Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Things Change:

158 replies

Endymion1 · 12/01/2020 17:13

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children. Having children and having the children survive to have their own children is how genes get passed along. Human babies are particularly helpless for an extended periods-of-time, so evolutionarily it makes sense that both mothers and fathers would have a desire to have children and to take care of them. Many people in our current society may feel that it is obvious that those feelings would naturally and biologically be stronger in mothers than in fathers, but that is not necessarily the case. Further, in our current society mothers do most of the childcare, but it is not certain that necessarily must be the case. Also, currently there is there is a wage gap, between women and men, but again it is not certain that has to be. In fact, this wage gap is narrowing. Prior to the 1960s women have been clearly and overtly discriminated against in terms of jobs and education. Laws were passed in the 1960s to make this discrimination more difficult. After that, not surprisingly, the wage gap decreased. There have also been other changes. Following is a summary of some of these changes in the United States.

Regarding the wage gap, women made 60.7% of what men made in 1960. This actually decreased to 57.6% in 1966, but shortly after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 it started to increase until it reached 81.6% in 2018, see here: www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html. The Women’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate increased from 28.6% in 1948 to 57.6% in 2016, while during the same period the Men’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate decreased from 71.4% to 53.2%. Thus, these rates narrowed from 42.8% in 1948 to 6.4% in 2016. These figures are for the US, but most likely are similar for the UK. See here: www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#LFPMotherChild.

A chart from the US Labor Department shows the Labor Force Participation Rate for Mothers by age of youngest child from 1975 to 2016. Of greatest interest is the increase of this rate for mothers whose youngest child is under 3. It went from 34.3% in 1974 to 63.1% in 2016. This could be due to women’s desire to be with their young children, instead of being at work for pay, decreasing (possibly due to a shifting of social norms or values). See here: www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#LFPMotherChild.

This chart from Pew Research shows there has been an increase in the percentage of households with a stay at home father from 2.0% between 1976 and 1979 to 3.5% between 2000 and 2009. See here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/17/more-men-on-the-daddy-track/. While that amount is still small the increase was 75%. And then this chart shows that the percentage of households where the mother worked full time and the father worked part-time or not at all increased from 2% in 1970 to 6% in 2015, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/how-american-parents-balance-work-and-family-life-when-both-work/ft_15-11-04_parenting-ft/. This suggests that feelings among mothers and fathers, regarding childcare is changing with fathers taking on more of the traditional mothering role and mothers taking on more of the traditional fathering role.

Here is a chart that shows that between 1989 and 2016 the percentage of fathers that do not work outside of the home because they are taking care of the home or family increased from 4% to 24% while during the same period the percentage of mothers doing the same decreased from 86% to 78%. While more mothers still stay home for that reason than men do, the percentages are converging, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/ft_19-06-10_fathersday_1/. And according to this graph between 1965 and 2016 the number of hours per week “Dads” spend on Childcare increased from 2.5 to 8; the number of hours per week “Dads” spend on housework increased from 4 to 10 and the number of hours “Dads” spend on paid work decreased from 46 to 43. During the same time the number of hours “Moms” (Mums) spend per week on Childcare increased from 10 to 14; the number of hours “Moms” spend on Housework decreased from 32 to 18 and the number of hours “Moms” spend on paid work increased from 9 to 25, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/ft_18-05-01_fathersday_time/. Further, according to a graph in this pew article within married couples 13% of women earned more than the man in 1980; 19% of women earned more than the man in 1990 and 23% of women earned more than the man in 2000. The figure for 2017 is 28% of women earned more than the man in married and cohabiting couples, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-see-men-as-the-financial-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/. So, the percentage of women earning more than men in married couple has increased, at least between 1980 and 2000 and possibly even into 2017.

This graph from Pew Research shows a sharp increase in the fertility rate between 1950 (the earliest date shown) and the late 1950s, then a sharp drop off between the late 1950s and the 1970s and then a leveling off: www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FT_19.05.16_FertilityUpdate.png?w=640. This could be due to the introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s, which gave people more control over how many children they had, suggesting the either people’s desire to have children (possibly due to a shifting of social norms or values) had changed or that it wasn’t as strong as the earlier fertility rates indicated.

Things that change are not fixed so as women’s and men’s roles have changed, they are not fixed. That is biology is not destiny, meaning women and men are not chained to their roles by biology.

Could it be possible, taking into consideration, that more women now graduate from college than men that sometime in the future there could be a “reverse” wage gap with women earning more than men and then men being more likely to stay home and take care of the kids. I’m not predicting this will happen, I’m just urging people to be skeptical about claims that something is natural and biological and therefore unchangeable. Also, my position is that people take on the role that they want. If a woman wants to stay home and be a full time Mum that’s fine and if a man wants to stay home and be a full time Dad that is also fine.

For more information on change see “Women in history and an examination of gender norms:” here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_theory/3736953-Women-in-history-and-an-examination-of-gender-norms and kindly comment.

Tom,

OP posts:
Tubbytwo · 18/01/2020 19:04

What the heck are you trying to say? You need to learn the art of self-editing. HTH.

Lucy,

Lunathewitchespus666 · 18/01/2020 19:00

Why ever did "Tom" feel the need to write that? He had the gall to translate the American "mom" for us silly little under educated British women as well as posting a string of links to a US stats organisation, some of which contradict others, without any analysis or context. Very sloppy, patronising and frankly ridiculous.

marvellousnightforamooncup · 18/01/2020 18:55

I read that OP, twice. Am still baffled.

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 18:50

Why the imprecise language? There are many factors beyond ovaries and age for a woman to become pregnant. Check out the MN boards about infertility!

Also can give birth is an odd phrase in this context. It kind of suggests you are specifying vaginal birth not Caesarian or even adoption.

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children.

It is much easier to read if you use the simpler more precise common language men, women and the usual phrase to have children or get pregnant

Most women can get pregnant, but that does not mean that men do not want children, nor does that mean that one must be a woman to have a desire to take care of children.

The simpler language also shows up that you've forgotten that women cannot get themselves pregnant: men have to be involved. Usually by ejaculating sperm into the woman's vagina when she is fertile. There are a number of methods by which men can avoid getting women pregnant that are entirely within the man's control.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 18:46

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age

People?

You mean women.

ScrimshawTheSecond · 18/01/2020 18:11

Sorry, I cba reading all that.

The question was will there be a reverse wage gap?

No. HTH!

IM0GEN · 18/01/2020 18:10

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children. Having children and having the children survive to have their own children is how genes get passed along

Astounding ! I never knew any of this. Thank goodness a man came along to explain.

Imo,

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 18:07

Is that his question? The only question mark in the very long opening post was embedded in a link.

midgebabe · 18/01/2020 18:04

The post was recognising that many things change over time, which would disprove any idea that certain things (generally detrimental to women) were hard wired biology.

The question was could women earn more then men?

I would guess no. What I would like to see is the same rate for the same work input. There is no reason for women to be paid more on average

I would also go further, should it become the norm that more women than men work outside the home, then I think we would see staying at home as being the sign of success, needing to work would be a failure

a man trying to use evidence to help overcome any ingrained bias is cool with me

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 17:59

I plan to put my phone away in a few mins. I was hoping to know what Tom was asking us first.

I wonder if he wanted us to review his writing? He did write that
I’m sure it has occurred to many women that their biology is not necessarily their destiny, but not necessarily to all people. I do lengthy expositions and link to data to reach those who do not believe that or people who are on the borderline.
Obviously this isn't the place to look for those borderline people, so he must be after something else.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 17:52

I'm pretty sure Tom loves and respects women and if he comes back he'll tell us so. he's probably a feminist

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 17:42

Well, I for one think it rather nice when men turn up on the Feminism board trying to learn something. I haven't seen his question yet though. Maybe it fell off the end of the post and he didn't notice due to length.

slipperywhensparticus · 18/01/2020 17:42

Well thank you for explaining that to me! As a woman I had no idea!

Hmm
titchy · 18/01/2020 17:38

Why did you think we need to know a man is speaking?

Like it wasn't already obvious!

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 17:38

What was your question, Tom? What do you want our advice on?

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 17:38

tbh Curious I read the whole fucking lot and was still at a bit of a loss about what Tom had come here to instruct us to do. something something stay at home dads, something something biology is not destiny (which is very easy to think when it's not your body growing and nurturing babies). That's kind of all I got I'm afraid.

I'm pretty sure we should be being more compliant though

does that help?

titchy · 18/01/2020 17:38

I mean, have we not spent decades discussing all of that?

Well yeah, but we're only women. Fortunately the OP is a man so the message will now be heard.

TorkTorkBam · 18/01/2020 17:37

Tom, this is an anonymous forum. People don't sign off with their names. Why did you think we need to know a man is speaking?

CuriousaboutSamphire · 18/01/2020 17:31

Yessir, boss.

Can someone tell me, tldr, was that as "here little lady, let me help you understand your existence" as the first paragraph of left me to believe?

I mean, have we not spent decades discussing all of that? Are we not only too aware that things change.... yet some things have a distinctively recidivist bent....?

Doyoumind · 18/01/2020 17:24

Also lol

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 17:11

things change, but funnily enough, not men thinking that they simply must tell women what they should be doing. Weird eh Tom?

Bernard,

LangCleg · 18/01/2020 16:54

Excuse me while I go and suck some eggs!

Melroses · 18/01/2020 16:40

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Mel,

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 16:23

Thanks Tom

Bernard,

Mockers2020Vision · 18/01/2020 16:14

Could it be possible, taking into consideration, that more women now graduate from college than men that sometime in the future there could be a “reverse” wage gap with women earning more than men and then men being more likely to stay home and take care of the kids.

Unlikely. Fewer qualified men makes them a scarce commodity and therefore attracting a higher price.

Also, we have the example of the Soviet Union or Cuba, where those areas where women were the numerical majority with qualifications, such as teaching, medicine and science, were by sheer coincidence those areas that were deemed worthy of less pay according to the Labour Theory of Value, with heavy manual tasks, coincidentally dominated by men, gaining the most.