Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
midcenturylegs · 18/01/2020 23:25

This has brightened up my evening. One entitled man deciding we are not really that oppressed, everything is fine for women now. I suspect that Tom (or Tilly?) has never had children, either.

NeurotrashWarrior · 18/01/2020 23:29

Tom,

Men can't be feminists.

Becca,

Btw, I had a lot of sloe gin tonight. In a slampagne. And some new awesome cocktail recipes.

Wrybread · 18/01/2020 23:34

Ooh, any particularly delicious recipes?

ErrolTheDragon · 18/01/2020 23:57

Thanks for the link to the updated Rules, RedToothBrush - I'd not seen 15 - 17 before.

(And as 14 was mine, I'll shut up now as I CBA to wade through the OP, I was reading the thread in reverse order)

FleetsumNJetsum · 19/01/2020 00:00

Hey, I've just come back from the pub. Found this thread still swirling.

Tom, are you willing to be a feminist ally? If so, be that.

Are you willing to rewrite your thoughts using respectful language? You say it is truthful because it is scientific, but I am not my organs.

You do keep asking if we are done being rude. But you (sorry, but this is true, not trying to be hateful) have been unbelievably rude and if I have to spell it out I may as well not bother. You can do it. You can treat us as equals. Come on. Try. I know you can do it.

Creepster · 19/01/2020 00:23

I don’t think Tom even understands what he is trying to say, so don’t expect too much from the bepenised one, RedToothBrush.

I suppose that is to be expected when a male self IDs as a feminist specializing as a woman's historian and then copy pastas from Wikipedia.

theyrazedparadise · 19/01/2020 04:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 19/01/2020 07:32

oh i do enjoy the bewildered incomprehension of a man meeting a bunch of women who simply will not be told

lovely start to the morning!

namewhatname · 19/01/2020 08:08

A great start to the morning, being metaphorically patted on the head and told about my place in the world by someone so much more au fait with it than I am. Here's a whole packet Biscuit

Datun · 19/01/2020 08:52

Tubbytwo

You're cracking me up 🤣

Beerincomechampagnetastes · 19/01/2020 09:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Qcng · 19/01/2020 09:30

Isn't this all getting a bit "man-hatey" here?

Tom made a grave error, in referring to women as "people with ovaries", and didn't seem to apologize, or if he did it was buried in some waffle, but I believe he's trying to be more feminist in thinking, so surely that's a good thing?

When people with testes try to explore feminist ideas, I personally think the best approach is to engage positively, rather than put them off forever, otherwise feminists end up accused of just being people with ovaries who simply hate people with testes.

Tom, I think the general consensus in feminism is that men can be feminist allies, but not feminists, because they have never known and will never know the experience of being female.

Keep reading, learning, don't be put off.

LangCleg · 19/01/2020 09:37

Here's some feminism 101 for people with testes:

No is a complete sentence.

Don't do boundary violation.

Here is some feminism 101 for people with ovaries:

Don't tell women to caretake people with testes (especially when they have become testerical on being told no).

RedToothBrush · 19/01/2020 09:50

Qcng I present you with rule 12.

12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.

LouMumsnet · 19/01/2020 09:51

Morning everyone. Thanks for the reports. We're not entirely sure what the OP is trying to achieve here but it doesn't feel particularly helpful - and we're here to make parents' lives easier, after all, so we're going to take the thread down now.

Hope that makes sense. Peace and love.

Tubbytwo · 19/01/2020 09:52

I agree with Lang Cleg. I suspect the OP trolling and I won’t be told to ‘play nicely’ with him simply because he claims to be a penis haver. He has come here and repeatedly insulted women so we have told him, in various ways, that we will not stand for that behaviour. Why should we?

LangCleg · 19/01/2020 10:00

Ah bums, Lou. This was a fun thread!

LouMumsnet · 19/01/2020 10:05

Sorry to disappoint, @LangCleg Grin

If folk wish it to remain up in order to continue the discussion, that's fine - but we will have to zap a few personal attacks directed at the OP first....

TorkTorkBam · 19/01/2020 10:09

I'd like to see the thread stay up. It is an excellent example of male entitlement. I fear younger women are prone to feeling they have to fawn over these types. I feel it is healthy for lurkers to see women taking him down in a very British way.

TorkTorkBam · 19/01/2020 10:11

In my head I see Tom as PC Principal from Southpark.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 19/01/2020 10:12

Tom,

What is it you would like to learn about from women?

Tubbytwo · 19/01/2020 10:13

Lou, the whole premise of the OP’s first post is to patronise women so will that be taken down too? Or do we have to accept that our lot in life is to be insulted by people with penises? Not trying to be confrontational towards you but I’m worried about double standards creeping in.

Mockers2020Vision · 19/01/2020 10:14

In my head I see Tom as PC Principal from Southpark.

I see him as the old duffer with the Amazon Alexa.

SorryAuntLydia · 19/01/2020 10:18

You could maybe take a look at Tom’s other amazing threads. Like

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/films/3788002-Females-and-Films

SorryAuntLydia · 19/01/2020 10:23

And if you want to get to know Tom better he’s helpfully included a bio in this thread (yes really). Not sure Tom has ever really been taught to read the room. Grin

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_theory/3736953-Women-in-history-and-an-examination-of-gender-norms?pg=1

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 and I found you through google search. I’m a scientific romantic type of guy, who likes learning about quarks, leptons and bosons, but also like to imagine that nature is controlled by fairies and pixies and sprites and I like to look on the positive side of things. My earliest ancestors who I know the names of were all born in Europe, although I strongly suspect that going back more than 50,000 years I had ancestors who were born in tropical Africa. I’ve been married for 38 years, have two children and five grandchildren and was brought up in one of the Abrahamic religions. I am old enough to remember the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn. Kindly say hello in return.