To wonder if men giving birth could actually end the motherhood penalty

[ReginaRegina]

Obv we're talking a fair few years from now.

My prediction is that, despite all the talk about male privilege, a lot of women wouldn't actually want to be the main breadwinner. However, it would certainly create more choice in terms of shared parenting.

The thing is, with surrogacy, if this is what the thread is about, there is not the same impact on the mother/ father as with a woman giving birth biologically.
See Tan France having a kid and then going to a premiere later that week. He hadn't pushed something watermelon sized out of his vag. He hasn't tried to attach a tiny screaming blind thing to an engorged sore nipple over and over again whilst strangers watched and advised.
He hadn't suffered a deluge of blood, double incontenance, huge hormonal tides, epidural side effects, milk not coming through, sleep deprivation or psychosis.

So maybe men really can have it all.

I'm not talking about surrogacy. I'm talking about men giving birth.

Men who would be wealthy enough to, hypothetically, afford the medical care to give birth would also be able to afford a nanny, a night nurse and a housekeeper, all of who will presumably be women paid low salaries.

Men giving birth wouldn't change the pay gap, in my opinion. They would find a way to exploit women to make things work in their favour.
I don't think many men in heterosexual relationships would chose motherhood even if it was an option. If things are fair now then how come so many women give up their careers after baby 1 as 'they were the lower earner so it made sense'? That's not motherhood affecting earning potential.

I think there's a pretty good chance of it being medically possible. Albeit in a few decades. Very possibly in my lifetime.

@ReginaRegina how? It's not remotely near possible! Plus it's not what men really want. I don't think any man who has used a surrogate has said that they wished they could be pregnant. Deep down; they know it's shit and puts you in a vulnerable position. They would much rather go for surrogacy. Even women who are able to have children are choosing surrogacy.
Pregnancy will become another poor person burden.

If men had to give birth and do the child rearing the population would die out in a single generation.

But don't women earn more until the approximate age of motherhood? The Economist did a study that found that childless female execs 'continued to be promoted more aggressively than their male counterparts.'

I'm fairly convinced it's a motherhood penalty. Another factor is that WC women tend to go into low paid jobs whilst WC men often do very well. A bricklayer can earn £45k nowadays and loads more in big cities. Self employed tradesmen earn more than graduates on average.

"Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?"

Oh please!

Tbf, though, giving up work at 30yo is pretty appealing if you're the type that just works to pay the bills and doesn't see your career as self validating. But of course nobody will admit that they'd rather not work so most have a story/explanation.

It's often clear however from the threads on here with posters talking about feeling privileged to be able to hit the gym/pursue hobbies whilst the kids are at school. I hated office work. So fucking dull! I'd not want to do that for another 35 years.

But I digress. I reckon we'll see capability for male pregnancy in next few decades. I really do.

@ReginaRegina childfree is different to women who haven't yet had children but know they will in the future. They may prioritise the other persons career, not seek out promotions, move away for the other person and give up better paid employment etc. Makes sense at the time to prioritise the person who will carry on working full time, even if you see screwed later.

OK explain how biologically speaking

Nobody has to have children.

Impossible. It’s not just emulating a womb. A pregnancy needs a woman’s endocrine system.

I think there's a pretty good chance of it being medically possible. Albeit in a few decades. Very possibly in my lifetime. Not in a few decades and not in your lifetime unless you're planning to live several hundred thousand years.

Male bodies have neither the organs necessary for gestation and parturition nor the endocrine system that can support establishment and maintenance of pregnancy. There are no genetic drivers aiming evolution in that direction as the current binary state of human reproduction has worked for a long time.

As for the "penalties of motherhood" that's another matter.

I reckon less than 10% of men would want to physically have children, breastfeed and take nine months out on reduced pay. And so science won't won't fund it. Progress only happens when it's in public interest to fund it. No one wants it. Surrogacy is a much easier option for everyone (except the poor bio mother and possibly the baby).

Yes, but it arguably demonstrates that having kids may be the issue rather than just misogyny. If it was just the latter why would women earn more before having kids and continue to earn more if they don't?

Your living in a fantasy world if you think men will ever be able to be pregnant and give birth. (hint, they don't have uterus, vagina or the right shape bone structure for starters.)
Sorry but given that, I'm not interested in the further discussion about gender pay gaps etc since it will never happen.

You still haven't explained how men would have a baby

The experts are tentatively saying 5-10 years. Some a few decades.

I meant the giving up work bit. I'd see it as a privilege rather than a loss tbh. I find work a necessary evil even if I do mostly enjoy my job. But it's still a job.

Anyone who has seen the rat study (that was linked to on the uterus transplant thread) is probably hoping that this line of research never makes it to human trials.

We don't need Unit 731 mark 2.

You what now?