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?

Agree totally bumpity- biology is not weakness, it is constructed as weakness by a patriarchal society. The workplace is oriented around a male worker. That is not to say that it is blind to biology. For instance, workplaces have toilets, you get a lunch break and other rest breaks. You go home at 5 or whatever, so that you can have some rest and recuperation. The workplace therefore responds to a human who needs to use the toilet, eat and rest. However, that appreciation of biology does not extend to female biology. Breastfeeding is just as natural as needing to use the toilet, yet it’s seen as lazy, inappropriate and out of place at work. We need to ask why this is. Why do we assume that the worker is a male with no caring responsibility. Why are women asked to either conform to this (by ensuring all care can be fitted around working hours and not interfere with them) or be effectively excluded from the workplace?

No, not all women or all men are as tough as nails. I think that is an incredibly harmful view and stops people from asking for help when they need it.

Needing help is not weakness and should never ever be framed as such. The fact that it currently is framed that way is a barrier to fairness and equity and a huge contributor to toxic masculinity.

And fuck it, you know what? Delicate little flowers may actually have valuable contributions to make instead of being dismissed as worthless because they aren't tough as nails.

And Babdoc sums it up nicely! Illustrating the problem...

Calling us disadvantaged frames the male as the standard unit and the female as inferior to the standard. Say 'differences' instead of 'disadvantages'.

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?

They should also be making it easier for parents to take a break for parenting. Men may be seen as having a sabbatical if they take a paternity break, but in other workplaces, they'll be pretty much blocked from having the option. (Some will not care enough to fight hard, though.) If we were more used to all parents taking breaks, it would be harder to discriminate against women on those grounds, and choices around taking breaks would be freer than they currently are.

I do not think we can improve the lot of women without also looking at men. There are certain jobs which need doing, such as childcare, but other than the biological requirements of pregnancy and breastfeeding, it doesn't have to be the mother.

However, there does also need to be more support for single parents - not everyone has the option anyway.

There are certain jobs which need doing, such as childcare, but other than the biological requirements of pregnancy and breastfeeding, it doesn't have to be the mother.

But it many cases the woman wants to do it, why should the role of nurturing children be seen as lesser, as something unworthy? Yet the role of earning money- even a low salary is better?

"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"

Because it's not as straight forward as thinking that someone doing 50% of the hours can achieve 50% of the results as someone working FT.

Women aren’t disadvantaged by their biology. It’s that the current system in western society is based around the needs of men.

To give you an example - my female Chinese and Japanese colleagues are given menstruation leave every month. This is an allowance of 3 days which they can take at any time / short notice and without explanation. Women are given ‘school leave’ of approximately 2 days per month for school functions / parents evenings which they can save to take during holidays if needed.

Mat leave is shorter yes (3 months paid rest unpaid as company provides maternity insurance there) BUT when you count just how much leave women get and how flexible it is, the benefits they receive are more valuable than the ones we get. Why do they get it? Because that is what competitors provide - there is no government legislation that dictates this.

The whole ‘1 year’ maternity leave is built around the woman having to take it, to the point where even now, men are disadvantaged or seen as weak for wanting to take part of it. We don’t get flexibility on our terms, we get flexibility on the basis that it makes our male partner’s life easier which is crap.

We are all going to work for longer.

We need to see parental leave for both sexes as a possible/probable short term part of a decades long working life.

Some very, very talented and qualified people work for/with me. If retaining them means they can go to 80% for a couple of years then I’m all for that. I find time and time again that the way to get the best out of a team is to treat them like adults.
If a team member has a personal issue and calls me to say that they need some time, my response has been ‘right: what are you working on that needs to be covered? Tell me, give me a briefing, we will cover this, go do your thing.’
I have been rewarded with teams who know they will receive flexibility when they need it and in return give it back. They will cover for each other, step up for stretch assignments, cover off hour meeting (3am to talk to Taiwan last week..) and do it willingly because they know it’ll be reciprocated.

Parental leave and part time is similar - it’s a short time in a long career. It can be covered with good management. It means you retain staff who have decades of experience and are qualified to the back teeth.

In countries like Sweden, I’d say a majority of parents work the shorter hours. And while it’s not perfect, and it’s not been happening too long yet, it’s changing the way people work and how employers work with employees.
Sweden remains more productive than the uk, so something must be working.

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.

Very good observation Peak. Yes, it is 100% true. Had so much of that in my 30s, when I "looked" like I could be having babies at any stroke of the clock. Did not matter that I was not interested in them.

I was going to mention this earlier, but didn't. So, very glad that someone raised it.

If you look like you 'could' have babies, they just assume you will have babies.

"In countries like Sweden, I’d say a majority of parents work the shorter hours. And while it’s not perfect, and it’s not been happening too long yet, it’s changing the way people work and how employers work with employees.
Sweden remains more productive than the uk, so something must be working."

Oh look, people are praising Sweden for gender equality measures again.

Oh look, people are praising Sweden for gender equality measures again.

And..?

@UpstartCrow
Calling us disadvantaged frames the male as the standard unit and the female as inferior to the standard. Say 'differences' instead of 'disadvantages'.
This is probably going to make me very unpopular but I standby the use of the word "disadvantage". Looking at the seven factors listed in my OP I struggle to think of any advantage they confer to a woman in the corporate world and to be honest most of these have questionable advantages when looked at in a wider context. I certainly would nominate my DH to take on all seven if it was possible. Also using the age old MN standard, if any or all of the seven factors were suddenly thrust upon men would most men be delighted or seriously unhappy? I honestly think most men would tick the opt out box for all seven

The Japanese and Chinese model may seek to mitigate against some of the disadvantages of women's biology but it doesn't stop them being a disadvantage. I think pretending otherwise is at the heart of the issue. It's almost like we are so keen to not be seen as inferior that we can't call a spade a spade. Women's biology is some areas will make it very difficult for women to compete with men without some adjustments however that does not render women inferior to men. We are more than just these elements of biology.

Sex equality is better in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries. They’re all very productive with good work life balances.

Is that a problem for you? I worked there for several years and had my first kid there. It’s a good system. It’s not perfect - the government has identified pension gaps, pay gaps, and equality gaps. They acknowledge they exist, they don’t fanny around NAMALTing. What they are doing is trying to close them - legislation to increase number of pappaledig days for example is on the horizon. Legislation for pension equality is in place with more to come and that will feed through (note: pensions take a while to feed through.) the pension gap for the demographic born early fifties is the main priority just now - they fell between two systems and have lower pensions as a result.

The attitude is no we aren’t perfect, there are still gaps, let’s legislate and society will follow. It’s a work in progress.

But do tell me how the whole of the Scandinavian and Nordic bloc is a bastion of sexism. I’ve been told that before on threads because there’s still a pension gap from forty years back 🤦🏻‍♀️

Just thought of a few more biological disadvantages although some are strongly linked to the original 7:

1. Miscarriages including physical and mental aftermath
2. Dealing with infertility. I understand that the vast majority of fertility procedures such as IVF etc are physically much harder on women than they are on men even if the cause of the infertility lies with the man?

10. Dealing with the consequence of contraception failure potentially including abortion or having an unplanned child and raising them alone.

"But do tell me how the whole of the Scandinavian and Nordic bloc is a bastion of sexism."

Not my point at all.

My point as I'm sure you're aware from previous threads - is that the gender gaps in certain professions eg nursing & STEM, and personality differences got BIGGER in Scandinavia despite their efforts at promoting gender equality.

At which the retort usually is something along the lines of "Oh but Scandinavia isn't perfect, they still have domestic violence"

So Scandinavia = bastion of equality, until you point out this had the opposite effect as intended and more women do women professions like nursing than elsewhere, lol

Your post makes no sense. What does ‘personality differences’ mean?

I agree with all that has been said so far. Why should women have to pretend that periods don’t happen.

On another note bollocks do men have 6 erections a day. And even if they do it’ll only be when they are teens, not working age men and is in no means comparable to a woman’s hormones.

"Your post makes no sense. What does ‘personality differences’ mean?"

Of course it doesn't

Personality is defined by the widely accepted "Big 5 personality model"

Turns out that as Countries become more egalitarian then the differences in personality as measured by the big 5 become bigger not smaller.

The theory was that more equality would make men and women more alike in personality, not more different

The differences are small, men and women are more alike than they are different, but they're not small enough to be irrelevant.

I've always thought Germaine Greer was right to say that feminism should be about "liberation" rather than "equality".

But I'm not entirely sure I agree that men don't have any comparable biological disadvantages.

Men don't tend to live as long as women.

Because they only have one X chromosome, they are more prone to certain diseases or disabilities caused by a faulty X chromosome, such as colour blindness, haemophilia or muscular dystrophy.

As for the ability to give birth, well, you could just as easily argue that that's a biological advantage, not a disadvantage. The human race doesn't need men to continue, it just needs a supply of stored sperm.

@hackmum
But women are more prone to a whole host of illnesses too and I thought the gap between life expectancy of the sexes was narrowing?
In jot sure it's entirely relevant anyway as the factors I mentioned in my OP are things that women face due to simply being women, they're not illnesses or diseases but simply part and parcel of being a woman. That's why I would argue that things you cite are not comparable as such?

Have you read the birth injuries thread? It's full of absolutely harrowing experiences. I doubt very much that men would agree to take on this kind of burden just to make them theoretically less dispensable.

Bumpitybumper OK I see where you are coming from and those are fair points - there's no way men would opt into birth injuries no matter how woke and egalitarian they claim to be.

I see what you're saying, OP, and I am very aware of the number of birth injuries women suffer. My point, really, is that if we lived in a more women-centred society, those things would have been addressed by now. Every year across the globe millions of women give birth. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of medical science to put an end to birth injuries - not to mention endometriosis, period pain etc etc. We live in a male-dominated society that is designed to treat men as the norm, or the standard. In the same way, people who use wheelchairs are disadvantaged by the fact that society is constructed around the needs of people who are able-bodied.

Not sure how much this adds to the debate, but this thread has reminded me of an enlightening trip to the pub with a (male) Professor of Gerontology (and two other blokes). He delighted in telling us that over his career he had found that his "female staff were just as clever as the males, and worked as hard, or probably harder... but they will drop sprogs." For that reason he always ensured he hired a (female) secretary in their fifties.

He was quite an unpleasant character, looking back.