Nothing will change while parents are so sexist

[12Thorns]

Just in the last half hour on MN I’ve read posts from a pregnant mother wanting to know if her ‘gender scan’ is likely to be correct before she goes shopping for her newborn, and a mother arguing 7 boys should be allowed to play football at break times when they are excluding a boy with ADHD, and not half a thought for the girls being not only excluded from the game, but also from the space the game is played in, and we all know football takes up most of the playing space available

what hope is there for any sort of equality when such attitudes are so deeply ingrained and passed on to babies and children?

Agree with @Bumpitybumper and @Sirzy - if people want to not play football that is fine (DH was a non football playing boy). But yes, the play areas should be shared and people should not exclude those who want to join in. A PP mentioned that soccer is more seen a ‘girls’ sport in the US. It is highly likely that as a population men’s and women’s interests may differ based on both nature and nurture. Whilst options should be presented that are non stereotypical (especially if there are benefits - eg financial and flexibility of stem careers), we shouldn’t denigrate people (boys and girls) who pick ‘feminine’ options. In fact, we should campaign for better flexibility and pay for important ‘feminine’ career choices like caring, childcare, cleaning, healthcare and teaching (the latter 2 used to be majority male professions).

I think MN posters are generally far less sexist than the average.

But YANBU with regard to real life. Lots and lots of sexist assumptions, stereotyping and knee jerk sex based divisions of responsibility still going on.

The 39% on here saying YABU are the ones who are perpetuating it. All animals get called "she" (e.g. at the zoo). When my 2yo daughter wears anything that's not a dress or pink, people assume she's a boy. There's a lot of sexism still out there and people don't realise what they're doing.

As an aside, when I was at primary school, I got told by the other 8 year olds that I wasn't allowed to play because I was a girl.

I meant to say "he" about animals obviously!

I think MN posters are generally far less sexist than the average.

Good lord. If that's the case, then all I can say is women as a species are seriously screwed.

I've lost count of the number of threads where men are given a free pass and women judged harshly for exactly the same behaviour, or that a man's abusive behaviour might be the woman's fault, and where it clearly wasn't, that he might have 'depression'. Or told that men have names and women have 'maiden' names. The number of threads where a woman has (hardly radically) chosen to keep her own family name on marriage and been snidely informed that it wasn't really hers, but 'belonged' to her dad, is equally depressing.

Women's rights, or even basic respect for us, have undergone a complete about-face in around the past decade. The absolutely hideous responses to #MeToo and utter, thoroughgoing, open contempt for victims of rape has been less upsetting than devastating. Yes, I have not-infrequently seen these attitudes on this very site. And they are spilling over into our rape crisis centres - most notably in Vancouver and Brighton - and affecting the real lives of real women; vulnerable women who are in desperate need of help and support.

Social media means people who hate women can now easily find each other, validate their views, and become emboldened in stating them openly again. This isn't just on the dark web, Daily Mail, or hateful red pill sites - it's here on 'enlightened' MN too. All this after second-wave feminism had secured us a brief respite, making views like this really not 'done' in polite company, and achieving a better deal for women in the workplace and elsewhere. Sadly, contempt for women has likely never been simmering far below the surface, but superficially at least, things had got temporarily better.

Now, they are worse than I've ever known them in my lifetime.

@TeaWithFlorence the coaches did all they could but the truth is that she would often end up in goal as they just wouldn’t pass to her… why should I make her continue to attend a club she was no longer comfortable in? She didn’t just ‘quit’ football, she still plays (she’s 13 now), just not in mixed teams - not that they’re allowed at her age, mind.

@TempsPerdu it’s depressing to hear but I’m not surprised. DD started aged 3 and there were loads of little girls, but by the time she was 7 they had all quit. Women's football is gaining a lot of momentum though so ginger crossed for a change of attitude for your DD

Just because more women choose to do something than men doesn't mean it's not a valid choice or it's a less valuable endeavour.

Why assume that something must be desired equally by men and women for it to be valid? I believe women and men are fundamentally different as a result of their biology. I believe this will mean that at a population level (very important as there are always many exceptions) men and women will be naturally drawn to different things. This isn't inherently bad or wrong unless you feel that some activities or things are less valuable than others. If this is the case then I would suggest that internalised misogyny and hyper capitalism is driving a lot of the thinking.

Of course there are cases where the woman doesn't choose freely to be SAHP and this is undesirable. As is a parent having to work when they would rather be a SAHP. Ideally we would all choose to do what we wanted but we live with financial and practical constraints that make this unrealistic.

I completely agree with tackling the structural inequalities and barriers that women face that prevent them from being able to fulfil their career and family ambitions. I absolutely oppose the enforcement of the brand of 'equality' that suggests that unless the sexes are all doing the same things in the same proportions then sexism must be at play. This is damaging to women and undesirable for wider society.

@Bumpitybumper

Except you were saying early that we should be valuing traditionally 'feminine' things more. That instead of devaluing them we should he encouraging men to value and do them more.

And now you're saying that men and women are biologically primed to want different things (bullshit)

Why wouldn't men want to be sahp?

Surely that's exactly what we should be encouraging?

You may say bullshit, science disagrees. Men and women are physiologically different. We have different levels of hormones pumping through our body and are subjected to different biological forces. You can obviously see how physically different we are from men, so why assume that all other aspects of our being should be the same?

I said we should value the feminine but that doesn't mean that men and women should be forced to be equally feminine and masculine in their pursuits or desires. Why is that what we should be encouraging?

I think you believe the only way a feminine activity can be valued is if men do too in equal proportion. That is misogyny. Women are allowed to like and want different things than men and have them valued equally. Equality isn't about us all being the same.

As for why men wouldn't want to be SAHPs... Well lots of men do but not the same proportion as women. This is because women are biologically different. We carry and birth the baby and often feed it from our bodies. We are subjected to strong hormones that are designed to bond the mother with her baby. There is also science around how women are more disposed to more caring traits whilst men are more disposed to aggression. This is at a population level and of course I'm not saying women should be SAHMs or are wrong to not have this desire. What I'm saying is that at a population level biology will dictate that more women will want to be SAHPs than men. Similarly more men will want to join the armed forces.

Wanting to know the sex before you buy items and outfits for the baby is just common sense, isn't? I think it's very, very wise. I don't get your problem here.

Did that thread specifically say that girls couldn't play? Also don't most schools have football played during the breaks, on the school oval? Having football played on the school oval doesn't take up the entire oval nor the rest of the play space in the school.

Why does the sex of a baby affect it's clothes ? It's not sensible at all, it's perpetuating the notion that babies behaviour differs according to their sex , that the sex of a baby needs to be clear to the whole world ( because it's so important as to how we interact with the baby?)

@Bumpitybumper

What hormones make women like cushions and men like cars?

Science also tells us that men also produce caring hormones when they parent their children. The more direct parenting they do the more caring hormones they produce.

We should absolutely be encouraging both parents to care for their children equally

There is no benefit to a sahp

For a girl in slip on shoes and a knee length skirt, it would be more inhibiting.

I never wore skirts or slip on shoes to school.

If you're talking about schools where that's a uniform requirement, that's on the school, not the parent.

Oh dear. We didn't have a "gender scan" before our baby was born. We didn't ask for the sex of the baby either.

We bought a red babygro for baby to come home from the hospital in, and would have used it for either a boy or a girl. I hadn't realised I was being quite so revolutionary.

It is a fact that amongst other things, women as a class have more oxytocin then men. It plays a huge role in bonding mother with child and is a large reason why maternal abandonment is so rare. Of course men can bond with their children too and childcare is part of this but it's a different process than with women who carry, deliver and can feed their babies.

My point isn't that men and women shouldn't or can't do equal amounts of childcare. It is that biology means that women are more likely to want to be primary carers for their children especially in the very early years than men and this may or may not involve wanting to be SAHPs. Why are you so against this notion? Why can't women (or men) that want to decide to balance their lives in a way that best suits them and their life goals? Why do you get to decide there is no benefit to a SAHP?

You are so misogynistic, it is terrifying. You simply can't accept that some women want to stay at home and look after their children. You instead want to completely devalue their choices and decide that there is no benefit to a SAHP when again science suggests otherwise. There are benefits to both WOHPs and SAHPs that have been identified in peer reviewed scientific studies and luckily these findings aren't going to be rebutted by someone with an axe to grind about women's choices.

@Bumpitybumper

Do formula feeding mums have less of a bond?

What benefit is there to having a sahp?

Its not mysoginist to suggest men should be making similar parenting choices to women. Quite the opposite fact

I don't believe girls liking football is going against the grain or not normal. A lot of girls do play football. My DD plays for a team and the club has girls aged from 4 to 16. Just before Covid they actually had to make extra groups for all the age groups as the current groups were full.
I don't believe where we live is especially unique in having girls who like football.
I don't know about secondary school but at primary school boys and girls used to play football together at break.
Perhaps the girls in the thread mentioned just didn't like football or perhaps they did join in but the poster didn't mention it.

No the poster carefully accounted for all the boys in the class in their scenario, and was concerned her son might be missing out because of another boy. It didn’t seem to cross her mind how much girls were missing out because of her son and his friends

The hypocrisy on this thread is astounding. For centuries it was normal for little boys to wear dresses, presumably the item of clothing didn’t hold them back.

The issue is people’s attitudes, not the item of clothing or it’s colour. Attitudes like the people on this thread making assumptions about children and their parents based on clothing alone. Instead of trying to shame people into wearing clothing you find acceptable, how about don’t judge people for their clothes and teach your children they can achieve anything whatever clothes they wear.

I think that there is in society an over emphasis of expectation that women will bond and be more caring and behave differently to men because of their hormones that is "over egged" for want of a better phrase

The whole idea that women are fundamentally different to men has been used to justify a lot of injustice- women getting paid less for the same job, women needing to be better than men to get promoted , women getting less pain relief , women not being included in medical trails ( because their hormones make it harder )

So whilst it may be true that there will always be some differences, the size of difference today is due to nurture not nature

Instead it is used as justification for the patriarchal society which itself is not fundamental - it isn't true that biology means humans will always live in patriarchal societies

@Topgub
There are lots of studies that have looked into breastfeeding and the benefits of SAHPs. You are free to Google them yourself.

It is sexist to suggest men should make similar choices to women as it would be sexist suggest that women should make similar choices to men. This isn't about taking responsibility for children and doing your fair share towards the family, it's about men and women doing exactly the same. The same amount of childcare irrespective of what the individuals involved actually want and what's best for the family. It's madness! Women and men criticised for maintaining the 'status quo' when maybe it is what they actually want. Instead though, you would rather everyone was forced to be exactly the same because otherwise we can't be sure it's equal or fair.

@becausetrampslikeus
The whole idea that women are fundamentally different to men has been used to justify a lot of injustice- women getting paid less for the same job, women needing to be better than men to get promoted , women getting less pain relief , women not being included in medical trails ( because their hormones make it harder )
I agree with this but I disagree with your conclusion.

I think a lot feminists are very wary of talk about differences between the sexes as it has historically been a stick to beat us with. Our differences have been considered weaknesses and used to repress us and stop us advancing.

I think for that reason we are now taught to minimise and mask our difference. Not to mention periods or the menopause. Not to take too long out of the workforce to raise our children or protect our single sex spaces.

I was so cross the other day. My friend's 9 year old had her long hair chopped off to donate to the Princess trust. A male friend of her parents saw her and asked "do we have to start calling you (male version of her name) now you've got short hair?" He was obviously joking but it made me so cross because it's the thin edge of the wedge to saying, if you don't dress and wear your hair in a stereotypically female way, you must be a boy. FFS.

@Bumpitybumper

Its your claim to back up.

I have looked at research. There are no benefits to having a sahp.

(I didnt question the benefits of bf although I see you're not actually answering if you think ff mums have less of a bond)

Of course its not sexit to suggest people's choices shouldn't be limited by their sex. Its crazy to suggest it is.

People can and do choose what they want to do.

But its nonsense to suggest those choices are entirely biologically driven and have no impact on equality