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?

Yes Offred but the OP is talking about biology. At this point it is inevitable that bearing a child involves harm of some kind to the mother. Even a healthy pregnancy involves discomfort, pain and likely a permanently changed body, at the very least.

Science may change this eventually, but we’re probably hundreds of years off that. If humanity lasts that long, which it currently appears unlikely to

Not when it comes down to having children anyway...

Anything less is simply accepting the narrative that having children ‘just does’ disadvantage women...

I do know what the OP means in theory, but I don’t see any practical way to acknowledge women’s disproportionate work in creating a child without actually disadvantage women

Disadvantaging

Raising a child should not disadvantage women more than men, and this is where government and changes in social attitudes can help. But actually bearing a child does disadvantage women, of course it does, no matter what rules we put in place or attitudes we try to foster...

More women should be aware re the physical risks of childbearing TBH but I think this is a slight tangent...

Is it reasonable that women should not get adequate support to recover? That women should not get adequate healthcare? That women should be potentially disadvantaged for the rest of their lives re having the resources they need to live/have a good standard of living?

I’m pretty sure I’m preaching to the converted here TBH but we don’t need to pretend that childbirth has zero effects, it’s just the needs that it creates need to be acknowledged and provided for to prevent women being materially disadvantaged for unnecessary ideological reasons.

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

or cynically they realise they don't have any potential carers for their old age

Is it reasonable that women should not get adequate support to recover? That women should not get adequate healthcare? That women should be potentially disadvantaged for the rest of their lives re having the resources they need to live/have a good standard of living?

Yes, of course I think all that is reasonable. That’s exactly what I was saying 🙄

No, no, I know sloth... I’m saying that’s the disadvantaging part, not physiological consequences of childbirth, the approach re accommodating them.

No-one is trying to say women don’t suffer physiological consequences, simply that they are disadvantaged by them not being recognised/accommodated.

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.

That's what I thought you were saying.

There needs to be a society-wide recognition of the care (and reproductive) economy and its effect on women's capacity to be equal economic actors as men. But instead we get a trope of single mothers being a drain on resources and women being objects of abusive social policy.

At some point, for women's liberation, we have to acknowledge that not every contribution to the economy comes in measurable GDP economic growth.

It's so fundamental that nobody even tries to address it.

At some point, for women's liberation, we have to acknowledge that not every contribution to the economy comes in measurable GDP economic growth.

It's so fundamental that nobody even tries to address it.

I am :)

It's not rocket science - the solution has been implemented successfully in organisations but because we have small brains in positions of power (men who think with their penises mainly), who don't have the thinking nor the incentive to change the way things have operated historically.

The only way change will occur seems likely through a breakdown but we need to be in positions to provide answers when that occurs - because as we have seen, yet another trance of men will undoubtedly step up and promise solutions, get elected then deliver nothing new except to their own pockets

@SlothSlothSloth
I think the only kind of compensation that could sensibly be offered would be financial. If a man gets (especially an unmarried) woman then there should be an obligation for the man to provide a reasonable contributution to cover any loss of earnings or costs the mother incurs as a result of being pregnant and giving birth. I accept that this could be very complicated to calculate especially with regards to long term impact of things like maternity leave etc but I think it could be a starting point and would be better than what we have at the moment where a man can contribute sweet FA. Isn't it in reality an extension of child support through forcing men to pick up some of the costs not only when the child is here but also when it is in utero/coming into the world?

@LangCleg
Yes, women are biologically not the same as men and therefore are capable of making different contributions that cannot be calculated using traditional metrics. The cost to women of producing children is very real and measurable however the feat of growing and birthing a whole new human seems to be worth very little.

There are definitely biological issues that hit only women. But I'm currently pretty grateful for my own relative health compared with DH's. He seems to have a whole raft of health problems that cause GPs and consultants to shrug and say, 'Well, the main risk factors are that you're male and you're tall, sorry.'

That was a bit off topic, apologies.

Sloth I do think our current culture is very hostile to childless by choice women, women are expected to procreate. Yes, it would be good if women thought more about (and were told more about) the impact of having children and could make a more informed decision, without facing hostility for deciding to be child free.

Completely agree with Lang too

At some point, for women's liberation, we have to acknowledge that not every contribution to the economy comes in measurable GDP economic growth.

@Lancelottie
Sorry to hear about your DH's health, however isn't that more luck of the draw type thing? Men and women are predisposed to different illnesses and conditions that are unrelated to reproduction. I think illnesses and conditions that occur in an otherwise healthy woman as a result of reproduction should be viewed slightly differently.

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

I don’t think I need to be compensated for giving birth to my children.

Better maternity pay, actual decent paternity leave for dh and child care that costs less than my mortgage would be far more beneficial.

I think illnesses and conditions that occur in an otherwise healthy woman as a result of reproduction should be viewed slightly differently

Why? I’m not being goady just genuinely wondering why a birth injury is more worthy of treatment than another medical condition.

Sloth I do think our current culture is very hostile to childless by choice women, women are expected to procreate. Yes, it would be good if women thought more about (and were told more about) the impact of having children and could make a more informed decision, without facing hostility for deciding to be child free.

Yes, agree, and while I wish women would think the consequences of children through properly, I acknowledge our society does make it EXTREMELY difficult to do this in a relatively impartial way.

I’m now nearing the end of my thirties so my window for motherhood is soon to close, or may already have, and I still can’t decide if I truly want a biological child (already have an older DSS, but no experience of babies) or if I’m just terrified of missing out on something that’s been falsely touted as an “essential” part of womanhood. It’s so hard. There is such a clear stigma, or a feeling of pity, towards older childless women. I have even felt that pity towards them myself, despite the fact I’m fast becoming one of them and I don’t feel myself deserving of pity. The propaganda is so strong. And so many facts are deliberately concealed.

@ConstantlyCold
But they're not just your children are they? That's the whole point, they are both of your children. If he chose to leave you at the point of conception his rights to the children would not necessarily lessen but his responsibility to support you through pregnancy, birth and the aftermath would.

ok, our children (if I’m honest mine / our doesn’t really make much difference to me).

If he chose to leave you at the point of conception his rights to the children would not necessarily lessen but his responsibility to support you through pregnancy, birth and the aftermath would

So what are you actually proposing? It sounds like payment for reproducing.

I was very struck by the unfairness of it all when my twins were small.

Pregnancy was very hard on me physically, I was very unwell and my health has been shot to pieces since. My body is a mess, my hormones are a mess. Birth was physically and mentally traumatic and I’m still dealing with that. My husband got to see our babies being born, I didn’t get to lay to eyes on them for seven hours. I’ve had postnatal depression and anxiety, I pumped for 7 months, I carry most of the emotional burden and mental load.

DH got to have sex once and now has two kids.

It doesn’t seem fair does it? Can’t be helped obviously but a little acknowledgement goes a long way. Fortunately my husband is very appreciative of what I’ve been through in order for us to have children.

As a society we need to stop giving the impression women can have it all by going to work AND having children. And stop making being a sahm seem like a lesser option. Or that going back to work is somehow the more feminist choice. At least that's the impression I was given (may not apply to everyone). We need better ways for mums to work from home. And boys need to be brought up to recognise the issues their mum's and sisters and daughter have to deal with. It wasn't until I actually had a child that I realised my ideas counted for precisely zero as my biology trumped that.

I saw someone say on here once tbat they disliked being a mum but would loved to have been a dad.

@ConstantlyCold
Would you be opposed to a future father being forced to contribute towards the loss of earnings and general costs incurred by the mother that were associated with carrying and giving birth to his baby?

But they're not just your children are they? That's the whole point, they are both of your children.

They're also society's children. And society must have children. So the women having them are as much a necessity to a growing economy as the entrepreneurs. This understanding is what it is needed at macro economic level.