Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
LouMumsnet · 19/01/2020 10:29

Hi @Tubbytwo - good question. Just to explain, we always delete personal attacks because they're against TGs.

We're happy to leave the thread standing because, as previous posters have said, there are some eloquent arguments on here from MNrs and it would be a real shame to lose them. In order to leave those standing, we have to leave the OP too or the thread as a whole wouldn't make much sense.

The OP won't be back to continue the discussion because we've suspended their account - like many of you, we weren't sure they were posting with good intentions.

Thanks all.

Tubbytwo · 19/01/2020 10:31

Thanks for the explanation Lou 🙂

lottiegarbanzo · 19/01/2020 10:37

OMG, I've banged my head on Tom's wall during one of his previous threads but even I thought that intro was a pastiche!

lottiegarbanzo · 19/01/2020 10:56

To me, Tom is a case study in the difference between information and education. He spews 'facts' but has no skills in critical analysis, in examining the interplay between theory and example, or in making and testing an argument.

I've met many people like that. Most but not all men. I've always characterised them as 'blokes who tell you things' as that's all they do.

That style of knowledge, I characterised as 'taxi driver education', after a number of experiences of this style of interaction with taxi drivers, especially as a young woman. It always went something like 'what do you do / what are you going there for?' 'I'm studying this / working in / going to a conference in that', 'Oh, I read a book about / watched a documentary about something to do with that once... followed by 10 minutes of him telling me about the one book he'd read, always espousing its focus or argument as THE definitive focus or argument on that subject, to the extent that they'd argue against me if I tried to suggest that there were other views, it was more complex, or knowledge had moved on.

I've met plenty of people who pursue and display 'taxi driver knowledge', including very intelligent people who are capable of pursuing advanced educaton but didn't, so just haven't learnt basic critical skills.

LangCleg · 19/01/2020 11:02

Sorry to disappoint, @LangCleg**

I'm only saying that because I am very proud of my autocucumber joke!

Datun · 19/01/2020 11:03

I'm only saying that because I am very proud of my autocucumber joke!

You should be. It was awesome.

LangCleg · 19/01/2020 11:07

Is it bad to confess that I'm sitting here pissing myself laughing - and getting the side eye from the #notmynigel - because the temptation to post the grey rock tissue holder image is almost overwhelming but I don't want Lou to spank me?

Sorry, Lou! I will be good. Promise!

KTJean · 19/01/2020 12:09

Grey rock tissue holder image?

Sounds intriguing, but I just want to say I am sorry I did not get to thank Tom for his kind welcome to me earlier - I presume it was to his thread and not the boards as I have been on MN for almost a decade on and off. However this has saved me wasting time posting my thoughts on

A)I am fairly sure the slogan ‘biology is not destiny’ came from second wave feminism- ie it is at least 40-50 years old, and the understanding that women need not be hindered or discriminated against because they are female is even older - I am also fairly sure most posters on here know that.

B) income equality (or lack of) is a blunt tool to measure actual equality when it comes to the domestic load. Again, most posters here are aware of the concept of the ‘dual burden’ - again dates back decades.

C) ironic that a post which purports to advise us that biology is not destiny and to speculate on whether women might out earn men (unlikely, see D) itself opens with sentences that reduce women to parts of the female reproductive system

D) even when women do make strides in legal, political and financial aspects to greater equality, they face a backlash in various ways - most notable at the moment is the erasure of the concept of sex (ie biological difference) and the inversion or corruption of the idea that biology is not destiny to mean that actually, anyone can be a woman if they adopt the conventional manners and stereotypes associated with the feminine and identify as a woman - in short, sexual difference and the grounds for identifying sexism are erased, so any statistics relating to sexual difference, whether that is in relation to earnings or as victims of assault, become meaningless ... and therefore how do we know where policy and intervention should be targeted, if the figures on earnings, for example, are skewed by the presence of high-earning professional transwomen who have transitioned later in life, or wear women’s clothes twice a week. Most people on this board are already familiar with this issue.

E) of course not all people with ovaries, conventionally known as women, can have children - many are infertile for whatever reason and/or suffer related traumas of pregnancy loss and stillbirth, they are still women.

But we all know that. Many, many thousands of posts Tom could have read to educate himself before taking up our time. It is a kind of gaslighting, really, when you have ‘facts’ thrown at you in the guise of being supportive but these ‘facts’ fundamentally do not engage with the complexities or the expertise you already have, and then you need to explain why these ‘facts’ are not actually the whole story.

Sorry, just getting that off my chest.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread