the case of pregnancy it would not. The protection is given to the state of being pregnant. It's the same as employers making provision for breastfeeding- it is the act of breastfeeding which is protected.

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

An average women may only spend 18 months actually being pregnant, but the consequences of being identified as having the potential to have children - and actually having children - last for years.

Child bearing is very clearly related to lower pension provision - particularly as women in their seventies and eighties now would have had no maternity rights if they had children before 1975 . However, they obviously aren't pregnant now.

Even now somebody who had children in the 90's will have had very different maternity rights to somebody who gave birth in the 2010s. It's not enough to just talk about 'pregnant people'.

In Northern India in the last 3 months, there have been no babies born that are assigned as female. Something really odd is happening that means all the babies are coming out assigned as male babies. I do wonder what that might be??? We must research what is causing these babies to be all assigned as males over such a long time scale? Perhaps there was an offer on male baby clothes in the region or something?

If women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and there are, let's say 15 different ways you can do it.

In maniaks scenario there are 15 different ways that people are oppressed. They're not connected, they are all completely different, with no common denominator.

No sexism.

Therefore no feminism.

Bingo!!

What did you say BigBall?? I am agog