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?

Excellent post, Sardine. It's also fascinating how humans will take difference and use it to put things in a hierarchy. Sos acknowledging biological difference between men and women is seen almost as admitting that women are inferior.

And the fact that people think the answer is to not breastfeed is just more denial of biology and it’s madness.

Breastfeeding is female biology you can choose to embrace or not, unlike pregnancy which you have to do in order to have your own biological child. The fact that it is so common for women to reject female biology as soon as they get a choice in the matter is not for celebration IMO. Choosing to breastfeed or not is not right or wrong in itself, but holding not-breastfeeding up as a solution (and therefore partially or wholly framing female biology as a problem) is wrong.

Batteries - your babies wanted the primary care giver. It could have been your DH surely if he'd been the one with them most often.

I get your point about not forcing sharing. I saw a post from a friend once where she'd told the kids DF was putting them to bed. Her DD had asked why and she'd said 'because we share the childcare', to which she replied 'but we're not toys to be shared'. However, it was their DM who worked part time and looked after them most. I don't see any reason why the DF couldn't have done that.

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

It's not funny when you're living through it.

The primary carer during pregnancy you mean? I agree with that but that can’t really be changed can it?

DH had my first for the first couple of hours after birth while I was attended to. That first night I was a mess, yes I fed, but DH got him out of the crib, brought him over to me, changed his nappies, rocked him, etc.

What on earth makes you assume I was the primary carer in the beginning, when we were both on leave? Oh yes that’s right, because babies don’t recognise their mothers (except they do) and only ‘choose’ the preferences that are forced upon them (bullshit).

Like any newborn, my first took any carer he could get for the first week or so. Most newborns sleep well and are pretty flexible in my experience. I’m guessing it’s an instinct thing to give the mother rest and recuperation but I don’t know much about it really.

After that, it was all Mum Mum Mum. And there was no way I or DH were letting a tiny baby scream just so we could be equal.

I’ve had three kids, DFOD with your patronising crap. If my first only wanted me because I was primary carer, how does that explain my third, who was a very easy going baby and happy for DH to pull his weight from the off? Even though by the time we had him, I was incredibly experienced (due to two needy babies) and DH was expecting to be hands off?

Babies are individuals. It is nonsense to ignore the difficult babies, just as it is nonsense to ignore women with heavy periods.

Yes, I'm starting to think complete revolution is the only way.

Plus great comment PeakPants

The game, pitch and rules require re-definition imo.

Many of the European non English countries have managed to make inroads with decent, affordable childcare and housing plus part-time professional career options. This gives many more women opportunities to contribute and attain economic independence. None of this is rocket science. What is it about the English speaking countries and the men who makes the rules there that makes them wilfully blind to taking similar options?

Also OP I don't like the word disadvantage- what you describe are natural consequences of being child bearing. Why wouldn't any decent society want to include women and accomodate them? What does it say about the men who object to reasonable adjustment? And what about all the assets that men don't have in abundance that women do - the natural people ability, seeing the big picture etc?
Companies led by women out perform those led by men - so why wouldn't any company not want more women in their leadership ranks?
.

Just to add breastfed babies will often seek out their mother even if the father does most of the day to day care. I do think at least initially biology is trying to work towards mother and baby developing a strong bond and some babies do exclude the father in this process. As the baby grows older IME things tend to relax and babies become more accepting of others although obviously this can change through the different phases.

I agree @Batteriesallgone that a lot of current theory around equality is based on a denial of biology. Let's share maternity leave so then fathers can bond with the baby.. great, but the leave that women have may be spent physically and mentally recovering from pregnancy and childbirth and trying to establish bfing. The dad gets the same time off (or a significant chunk) with none of these issues plus the mother who is now at work may still have to contend with expressing at work and bfing the baby in the night etc. I just think that women get the raw deal with these kind of initiatives and the underlying principle is that there is no biological factors why a mother may need more maternity/paternity leave than a father.

I do think that, however unconscious it may be, there is a thing where the less your biology affects you as a woman, the more valid you are as a person. You see it a lot in 'Well, I've never flooded during my period so you all must be delicate little flowers'. One can't give accommodation to things like periods or bfing or different body temperatures because again that would be admitting weakness or inferiority. A woman has to leave work due to a combination of crippling menstrual cramps and heavy bleeding, she must ipso facto be taking the piss. Oh, and she is letting the side down and is weak. Until we can all have more empathy for each other's biology, we won't get anywhere.

Btw I'm not saying shared maternity/paternity leave wouldn't work for some, just that for others it may not. I don't like the way it's touted as the "solution" to getting round women being so heavily penalised for taking time out of work to have babies.

The problem is though that the role of the mother is not a valued one in society- it is not equal in status to those who earn an income. But it's just as big a problem that women are expected to be the carers, the mothers etc. Yes, women give birth and they breastfeed. Exclusive breastfeeding generally doesn't last longer than about 6 months. That doesn't explain why when the child is 5, it's nearly always the mother who does all the bits to do with running the house, remembering PE kit, making packed lunches, sorting out housework. Where men do help with childcare or housework, they don't take on that mental load of organisation.

Nobody is saying don't breastfeed. But the idea that mothers are 'natural carers' and men are not is not helpful to women and allows men to get away with fucking us over throughout life. Women are expected to give up their income potential, yet the divorce laws make it easy for men to just up and leave, yes with some financial consequences, but nothing like the consequences of a woman giving up work. Poverty in old age is heavily skewed towards women. They are unlikely to have a decent pension and are likely to suffer hardship unless they are reliant on a man.

Also, it is not just women with children who are affected by the 'women as carers' mantra. Childless women are also less likely than men to be promoted to the top in their professions. Some business will not hire women of childbearing age for fear that they will go on maternity leave. Childless women may be required to care too, for elderly parents and other relatives in a way that a man would not.

The thing is that both sexes have the ability and capacity to care but only one sex is socialised to do it. It has been well documented that girls and boys are raised differently and this is unconscious to a large extent on the part of the parents. But when little girls are encouraged to play with dolls, they are being socialised. They are also being socialised when they see their mums doing the lion's share of housework and care. It then becomes a natural and normal 'choice' to go part-time or stay at home. It's not a real choice though, because the conditions in the workplace (which are biased towards men) often make it the only option. Would women still give up their earning capacity if much of their work could be performed at home, or if they worked in an office with an affordable or free on-site creche and a lot of flexibility in working hours and time off if the child is sick?

The problem is that society is run largely by men for the benefit of men. Women who conform to the male norm can also succeed, but they struggle to do so if they also want to take on a caring role. The answer is not to stop breastfeeding but to try to ensure that care receives equal status to working. Both care and working are equally essential for sustaining society so it makes no sense that one of them is so undervalued.

@PeakPants
I agree that it is important to untangle what is driven by biology and what is driven by socialisation. I think caring can to a certain extent fall into both categories. When a woman is pregnant and after birth I do think biology is pushing for women to be the main carer for their child (obviously in pregnancy this isn't even an option). After this time then your argument about socialisation definitely kicks in however, the precedent has often been set in the early days.

I agree valuing caring more as a society would help and I can't help but think there needs to be more intervention so that businesses don't always show a preference to the short term easiest option (often men).

Agree strongly with the last few posts . Bravo for articulating this so well.

Men do have hormonal issues...at least six times a day

Can we back up?
What is this? I’ve never heard of this?

It's called an erection

And it makes a man lose focus and attention. Fine in a romantic setting. less good in the office. it affects their judgement . Easy to spot once you realise it happens.

also.interesting that it's never talked about is 't it? We don't know how big an impact it may be having on male performance in the office, but many a man can tell you how women's hormones disrupt the office.

Exclusive breastfeeding generally doesn't last longer than about 6 months. That doesn't explain why when the child is 5, it's nearly always the mother who does all the bits to do with running the house, remembering PE kit, making packed lunches, sorting out housework.

Quite. Do read that facilitated men thread if you want - it’s honestly one of the best I’ve seen on this subject.

Dh and I are committed to being equal as we can with all this - the pressure from outside though, with jobs and society, is very strong. Stronger than I’d expected. Itvis very easy to slip into that role of doing everything and his career took off when I was on mat leave because he could devote the time to it more.

So that then leaves you with a quandry - how do you proceed when you go back to work? Do you stay in that ‘lesser’ role and hope the family unit is solid, so you stay together and everyone benefits from the earning potential even though you personally take a hit? Or do you insist on both working equally, risk both of you not doing quite as well but future proof yourself against divorce, illness and death?

If the system was set up to benefit everyone this would be less of an issue. And in some countries it is more like this. In Sweden for example both parents have the possibility to go down to 75% work time. Childcare is subsidised. Employers expect that men will take a significant proportion of parental leave. Employers expect both parents will take leave for sick children (and there’s a paid mechanism to do so as well.)
Sweden scores high on productivity and low on inequality measures. It can be done while keeping a country productive.

Since having a child and becoming a SAHM this has been a topic close to my heart. I was already a feminist, but the reality of my biology and how that impacts my life became glaringly apparent after having DD. I became a SAHM sort of by default. We don't have any family nearby, I was in a temporary role when I fell pregnant, and DH and I felt that it would be good for DD to have me as her primary carer. It was only really when she got to about two that I felt I'd like to go back to work, but I would only want to work part-time. There aren't many part time jobs at all where I live, and we knew we wanted another child. I felt awkward about the prospect of starting a job and wanting to give it my all and gain a good reputation whilst at the same time knowing that I would soon start trying for a baby, but also that my DH is the breadwinner so any sick days would have to be covered by me. His job is simply more important to us.

I didn't go back to work, and I'm currently pregnant with DC2. I've been very sick, crushingly tired and struggling with having a toddler at home. I would have really struggled to go into work for the first trimester, or be productive. The thing that really gets to me though is that I have a lot to give the right employer, when the time comes, but I know that my years out to care for DCs will make it really hard to get a job. So many women I know would rather have taken a few years out, or gone part time whilst their DCs were young, but feared the repercussions for their careers. Every political party seems to think the solution to inequality is to make it easier for women to go back to work, and for some people that's brilliant. But what about women who would like to have a break to care for children? I understand the economics- the government wants women in work paying income tax, and their children to be in nursery creating jobs for others who will themselves pay income tax. But I would love to see a party suggest back to work schemes for Sahp's, incentives for companies to employ returners etc. For the status of caring to be raised. Sadly, because it's a role traditionally carried out by women it is all too often seen as unimportant, lazy, easy.

Sorry that was a little unclear. I meant that political parties all seem to want to facilitate getting back to paid work ASAP through childcare schemes. But for me personally, and many friends with young children, we'd rather spend the preschool years at home, knowing that when we were ready to return to work we would have support. I haven't had a lobotomy, I've just been on a different track for a few years.

It's called an erection

A bit insulting that you compare a guy getting a hard-on to the very serious mental heath problems brought on by pregnancy, menopause, and the menstrual cycle. But yeah whatever, how terrible and awful for them. The huge number of male world-leaders seem to be able to control theirs whenever they are in the public gaze though. Funny that.

I definitely think there is something in the 75 percent week thing. I think a lot of the adaptions that need to be made to suit women (and to be honest a lot of men) focus on introducing more flexibility to working practices and culture. Why are women so heavily penalised for taking maternity leave? It's a relatively short break compared to a woman's working lifespan yet some businesses won't even consider recruiting women if childbearing age.

Why are part timers so undervalued? They're still the same person with the same skills etc as when they worked FT and yet working PT is seen as a sign you're not committed.

Why is trying to continue bfing upon returning to work often not supported appropriately? Alex Jones (BBC presenter) recently said she felt she had to rush back to work after 3 months to make sure her job was secure and when she did there was no facilities to support bfing. This is from a relatively enlightened business and yet she felt no option but to return to work sooner than she was comfortable with and to give up bfing even though she wanted to continue. Installing a fridge and setting aside a room could have made a massive difference plus just adding some consideration that a bfing woman will need regular breaks to express. I bet a good proportion of society would view her as a bit of a snowflake if she had demanded these things.

Typing this out I realise more and more that what I'm advocating is flexibility that often just means deviating from the malecentric norm. A few additional breaks a day for the duration a woman is bfing is hardly asking for the moon on a stick.

Agree, maggie. It was bad enough in the past when women were confined to the home and seen to be incapable of entering the workplace. Now it's almost worse because women are expected to work and be financially self-sufficient but at the same time also expected to do all the care and emotional work too and if they don't work, they are considered lazy.

The problem like you say is that once you are out of work, it's hard to get back in. This shouldn't be the case. Why should it matter that someone had three years out? They're prepared to hire uni graduates with no work experience but they think that a woman with 15 years experience will suddenly lose all of her skills within a few years? Idiotic.

There are also so many jobs that don't need to be done inside the rigid 9-5 frame. They should offer flexibility, onsite childcare, the ability to bring your baby to work if you need to go in, shorter working hours, more jobs compressed into school hours etc. I think it would make a real difference.

Again, men have it easier, even if they do take time out to look after a child. It's more likely to be seen as 'sabbatical' and not have a detrimental impact on their career. Women on the other hand are presumed to lose all their skills as soon as they have even a short period of time off.

I saw something on twitter about two US university lecturers who were married and had a baby. There were a couple of times when they had been let down at short notice by childcare and took the baby to a lecture (they didn't want to let the students down by cancelling it). In both cases, the baby just slept in the corner. However, the feedback they got on student evaluation forms was massively different. The man was applauded and his lecture with the baby was called 'the highlight of the semester' while the female lecturer received feedback that she was unprofessional and should sort out her childcare better. Echoes the way that SAHDs are hailed as heroes just for looking after their children.

More musings (sorry) but could equality be achieved if employers were forced to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate women's biology in the same way that disability legislation works? So rather than just saying "though shall not discriminate", building in provision that would actually facilitate lots more women to work? Presumably in the long term keeping these women in the workforce and giving them a better chance to reach their potential would pay dividends for the taxpayer so adjustments could even be publicly funded.

The man was applauded and his lecture with the baby was called 'the highlight of the semester' while the female lecturer received feedback that she was unprofessional and should sort out her childcare

Similar happens to us. If DH takes a day to look after a sick kid he’s a hero. If I do I’m a slacker.

I think a lot of the content of previous posts could easily be taken by men as triumphant proof that women ARE less capable in the workplace, are inferior, and are slaves to their biology.
I was rather taken aback by some of it too, tbh. Normal periods and menopause are not at all incapacitating. If they are, then that is pathological and you need medical help, just as you would for any other medical condition that impacts your life.
Modern workplaces offer maternity and paternity leave, compassionate leave, carers leave, and workplace adaptations for disability, for both sexes.
My generation of feminists fought hard to get women into the workplace at all, and to be accepted as the equals (or, in many cases, the better!) of men. I worked full time as a widowed single parent, and it was a point of honour with me NOT to ask for any special treatment that might allow men to regard me, and by extension, all women, as lesser than men, or unable to function without help.
By all means campaign for caring workplaces that support all their staff, both male and female, but please don’t make out women to be fragile little flowers that can’t cope in the working world without a lot of help- we are not. We are tough as fucking nails!

@Babdoc
Your post pretty much sums up the attitude that frustrates me. Yes, some feminists did previously fight so women could be treated like men in the workplace. There is obviously a massive flaw in this approach... We are not men and cannot opt out of our biology, yet asking for the workplace to adapt to women is seen as weakness and an admission that we are inferior. Can you not see if we continue to play the game by the rules set by men to suit men most of us will lose and be seen as inferior whether we acknowledge our different biology or not?

We are indeed tough as nails. I agree with you on that one.