To think ignoring our biological disadvantages will mean we never achieve real equality?

[Bumpitybumper]

Off the top of my head I have thought of the following potential disadvantages that arise from our biology:

1. Mensturating including associated PMS, pain and general inconvenience
2. Pregnancy including conditions such as SPD, hypermesis and preeclampsia
3. Childbirth including mental and physical damage plus hormonal aftermath
4. Breastfeeding including pain, sleep deprivation and time consuming nature
5. Contraception to control fertility can cause depression and have other unwanted side effects
6. Menopause, admittedly I'm not 100 percent on impact of this but understand it can be pretty horrific
7. Women tend to be physically weaker so less able to defend themselves or carry out manual tasks

I am struggling to think of any comparative male biological disadvantages. Yet it seems almost all policies and initiatives set up to improve equality completely disregard these differences and seem keen to pretend that if you just encouraged women to behave differently (e g. Go into STEM careers) or got women and men to share childcare/paternity leave etc then women would be able to compete with men successfully without making any real concessions to our different biology and therefore wants and needs.

Basically what I'm saying is why is the emphasis on getting women to fit in and adapt to a male working environment when as a class we are always going to suffer from these enormous disadvantages? Why isn't the emphasis more on adapting the male working environment to make it more female friendly?

fmsfms - How many offices don't allow men to wear short sleeved shirts in the summer?

Having long sleeves does nothing for me when the air conditioning's blasting as it gets really cold. I would need jumpers, but can't wear them on hot days. I try to leave some in the office, but definitely can't be carrying heavy jumpers in the heat. Yes, there is variation between women and men, but pre-menopausal women generally feel the cold more than men.
The fact that air con units can blow warm air out as well (mine can't) doesn't help me either as I can't control it.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-frozen-out-by-office-air-con-systems-designed-for-male-comfort-scientists-find-10436035.html

www.collegehumor.com/video/7039382/why-summer-is-womens-winter

1. On equality. The reason that was the approach was so that women could get into lots of jobs full stop. In order to be allowed in the door, women had to say, of course we can do this, we are as committed, as capable, we will be able to do the same. When women were excluded from stuff because they were women, the only way to push for access was to "join" the boys club - as honorary members with lower status obviously - but that was the only way. Now that women are in the workplace, agree that the fact that we are women and we have different needs sometimes should come to the fore.
2. The disadvantages that you list are as seen from a male perspective where male is the norm and everything has been set up to suit them. Everything from workplaces (hours, temperature, office culture) to little stuff like how high things like chairs desks are, or handrails on trains, or airbags in cars. If you are outside the range of default person things are designed for generally - so average sized male, not disabled, not encumbered (pushchairs babies etc) then lots of things don't quite fit. It's the same in the workplace - although things are getting better in many I think. What would workplaces look like if women had designed built and were the dominant users? Would men "fit"? Would they feel that stuff was too small? Would some traits that are more present in men than women (nature / narture) cause them issues? A lot of men see work as a "game". Most women don't, I think. In a female centric workforce, would lots of men feel lost as to how to get ahead?
3. Yes women have babies. Obviously. Men also have babies. What are the answers? Women could stop having babies. End of human race. Lots of men and women like to have babies, so they wouldn't be happy. So, let's not sterilise all women in order to avoid potentially a couple of years out of a career of more than 40 years go missing. Can there be any other answers? Yes - but only if society & businesses see women as valuable in the workforce. Clue >> they don't. Jobs which move from male to female dominated have a drop in wages and a drop in respect. Pay gaps, lack of women in leadership posiitons. Essentially, women in the workplace are seen as a generous thing when times are good. After the ?1st world war the women were sent home from their factory jobs. In the recent recession, women suffered more job losses. None of this is coincidence. We are here to "help out" when needed, but fundamentally, work is still seen as a "man thing".

Question: should midwives start giving the baby to Dad to hold first instead of the mother? Wouldn't that encourage Dad to play the primary caregiver role?

My midwife actually gave DD to DH before me. I didn't realize that this was not usually done actually? I was in a bit of a mess so probably would have said to give her to him anyway, but she just did automatically.

With DS he got to hold him first also. But that was because I had an absolutely huge bleed and they basically checked DS quickly then passed him to dad to sort me out, with a lot of panicking going on.

@MIdgebabe
So hang on, what exact adjustments do you want and what would the cost of them be? Do you want to give employers a reason for a pay gap...even for women who experiance none of the problems you mention?( ok children ain't a problem as such)
I think these biological differences and the fact that so few adjustments made to the workplace and working practices explains a lot of the pre-existing pay gap. Funny how it kicks in post kids when biological factors really start impact women. Of course there will be women who are not affected by these biological factors at all, but there will be many more who encounter issues. As all men are not impacted and the vast vast majority of women are impacted then I think to not make any concessions to our different biology is essentially saying men and a tiny minority of women are at a massive advantage compared to the rest of us.

I don't know why you assume making adjustments would cost employers in the medium/long term. Pitiful stats around women in senior positions would indicate we are not utilising female talent effectively in business. Adjustments to retain and promote women would benefit the corporate world massively.

If your health problems are so severe that you contribute significantly less than a man, why would you expect the same reward and opportunities?
Would you have the same attitude about a person who could not walk and the business failed to make adaptions so they could enter the office and work effectively? Obviously a lot of the issues I listed are not as extreme as this, but the principle that you sometimes need to adjust the environment and working practices around people to get the best out of them isn't a new concept. If you place people in an environment where they are always destined to achieve less than their potential and therefore their colleagues then you have to question who this is benefiting. Making adaptions can mean you get the best out of all your staff and therefore offer opportunities etc to those that genuinely deserve it as opposed to those that just have the least number of barriers in their way to achieving their potential.

Mine held mine first as I had sections. That seemed fine to me.

There do seem to be a lot of men about who are not very interested in the work that goes with a family, however I do see and know plenty of men who are very "maternal" - doting on their kids, doing the nappies and the puke in the bed and so on.

My work has a flexible working policy and in my dept where most of the men and women have kids the same age, the men take as much advantage of it as the women to e.g. enable them to go to the school assumbly, leave early on X day to take kids to ballet or whatever it is.

The current set-up does not fit lots of men either, TBH. It is based on an old school idea of a fairly uninvolved father whose role is to work, with a wife at home to keep the children and house. This is not the reality for lots of women or men any more.

I have men at work say no I can't come to that meeting, I need to finish early to take X to dentist, and you know what, that's fine. Why wouldn't it be?

Employers who give this, get more back in terms of loyalty and people putting more time in on their own time, I have heard.

Periods / menopause not so easily solved.

I was thinking the other day, whoever set up so many sports to have all white outfits, and decided that 3 hour exams were a good thing, was not someone who had ever menstruated

@SardineReturns
I was thinking the other day, whoever set up so many sports to have all white outfits, and decided that 3 hour exams were a good thing, was not someone who had ever menstruated
Yes, yes, a million times yes!

It's this kind of seemingly trivial thing that a man wouldn't even recognise as an issue but puts some women in a really awkward position. Alos public spaces and offices with cream sofas etc when you suddenly come on your period unexpectedly. I always think of those girls that suffer period poverty and how they cope with this kind of thing. Bad enough for those of us can afford adequate sanpro.

But what you are then asking for is a radical shake up of world society such that its purpose is to enable people to achieve their best and contribute to society as best they can, each valued equally as human. I don't believe that is compatible with a capitalist society.

Dismantling society as we know it and I haven't started on the cider yet!

@MIdgebabe
Yes and no. I would like to see issues related to women's biology recognised and working practices adjusted to enable women to work as effectively as men. Something as simple as not having white uniforms could make a difference (as mentioned up thread). Obviously there is much bigger stuff too but it doesn't all have to be groundbreaking and there are easy wins there too.

Once those barriers have been removed or lessened then I think it would help businesses in so many areas including staff and therefore skill retention, employee morale and ensuring that the best talent occupies the senior positions. I think all of these things would generate money and don't run counter to capitalism necessarily. I think actually that the corporate world is sitting on a talent goldmine of underutilised women.

Capitalism is dependent on having an underclass of workers exploited to produce all the stuff, making as much profit as possible with no care for society (tobacco, sugar, baby milk are examples), also dependent on free labour from women to birth and raise the next generation of workers.

It's a pretty shonky system, even when regulated companies find ways to get round it and fuck everythng up.

I suppose we need some marxist feminists on the board to contribute, it's not really my area! (Although I think modern marxist feminists are not actually very feminist - we need to get an older one :D).

Agree. Transactivists and men's rights activists want to ignore the differences for this reason.

I have seen i think many subtle changes over the years, where gradually we have made things better. I realised just last week that the wearing of sensible shoes is now the norm where I work. It's now considered work smart. Women are graduallly taken more seriously, promoted and respected.

But. I have also seen women taking the p and leaving a huge burden for others to pick up. Take the man who could never leave the office early because someone had to be around and the women always had to do school pick up, even for teenagers. For years. None negotiable.

Any one of those does so much damage and can easily undo the good work that others have done in changing male perceptions. I think it cropped up earlier today about how much easier it is to confirm a negative perception than to create a new positive perception.

So I guess, yes we do need to continue to change what we can, we just need to be careful how we do it. And if we can avoid making it a woman's issue , even when it only affects women, it will avoid a them and us mentality developing

But I still think capitalist society will never value people properly. The old , infirm, weaker will always be regarded as less worthy when margins matter

IMO, women always doing the school pickup is not women taking the piss. Even if the kids are teenagers.

Why can't the workplace deal with issues like staff working to contract and needing to leave on time? We've had equality on paper for nearly 50 years.

@UpstartCrow
I am conflicted really about that one.

On the one hand I think working only contracted hours would definitely erode the advantage of the facilitated men and make the whole work:life balance thing a lot more achievable. On the other hand, I can see how there is often a business need for employees to work additional hours on occasion. A totally inflexible workforce would not be great for business. Some people obviously genuinely have very little flexibility e.g. a single parent with no support network needing to pick up young child from nursery, but I think most colleagues would be more willing to cover those staff than those who just don't want to seek alternative arrangements for their teenager at the end of the school day.

Firstly by assuming it was only a woman's right to work flexible hours it denied that right to the man. Which perpetuates the problem that only women do the caring

And businesses don't like to adapt because then you need even more people to be able to cover the time which costs more. Other options would have Required the whole client base to change behaviours. And money not societal happiness is the goal.

Mind you, it is also often the case that their are no unscheduled client contacts for a role, and it is amazing how it is still assumed that 9-5 is the only option that could ever work. But then, odd hours may increase the heating And lightning bills...

I think it's really hard for anyone really to get their heads round the idea that women aren't "inferior" - we are different - and as men have been placed as the "default" that we have to try and meet, we will obviously fail.

The place of women is hard to navigate. So many thoughts.

• We are animals. Yes I know these analogies are always shit. Anyway, we are. And animals, mammals, tend to cede to the bigger ones. The aggressive ones. It's always the large male who is prepared to fight that runs the show. (Except tigers I think? Where the females are massive fuckers and take no prisoners). Tall, well built men tend to get automatic respect. They are taken as "important" just beacuse. The thing about who has to get out of the way on the street - I'm not sure it's man vs woman I think it's big versus small. If you are a big man who looks capable, I suspect that most people think twice before verbally going at you. All that sort of stuff. In general, women are a bit small and not very threatening, especially when we have kids with us. So there's that

But then in our society - we are trying to get beyond animal instinct - at least the ones that are not good. But however far it goes I don't think you can erase the fundamental idea of big animal >> proceed with caution.

But we are important, aren't we. We are an important part of society. Without us, there is no society. Men want babies. In the past they sought to control us via religion, social norms etc. The idea of the religious right is still - "different but equal" - men are the natural leaders and make the decisions, provide for the family. The women is there to look after him, and have children, and look after them, and the house.

We have broken free of that to an extent in some countries, in that we have been allowed out of the home, but with it has come an erosion of any respect that was afforded us in the double-standard oppressive structures of the past. The idea is that we have our area - home children etc - and we are afforded respect for our position there. So now we are allowed out, but somehow this has resulted in an erosion in respect for us in anything we do. Although - were women in this position ever really respected or was that a lie to persuade them that it was good when it wasn't? I don't know enough about it TBH.

It seems that every step forward we take, with this tremendous stride of progress, ends up landing in a cowpat.

Invention of pill >> liberation! We can take control of our sex lives. Actual effect >> casual sex expected, men seemingly being more comfortable impreganting women then fucking off, or when the kids are young, and not providing any financial support, massive side effects of the pill are STILL not being addressed even though they are affecting children / young people

Workplaces opening up >> liberation! We can be financially independent and that will make us freer.
Actual effect >> women still bear burden of houshold and childcare, on top of work, erosion of wages means that we're not financially independent still as so many jobs are so low paid, difficult to progress (sexism still there). Lots of women in low paid, not secure jobs.

More openness around women and sex, people talking about sex more - bodies and what people like / can try etc. Liberation! We can all have great sex plenty orgasms and men will be more aware of how women's bodies work and so on.
Actual effect >> Hardcore porn becomes mainstream. Body positivity taken to mean lots of women with their clothes off all over the place. Girls and women expected to be up for ever increasingly tricky (potentially painful) sex acts. Female body grooming goes to an extreme. And so on actually this is a huge topic. 50 shades - men saying punching women in the face during sex is a reasonable kink & juries saying yes sounds fair to me.

So, whatever we win, it gets turned into something not such a win.

I am not sure how we get to have actual wins.

Although I think in some parts o f the world things are loads better (other parts things are going backwards).

Sorry for essay bit of a stream of consciousness.

@SardineReturns

Excellent (although also slightly depressing) stream of consciousness. I agree with all of it

Oh wow. Its even more depressing when laid out like that. But yes, you are right. Seems a two steps forward 3 steps back thing at times.

Agree with all of it Sardine and especially the porn stuff. Fed up to the back teeth of seeing the pornification of bloody everything F OFF

" I have also seen women taking the p and leaving a huge burden for others to pick up. Take the man who could never leave the office early because someone had to be around and the women always had to do school pick up, even for teenagers. For years. None negotiable. "

Are those women not doing their full hours or are they leaving before they're supposed to? If they're leaving at their contracted hours I really don't see the problem. The man should be allowed to as well.

Sardine's stream of consciousness certainly does illustrate how any gains, just 'somehow' end up being the opposite. Rather deliberately though.

A capitalist patriarchy requires an underpaid underclass. Also deliberate. Which is why radical feminism says we need to overthrow the entire system, not just tinker around the edges.

The "Women's Winter" video was hilarious Gwen. PMSL

I’d just like to pick up on the shared childcare point. It was only when I had my third baby, last year, that I realised WTF people were going on about when they blithely insist men can just ‘get involved’ and as long as they are willing they can do half. My first two were ‘high needs’. They wanted me and screamed for me for their first year - 18m. DH was desperate to do more. He did do nearly all the nappy changes but any soothing, sleep etc all had to be done by me.

And before you say well leave the house, make them spend time together - what you are basically saying there is put a small infant through distress just in order to enforce the concept of equality. Which is kind of the evil this thread is kicking against, isn’t it? I mean the disadvantage of the already vulnerable in order to enforce a false ‘equality’.

It really gets my goat when people talk about babies as pets to be trained or objects to be handled. They are people, actual people with needs and vulnerabilities. And no way were me and DH prepared to put them through distress just so he could pat himself on the back about being a modern man and I could queue up for my good feminist badge.

Can we please stop pretending all babies are easy and flexible and it’s only stupid women and lazy men who create the need for women to be the primary carer. Please.

@Batteriesallgone

Yes, I recall a poster (I believe Offred) writing a post about this that really struck a chord with me. She basically said that feminism often didnt view things through a childcentric lens even though that often explained why mothers behaved in a certain way and adopted certain roles. Mothers will respond to the needs and wants of their children because they care about their children's welfare. Sometimes a child (your's and mine) will become very attached to one parent (usually their mum) for a period of time and to force them to spend equal amounts of time with the other parent in the name of equality can be distressing for all involved. I know that this is controversial and many people will disagree, but I agree with you and have experienced similar.