Things Change:

[Endymion1]

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children. Having children and having the children survive to have their own children is how genes get passed along. Human babies are particularly helpless for an extended periods-of-time, so evolutionarily it makes sense that both mothers and fathers would have a desire to have children and to take care of them. Many people in our current society may feel that it is obvious that those feelings would naturally and biologically be stronger in mothers than in fathers, but that is not necessarily the case. Further, in our current society mothers do most of the childcare, but it is not certain that necessarily must be the case. Also, currently there is there is a wage gap, between women and men, but again it is not certain that has to be. In fact, this wage gap is narrowing. Prior to the 1960s women have been clearly and overtly discriminated against in terms of jobs and education. Laws were passed in the 1960s to make this discrimination more difficult. After that, not surprisingly, the wage gap decreased. There have also been other changes. Following is a summary of some of these changes in the United States.

Regarding the wage gap, women made 60.7% of what men made in 1960. This actually decreased to 57.6% in 1966, but shortly after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 it started to increase until it reached 81.6% in 2018, see here: www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html. The Women’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate increased from 28.6% in 1948 to 57.6% in 2016, while during the same period the Men’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate decreased from 71.4% to 53.2%. Thus, these rates narrowed from 42.8% in 1948 to 6.4% in 2016. These figures are for the US, but most likely are similar for the UK. See here: www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#LFPMotherChild.

A chart from the US Labor Department shows the Labor Force Participation Rate for Mothers by age of youngest child from 1975 to 2016. Of greatest interest is the increase of this rate for mothers whose youngest child is under 3. It went from 34.3% in 1974 to 63.1% in 2016. This could be due to women’s desire to be with their young children, instead of being at work for pay, decreasing (possibly due to a shifting of social norms or values). See here: www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#LFPMotherChild.

This chart from Pew Research shows there has been an increase in the percentage of households with a stay at home father from 2.0% between 1976 and 1979 to 3.5% between 2000 and 2009. See here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/17/more-men-on-the-daddy-track/. While that amount is still small the increase was 75%. And then this chart shows that the percentage of households where the mother worked full time and the father worked part-time or not at all increased from 2% in 1970 to 6% in 2015, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/how-american-parents-balance-work-and-family-life-when-both-work/ft_15-11-04_parenting-ft/. This suggests that feelings among mothers and fathers, regarding childcare is changing with fathers taking on more of the traditional mothering role and mothers taking on more of the traditional fathering role.

Here is a chart that shows that between 1989 and 2016 the percentage of fathers that do not work outside of the home because they are taking care of the home or family increased from 4% to 24% while during the same period the percentage of mothers doing the same decreased from 86% to 78%. While more mothers still stay home for that reason than men do, the percentages are converging, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/ft_19-06-10_fathersday_1/. And according to this graph between 1965 and 2016 the number of hours per week “Dads” spend on Childcare increased from 2.5 to 8; the number of hours per week “Dads” spend on housework increased from 4 to 10 and the number of hours “Dads” spend on paid work decreased from 46 to 43. During the same time the number of hours “Moms” (Mums) spend per week on Childcare increased from 10 to 14; the number of hours “Moms” spend on Housework decreased from 32 to 18 and the number of hours “Moms” spend on paid work increased from 9 to 25, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/ft_18-05-01_fathersday_time/. Further, according to a graph in this pew article within married couples 13% of women earned more than the man in 1980; 19% of women earned more than the man in 1990 and 23% of women earned more than the man in 2000. The figure for 2017 is 28% of women earned more than the man in married and cohabiting couples, see here: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-see-men-as-the-financial-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/. So, the percentage of women earning more than men in married couple has increased, at least between 1980 and 2000 and possibly even into 2017.

This graph from Pew Research shows a sharp increase in the fertility rate between 1950 (the earliest date shown) and the late 1950s, then a sharp drop off between the late 1950s and the 1970s and then a leveling off: www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FT_19.05.16_FertilityUpdate.png?w=640. This could be due to the introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s, which gave people more control over how many children they had, suggesting the either people’s desire to have children (possibly due to a shifting of social norms or values) had changed or that it wasn’t as strong as the earlier fertility rates indicated.

Things that change are not fixed so as women’s and men’s roles have changed, they are not fixed. That is biology is not destiny, meaning women and men are not chained to their roles by biology.

Could it be possible, taking into consideration, that more women now graduate from college than men that sometime in the future there could be a “reverse” wage gap with women earning more than men and then men being more likely to stay home and take care of the kids. I’m not predicting this will happen, I’m just urging people to be skeptical about claims that something is natural and biological and therefore unchangeable. Also, my position is that people take on the role that they want. If a woman wants to stay home and be a full time Mum that’s fine and if a man wants to stay home and be a full time Dad that is also fine.

For more information on change see “Women in history and an examination of gender norms:” here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_theory/3736953-Women-in-history-and-an-examination-of-gender-norms and kindly comment.

Tom,

Is that his question? The only question mark in the very long opening post was embedded in a link.

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children. Having children and having the children survive to have their own children is how genes get passed along

Astounding ! I never knew any of this. Thank goodness a man came along to explain.

Imo,

Sorry, I cba reading all that.

The question was will there be a reverse wage gap?

No. HTH!

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age

People?

You mean women.

Why the imprecise language? There are many factors beyond ovaries and age for a woman to become pregnant. Check out the MN boards about infertility!

Also can give birth is an odd phrase in this context. It kind of suggests you are specifying vaginal birth not Caesarian or even adoption.

Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children.

It is much easier to read if you use the simpler more precise common language men, women and the usual phrase to have children or get pregnant

Most women can get pregnant, but that does not mean that men do not want children, nor does that mean that one must be a woman to have a desire to take care of children.

The simpler language also shows up that you've forgotten that women cannot get themselves pregnant: men have to be involved. Usually by ejaculating sperm into the woman's vagina when she is fertile. There are a number of methods by which men can avoid getting women pregnant that are entirely within the man's control.

I read that OP, twice. Am still baffled.

Why ever did "Tom" feel the need to write that? He had the gall to translate the American "mom" for us silly little under educated British women as well as posting a string of links to a US stats organisation, some of which contradict others, without any analysis or context. Very sloppy, patronising and frankly ridiculous.

What the heck are you trying to say? You need to learn the art of self-editing. HTH.

Lucy,

Oh my god, I have just skim read the link he put to his other thread. The one he want us to read and critique. It is thousands of words!!! Apparently he needs women's unpaid labour on demand to help him defeat the patriarchy.

It smells like Tom has recently discovered that women can sometimes be as capable as men are at non-baby stuff and men can do baby care too. He has researched this amazing discovery. He has made a long list of women in history who were more than baby factories and some who loudly objected to their subjugation by men. Blimey. We had no idea.

This is further evidence that women are perhaps not all predestined to be dominated by men and the patriarchy.

Tom hopes to educate women into realising that they are worth more than being men's slaves and this realisation will cause us to step away from the domination by males that we've all been so keen on.

Cheers Tom. If only women had realised.

Have you considered doing these lectures on race? You have quoted US research on the sex thing. Did you know black people have been subjugated by white people in the USA? There are significant difference on average between outcomes for black and white people in the US. They need telling they can choose not to be oppressed and then racism will be fixed. TIA Tom.

Gosh.

Also, my position is that people take on the role that they want.

All evidence to the contrary.

Oh Tork, I'd missed the instruction to go to his other thread. it;s fucking gold over there

Tom appears to have mistaken FWR for plenty of fish:

Hi, I’m a cis-male and my name is Tom. My username is Endymion for mysterious reasons, I am retired, and my hobbies are history of art, watching dance, history of women etc., by favorite color is violet, no blue no green oh I guess red, no favorite animal, eggs, bacon, cheese are my favorite foods, was looking for a place where I could share my knowledge of women in history for people who would appropriate it

some excellent typos too

and he's been hanging around since November and still appears not to have learned a goddam thing.

truly you can take the man to water but you cannot make him shut up and actually listen to women

People with fucking ovaries are called girls or women, you numpty.

Imagine having the gall to come to a feminist board to reach 'borderlines' on how they don't have to have babies.

I'd like to laugh about the reverse wage gap, but it's just made me angry.

Thanks for mansplaining mate.

Behold!

for people who would appropriate it

Best. Malapropism. Ever.

I needed a laugh and Tom, has provided it tonight 😂

Lucy,

I hope I don’t start signing work emails with a wonderfully misplaced comma on Monday 🤪

VortexofBloggery, I started posting on Feminist Theory back in November and I commented on some topics here. Thanks for asking.

Mockers, I also don’t feel that a reverse wage gap is likely as I feel things will become more equal.

Bernard thanks for your thanks. Also, I am a feminist and I do respect women.

Mel, that happens at times.

To the others, I’m not sure what the problem is. Through so much of history those in charge (men) have been trying to justify keeping women as second-class citizens by telling people that is the nature of women. During the 19th century it was claimed that women were less indigent than men because women had smaller brains. What inspired me to write this was the thread “Women vs Capitalism – The biology argument.” In it, it was stated that “. . . she [Vicky Pryce] quotes one leading economist as saying that the reason the gender pay-gap is so large is because of biology – the woman’s natural choice to give birth and then, raise children which ultimately takes them out of the workplace for significant periods of time.” I strongly disagree with that quote and I want to say that I do and why. Is there anyone here who agrees with that quote or disagrees with me? The first four commenters were positive. It doesn’t seem that anyone disagrees with me, so what is the big deal? People have spent decades discussing all of that, but it is still a problem. I am not here to instruct anyone to do anything, I’m not asking any question and I put my name there to be polite.

Tom,

www.theonion.com/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-moveme-1819569515

Tom, honestly, I think you mean well. But I also think you need to do a bit more reading and maybe asking questions of women, rather than presenting us with enormously long, rambling posts that have been covered elsewhere, exhaustively, over decades in Basic Feminism. It's also unnecessary to come and tell women about Feminism and What It's Like to be a woman. See?

Scrimshaw, I do mean well, thank you, but I am not telling women what it is like to be a woman and if anyone finds the posts long and rambling then don't read them. I find learning about women in history very interesting and I thought others would also.

Tom,

Tom is not interested in an exchange of ideas, this is a one way thread.

Crack on Tom. I am sure you are a fascinating study.

OK. Opening with Most people born with ovaries can give birth when reaching a certain age, but that does not mean that people who are not born with ovaries do not want children, nor does that mean that one must have been born with ovaries to have a desire to take care of children was possibly a mistake ANYWHERE, but most certainly was a mistake on fem chat.

What if I were to address an issue close to your heart with "People with testicles..." I mean, why?

As Monty Python famously said, "it's people like you what cause unrest."

Oh god, you again.

Could you be concise? Could you state what you want from posters here? No.

Tom likes to tell people stuff.
Tom does not understand conversation.
Tom is the pub bore (even when addressing subjects that many of us could and do find interesting, in other contexts).

Testing do you disagree with anything I wrote lets have an exchange of ideas.

Fleetsum, is that the only problem you have. Is there anything you disagree with me about.

Tom