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.

Let's assume for a minute that it's 2123 and men can have some sort of medical treatment that will allow them to become pregnant, gestate a foetus, give birth and breastfeed. Let's also assume that this is safe for the man and the child. A few questions:

1. Will the treatment lead to long term changes in the man's body or fertility?
2. Will it be expensive?
3. Will the likelihood of the treatment leading to a baby be less than where a woman conceives naturally?

If the answer to any of these is 'yes' then it's unlikely that many heterosexual couples will choose to do this. Which means that even in this hypothetical scenario women will still give birth to the majority of babies.

Even in the even more unlikely scenario that the answer to all of these questions is 'no' (so heterosexual couples can simply decide which of them will get pregnant each time) this will still be a more complicated route to parenthood for most heterosexual couples so it's unlikely that women will stop being the default child-bearing parent.

I think this demonstrates that there are quite a few practical reasons (ie not, women wanting to do it) why women would still give birth to most babies even if men could choose to do so.

That's before you even get to the question of whether, even if 50% of babies were born to men, the 'motherhood penalty' would go away. (see excellent points made by PP)

So OP things it will be possible for men to have babies within a decade.

When does OP think it be possible for men to have babies without the need for invasive procedures on sacrificial (poor) women (uterine transplant, egg harvesting, endocrine system tapping)?

I think the point in time that men can have babies will also be the point when babies can be grown in an artificial womb in a laboratory. Then there will be no need for wealthy men or women to be pregnancy. That will just be something commoners do as they won't be able to afford the non natural option, and rich hippies who want to feel at one with nature.

Are the sugeons/medical teams in the OP's posts just hoping to attract lots of funding to look into this? Maybe they don't care if it will actually happen or not, the point is the money to enable them to research the 'possibility'?

Everyone assumes medicine is beneficial to society but it exists and is contained by a regulatory framework within the society that it operates in.

To give an extreme example Dr Mengele might have been a perfectly ordinary doctor if he had not operated within Nazi Germany and the regulatory framework around him allowed him to experiment with human prisoners.

The regulations around trans medicine allow for experiments on children puberty blockers even though they are off label. A new niche area has emerged that is boundary pushing and unethical behaviour has been allowed to flourish because ‘trans’.

The pushback may come when they start experimenting by adding foetuses into men’s implanted wombs as it is already a heavily regulated area and obviously unethical.

To give an extreme example Dr Mengele might have been a perfectly ordinary doctor if he had not operated within Nazi Germany and the regulatory framework around him allowed him to experiment with human prisoners

I think you're getting things the wrong way around.
If Dr Mengele has not operated in Nazi Germany, but let's say the late 20th century NHS, he would have still been an unethical and dangerous doctor acting under the radar for as long as he could get away with it. Like Ian Paterson the breast surgeon or Harold Shipman. He might not have done as extreme damage and cruelty as he did in Nazi Germany, but he wouldn't have been a lovely chap with a nice bedside manner in different situation.

If the male body doesn't reject the implanted womb ripped from a woman's body they will use these artificial chimeras to experiment on

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66715669

I'm not familiar with this motherhood penalty term. It would be more accurate to say there's an earnings penalty for taking extended period out of work for whatever reason.

In some families the mother takes time out of work. In others the parents outsource childcare paid for out of both salaries. Or maybe dad stays at home. Or another relative (nan) provides childcare. There's already various options, even without men giving birth.

In my family we didn't really think about it. I just kept getting pregnant and my husband never did. In the early years I stopped earning, but as we share finances it was a shared financial penalty. Worth it for us, no one forced us to not use contraception.

We could have flipped it so the loss of income was on DHs side. Or, we could have taken turns to stay home at different times. That probably would have been worst option financially.

No of course not. Even if it were medically possible, how many men do you think would actually choose to go through it?

Tell me you haven't read the thread without telling me you haven't read the thread.....

Who said that?

So why is it such a priority, suddenly and exactly who is funding it?

You can probs guess why it's a priority and to who. Read the linked articles. One has medical professionals talking about how transwomen are entitled to the same opportunities as cis women and quoting the equalities act.

I've actually read it but don't remember that. Twas over a decade ago I read it though.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Bricklayers are in very short supply atm and that drives up wages. The Government wants 300,000 houses to be built a year and there are less than 70,000 bricklayers in the UK. I read an article the other day about a midlands company paying them £10k a month (£2.5k a week).

It's a much more dangerous job than being a care worker too.

Just because someone disagrees with you and gave a flippant remark doesn't mean they didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Um, I'm actually saying I'd rather stay at home than work.

FWIW, I think that even in the miraculous event that men could suddenly give birth, I don't think it would automatically get rid of the motherhood penalty.
Dads are just as capable as mums as picking up children from school and yet schools still call the mother in the first instance. Employers still avoid hiring mothers because they assume women would want to do the school run or constantly taking off when a child is ill, while not assuming the same as fathers.
Fathers now have the right to take substantial amounts of parental leave after the birth of a child. It hasn't changed discrimination against hiring women in the workplace. I've not heard of anyone avoiding hiring men because they 'might just take off months when their children are born'.
There are huge and systemic inequities that are in place that assume women will take on the burden of childcare long after the actual birth when a father is more than capable of taking it over.

So would all of us. Motherhood isn't a magic wand that grants that. I'm a mother and still have to work whether I want to or not.

But why would she ask how you squeeze a baby out through a penis if she'd read the bit about having a C section.

And what could she be disagreeing with? I've not really voiced an opinion.

Key phrase there is 'flippant remark'.

You really hate women don't you.

Playgroup leaders are in short demand 2 out of 3 local playgroups are currently shut due to lack of staff. The staff at playgroups are pivotal in getting early diagnosis and support for children with SEN issues yet are paid barely more than minimum wage.

It is clear from your post that you have place far more importance on men building houses than women educating children, caring for three elderly and vulnerable (also terrible staffing issues nation wide currently), etc etc.

Good old fashioned misogyny, which will remain as long as men like you exist and a few men thinking they can have babies won't change that

The experts saying it will likely be possible. Like the doctor who performed the first successful womb transplant on a female. It's already been mentioned further up the thread.

Flippant remark which looks kinda stupid if you've actually read the thread.

I think you’ve phrased that oddly. Do you mean Um, I'm actually saying I'd rather stay at home and work.

Op you mention about if men birth, but do you mean what happens if transwomen give birth or if men in general start being able to give birth.

Personally I don’t think many men (biological “CIS” men) would WANT to give birth. So I don’t see it making that much difference. if it even ever happens.