Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Things Change:

158 replies

Endymion1 · 12/01/2020 17:13

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,

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 21:31

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

It's kind of a bad start isn't it?

I didn't get any further than people with ovaries because I find that disrespectful and demeaning precisely because you'd not be taken seriously if you referred to men as 'testicle barers' or 'penis endowed people' etc etc.

Since respecting women is somewhat central to feminism, anything that comes next is pretty irrelevant.

The whole post is really a declaration of 'look how enlightened I am about women's issues' to a bunch of women with the expectation of women to fawn all over. Its virtue signalling bullshit. And the initial remark about ovaries shows up the shallowness from the very first line.

Virtue signalling whilst simultaneously disrespecting women is a skill that never fails to amaze me.

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 18/01/2020 21:33

Oh fgs Biscuit

FleetsumNJetsum · 18/01/2020 21:36

I disagree that women can be re-labelled "people with ovaries". You lost me there, I will not put up with that utter bollocks. Therefore I disagreed with the idea that I must continue reading.

I think you could possibly go away and rewrite your ideas, in a way that does not piss off your intended audience. I promise, I would read it.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 21:38

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

Oh you're so funny!

Its the equivalent of being the girl from St Martins college in the Supermarket for feminism.

Tubbytwo · 18/01/2020 21:38

Tom, what’s happened to your teeny weeny comma? Did it drop off? Would you like us ‘people with ovaries’ to help you find it? 🤭

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 21:39

Red, I meant nothng to be disrespectful and i don't expect anyone to fawn over me.

Tom,.

OP posts:
Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 21:45

I didn't write anything that is disrespectful, but the hostilty seems to be about more than the first line. What I wrote is scienficly correct. No one has explained what the big deal is.

Tom,

OP posts:
ScrimshawTheSecond · 18/01/2020 21:46

if you referred to men as 'testicle barers'

Surely that applies only to some certain males with rather niche proclivities? Grin

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 21:47

Fleet I didn;t re label anyone I wrote what is scienfically correct. If I rewrote it without the first line would it be different.

Tom,

OP posts:
FleetsumNJetsum · 18/01/2020 21:47
Biscuit
RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 21:48

Then why refer to 'people with ovaries' and expect to be taken seriously?

'Women' is not a hard word to say.

Shall I start just referring to you as Bepenised rather than Tom or Endymoin?

If you don't get why it's offensive or why cis is offensive to women you are going to get short schrif and quite rightly.

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 21:52

Scrimshaw, people with testicles is not disrespectful. In fact it seems to me to be clearer based on what I have read here regarding trans women. If I referred to women able to give birth I could be accusted of including trans women. It seems that no one disagrees with me.

Tom,

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 21:52

OK it's scientifically correct to refer to Tom as a Penis Attachment or a Testicle Bodied.

I can go with that, if that's the way Tom wants to play it.

Tom, is this OK with you that we can all refer to you like this?

Oh scratch that, we shouldn't ask your permission to do that, we should just get on with calling you testicle bodied seeing as you think it's OK to walk into a discussion forum which is predominantly women and call them all by their ovaries.

RuffleCrow · 18/01/2020 21:53

I don't think the testosterone level of the average man makes him particularly suited to the care of young children, sorry OP. Maybe if men as a class could stop raping and killing people, women might be more inclined to leave the majority of care of the most vulnerable to them. Yes namalt but enough are and they don't come with warning signs on their heads.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 21:55

whispers

just because it's technically scientific does not mean its respectful or in any way OK.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 21:56

Also, I am a feminist and I do respect women

of course you do Tom, of course you fucking do

that's why you're here doing the equivalent of bellowing at us from the palace balcony

has it occurred to you that your stunning insight may not be entirely new to the posters here?

Bernard,

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 21:58

Red I chose the way i wrote the first sentence because of all of the comments about trans women and i didn't want someone complaining that i was including trans women. It would be disrespectful to call me penis barer, instead of my name, but I didn't do that. What I wrote was correct. I am writing fast now so kindly excusre any misspelling or topos.

Tom,

Tom,

OP posts:
Tubbytwo · 18/01/2020 21:58

Tommy Testicles, your spelling and punctuation are deteriorating even further 😟 How long is it going to take you to realise your ‘wisdom’ isn’t appreciated here? You need to actually type something intelligent in order to get the attention you so obviously crave.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 22:00

It's funny, how several of us have said 'ovary havers' is disrespectful and 'penis attachment' here has straight out told us, no its OK because its simply scientific.

No mate, we've just said that no, we find it utterly disrespectful. Correcting us is merely disrespecting us a second time by ignoring what we've just said and telling us we are incorrect.

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 22:03

Bernard, I am sure it is not new to everyone, but I don.t beleive that some people did not learn something new.

Tom,

OP posts:
FleetsumNJetsum · 18/01/2020 22:03

If I referred to women able to give birth I could be accusted of including trans women. It seems that no one disagrees with me

What? If we ovary-havers know anything, it is that transwomen cannot give birth. Long day I admit, but what am I missing here??

I'm off to the pub

Tubbytwo · 18/01/2020 22:04

Tommy is that you or your testes typing now?

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2020 22:07

The word is 'women'.

Only women can give birth.

If women can not define themselves using the word women, they lose so much agency and power in many part of life. They lose the ability to discuss issues. It excludes large sections of the population to use word salad and euphemisms.

Men are not losing their language in the same way. The loss of language to women as gender replaces sex is a fundamentally important thing which underpins women's rights.

Endymion1 · 18/01/2020 22:07

Tubby, so what I said was currect and people agreed with it, but It is not wanted.

Red what people have written goes beyond the first line. If it was just the first line then there would not be so much hostility.

Tom

OP posts:
lazylinguist · 18/01/2020 22:07

Look Tom, if you've spent any time lurking on the MN feminist board before posting, you will know that it's full of very intelligent women who have knowledgeable conversations about women, their biology, their position in society and their history. I just can't imagine how you think that your vague, pompous, waffly posts are a useful addition. And starting a post about how women's lives are not determined by their biology by calling them 'people with ovaries' is just Hmm.