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?

Good system? My gran was beaten, raped , her voice silenced by that great system of a women at home. She spent some time in a refuge, but without a job she could not take her children and she didn't want to leave them with him. Although I suspect anyway that one of her daughters was also abused. She died young from alcohol abuse.

I remember she read the entire bible in secret because he did not approve.

A long time ago there was no concept of the 1950's family nightmare. Maiden aunts joined in the childcare. Kids joined in childcare. Children went to work aged 7. In richer families were palmed off to nannies and wet nurses ( see romeo &Juliet for how far back that goes ) Society and childcare has evolved and evolved.

Now, if a man turns violent and abusive we can walk away and take our precious children with us.

"It used to be that men and women married and had children.
Mum looked after the children as she was equipped to do so, while the husband went to work to provide for the family."

No, women have always gone out to work. Some of our mothers might have been housewives, but historically women have worked, it's just that they may have worked in the fields close to home or in cottage industries and had the children with them, or left them with older siblings as Midge mentions above.

Mum looked after the children as she was equipped to do so, while the husband went to work to provide for the family.

Only in fairly well-off families. Women have always worked, because they've needed to pay rent and buy food, and there have always been single-parent families, as well as families where all adults had to work - and children, though mostly, child labour laws mean that's no longer possible for the most part (fortunately.)

Vicky1990
The 1950s called - they want their attitudes back! Ha ha ha!

@Vicky1990
Oh dear! I think your point about some women feeling coerced into going back to work when they would rather be at home with their children may have grain of truth, but assuming the old 1950s model was perfect or indeed superior is well off the mark.

Women were regarded as completely inferior and openly discriminated against. If a woman wanted or needed to be a working parent then you were almost guaranteed to be paid less than your male counterparts and often only had access to less prestigious and worse paid jobs. At least women now have more opportunity to earn a decent, fair salary and build a career, which consequently provides them with more choice and freedom in their lives and means they're less likely to be stuck in abusive or just plain unhappy relationships.

I also just wanted to pick up on the whole "children come out worse" comment. Whilst I have some sympathy for the argument that the current system that tends to incentive childcare over parental care may not be ideal for all children, you do know half of these children will grow up to be women who may want a career and the opportunities this provides? Children don't stay children forever and for a model to be deemed successful it has to work for people at every stage of their lives, not just at the start.