To think men get a fantastic deal here?

[Bumpitybumper]

I've previously started a thread on this board about the biological disadvantages of being a woman however I would love some thoughts on the below which is something I have been thinking about lately.

From puberty females are burdened by their reproductive system. Alongside mensturation and associated conditions, women are also usually pumping their bodies full of hormones to control fertility (or their periods). Then a woman falls pregnant and has to run the gauntlet of a whole array of nasty pregnancy symptoms and conditions before giving birth whilst adhering to the whole not drinking or eating restricted foods advice. Some women breeze through birth but many end up with horrendous experiences and complications that can leave long term or permanent mental and physical damage. In the aftermath most women will attempt to breastfeed and potentially struggle with associated pain and sleep deprivation, not to mention feelings of guilt/failure if it all doesn't work out. Finally at the end of women's reproductive years they then must go through the menopause which can wreak havoc of women's lives and health.

Men on the other hand will mostly have sex and then be in a (hopefully) supportive role for the rest.

Basically biology dictates that men have the far easier ride. If women moan about this they are usually met with responses of "well that's just the way it is" and of course that is ultimately true, but yet the assumption that any babies that are the result of such a biased biological process are equally the father's and mother's is surely questionable? Yes genetically the child is 50:50 but surely more acknowledgement should be given to who has actually sacrificed the most and had basically taken on responsibility for the whole process?

Why is it assumed men can benefit equally from the fruits of the elements women's reproductive biology that ultimately disadvantage us?

Well, TBH I don’t think it is about women and men and who has the right to the child. It’s about the child and their experiences in childhood.

This thing of 50/50 seems to have shifted public consciousness back to ownership of children as property. This happened in Australia too when they introduced it before us. Lessons were not learned from how badly it went there.

Children benefit from supportive, present, responsible and involved parents who prioritise their needs. 50/50 does not encourage this, it encourages treating children as property.

Where would we be if we shifted consciousness towards viewing children as the primary property of the mother? Not a very good place IMO.

This thing of men asserting ownership without involvement, support, concern or responsibility is a regressive step for sure though.

You do get a minority of men who exercise parental rights in order to spite the mother and cause trouble rather than because they genuinely want a relationship with the child and want what's best for them.

It should always be about what's best for the child rather than what's fair to the parents

Yes I agree about the need to take a child centric view but how can we address and reflect the biological imbalance in the whole reproductive process?

It just seems so unfair. Women are lumbered with the vast vast majority of the problems and burdens associated with having children but this is totally not rewarded, meanwhile men unhampered with all these issues are able to continue their lives pretty much unencumbered by the whole thing.

Ewww what is wrong with you? Children are people not possessions!

Also worth printing out that the biological imbalance didn't prevent my mother from abusing me and it didn't mean that my father wasn't a bloody marvelous parent. If I had been forced to see my mother just because she gave birth to me that would have been cruel.

If it were a minority of men then women wouldn’t still be disproportionately responsible for children.

This isn’t just about the minority of families going through a high conflict break up. It’s about the fact that though what people say they believe about gender roles has changed over time, the reality of people’s actual lives hasn’t.

Women still disproportionately have home and care responsibilities even though more are in some kind of paid employment and too many people of both sexes think earning a lot of money = being a good father.

Well, we could start properly acknowledging reproductive and care labour as vital and necessary for the economy - and disadvantageous to women's position as independent economic actors - even though most of it does not contribute to GDP.

Is this the sort of thing you are getting at, OP?

Men should take responsibility for being involved with their children’s lives and the lives of the mothers of their children.

But yes, re what Lang wrote. That is fundamental.

I don’t know if that’s what op was getting at but it came across as ‘women do the hard work, women should get the kids’ which would make things worse for everybody in the current context.

Interesting thing from aus, IIRC despite pursuing shared care orders re high conflict cases, the arrangement almost exclusively resulted in reversion to 99% primary female carer when the men CBA.

OP, how would you suggest that this imbalance is addressed?

Women are lumbered with the vast vast majority of the problems and burdens associated with having children but this is totally not rewarded I guess it's 'rewarded' in the sense that in most families women spend more time with their DCs, whether by choice or the default position as primary carer. The pattern of care is usually continued after divorce - most of the families i know, the DCs visit dad once a week, not 50/50. The only families I know where the dad has more time than the mum, in both cases the mum is (allegedly) an alcoholic and doesn't seem to make much effort to fulfil her parental duties, even for the small amount of time already agreed, let alone 50/50. Certainly in one of these cases, the dad was already the main carer before the split, the other I don't know.

I would think that EOW and one midweek is a more common arrangement than 50/50. But tbh if both parents are equally capable and involved, 50/50 is fairer on both parents, giving them both an equal opportunity to build a life both with and without their DCs.

Whether it's best for the DCs probably depends on a lot of factors, including how close to school/friends both parents are, whether they commit to similar parenting/discipline/spending etc and whether there are other DCs/step parents involved at either house. So many factors.

My DCs see their dad once a week on whichever day he can commit that week. It means I've had to bank on having them here with me every day for the past 6 years, as I never know which day they won't be here.

My work prospects have been hampered by having 3 DCs and being the sole parent at weekends (most of the jobs I was interested in involved weekend work, as does XH's job) so if the 'reward' for me giving up my body to have them was to also give up my career prospects and be here for them 24/7, job done!

Lots of men don’t get a great deal either. Taking out the controlling abusive ones who use children as weapons there is a huge number of men who get to middle age and are sad about not being close to their children having bought the lie that financial contribution = parenting.

(Not saying this is in any way a fraction of the stuff endured by women BTW)

@LangCleg
Yes partly. I guess what I was thinking is society and ultimately men should be more mindful of the imbalance that exists and seek ways to redress it rather than it being seen as "just one of those things". I think the assumption that men are equal parents to women is probably essential for a lot of reasons postera have mentioned above but I believe this makes men feel a sense of entitlement and lose any impetus to change things. They get all the benefits and very few pitfalls. Conversely whilst women are battling lots of these biological issues, men are busy building careers (and pensions) without these distractions. The men get to have the children and the career progression at the same time, whilst most women are slowed by at least one element of their reproductive biology.

Just for the record, I'm not saying that the father should be cut out off the children's lives or that the children should be the possession of the mother.

IMO the economy must be restructured to make it possible and men will need to be compelled to change their behaviour via certain changes to legislation... big authoritarian meant that I am...

*meany

@MyRelationshipIsWeird
Oh undoubtedly the split of childcare responsibilities can definitely adversely impact women but I was getting more at the "mandatory" biological elements that even a mother in a completely equitable arrangement with her DP couldn't get around.

If a woman had a ‘completely equitable’ relationship then she would benefit from support re those burdens. That women don’t have a ‘completely equitable’ relationship with the state would still be a problem.

Simply doing a reasonable amount of childcare is not enough IMO for a relationship to be considered ‘completely equitable’.

@Offred
Yes. I guess at the heart of the issue as I see it is due to necessity the man automatically gets the right to be an equal parent to the children should he choose, however the man is not required to truley compensate (as much as this is possible) the woman for the fact they are burdened with the biological elements and associated problems that make the children possible in the first place.

For example if an unmarried couple was to split shortly after a baby was born, the man could be eventually granted 50:50 custody whilst the woman would have no mechanism to get some compensation for the financial, physical and mental toll that she has paid in order to have the child in the first place.

I just don’t know what form the “compensation” you talk about would take, though? If it means giving women more time with the child by default - we’ll that already kind of happens, most men do not have 50:50 care of their child, and this actually holds many women back a lot. If you mean forcing the father to take the child the majority of the time to give the mother more free time, then this is not something all women want either.

In practical terms, what do you mean by compensation?

I don’t think ‘compensation’ is the right term TBH... I think it is about ‘recognition’ and ‘accommodation of needs’ TBH...

Compensation is usually given to right a wrong once a person has already been harmed or disadvantaged... it would be better if women were not harmed or disadvantaged in the first place.

Agree that women get a much, much tougher time with childbearing and rearing and some of this is inevitable due to biology, though we could do far as a society to mitigate the most damaging effects. On an individual level, I would encourage all women to think very, very carefully about whether having children will actually benefit their lives. Far too many seem to do it just because it’s the “next life stage” and then be utterly blindsided by all the negative effects you mention.

Yes, that’s true but IMO that’s a bit of a non-solution...

If we were wanting to be really serious then why women have children would be utterly irrelevant.

Women should not be disadvantaged by rape, contraceptive failure, naivety or personal choices IMO.