Misogyny - the today version. What is it and who is guilty of it?

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

It's not even an open CPS case. It's what all the reporters are thinking when they ring up.

It's fresh in my mind because a mate has just been inducted into that particular form of hell for having a kid with overwhelming trauma that she didn't cure by doing things that the experts said will work.

I feel for all parents in such difficult situations.  I also see a lot of it in the adoption community.  Judgment from outsiders sure doesn't help anything.

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I wasn't thinking about reciprocation at all.  I was just saying there are good things about group daycare that you can't duplicate at home.

I think that’s why most people who don’t use FT daycare send their kids to preschool.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

I think that’s why most people who don’t use FT daycare send their kids to preschool.

Maybe you should write a book instead of trying to change minds on WTM.

[Frances]

Just now, SKL said:

Maybe you should write a book instead of trying to change minds on WTM.

Im not trying to change anyone’s mind, just participating in the discussion.

[TechWife]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:01 PM, SKL said:

…

I also have a brother who's a nurse, and he sees the other side of some of this, but funny thing, his pay is probably above average for the industry.  I think part of that is because there are benefits to having a big, strong, relatively imposing-looking nurse on staff ... for lifting, dealing with combative patients, etc.  But it may be more than that.

…

Anecdotally, as more men enter the field, they are also attaining leadership positions at a faster rate than their female peers with the same level of education, skill set & experience. I think that’s something people need to be aware of so that there isn’t an over-correction in terms of opportunities for professional growth, as well as lateral and vertical career moves.

I work with a male CCLP and he’s often addressed as “Dr” when he’s wearing surgical scrubs. Male CCLP’s are unicorns, but to gloss over the other visual cues to his role on the team (including what he actually does) is, well, misogynistic. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Anecdotally, as more men enter the field, they are also attaining leadership positions at a faster rate than their female peers with the same level of education, skill set & experience. I think that’s something people need to be aware of so that there isn’t an over-correction in terms of opportunities for professional growth, as well as lateral and vertical career moves.

I work with a male CCLP and he’s often addressed as “Dr” when he’s wearing surgical scrubs. Male CCLP’s are unicorns, but to gloss over the other visual cues to his role on the team (including what he actually does) is, well, misogynistic. 

What's a CCLP?

[TechWife]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:01 PM, SKL said:

…

I also have a brother who's a nurse, and he sees the other side of some of this, but funny thing, his pay is probably above average for the industry.  I think part of that is because there are benefits to having a big, strong, relatively imposing-looking nurse on staff ... for lifting, dealing with combative patients, etc.  But it may be more than that.

…

 Women nurses have to do those same things all the time. They lift the same patients, have the same combative patients and have to use their body language to take charge of a situation when needed.
He should be making the same as any other nurse with the same education, skill set and experience, full stop. There shouldn’t be a pay differential for being male and doing the same things his peers do. 

[TechWife]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:15 PM, Frances said:

Studies have shown that in general, males are more confident in their abilities and overestimate them while the opposite is generally true for women. Also, studies show that ultimately, confidence is more important than competence when others are evaluating us.

 

On 9/27/2023 at 11:20 PM, SKL said:

Yes ... and I don't think that's "misogyny."  But I don't know what it is.  Just plain sex differences?

I…

I think it is learned behavior perpetrated by misogyny. 

After WW II women in the US were actually told to tone down their competence & confidence because it might make their veteran husbands less confident in themselves. Seriously. We are still living with the end result of that today. 

[TechWife]

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

What's a CCLP?

Certified Child Life Professional. They help children cope with their medical needs & procedures through education and activities on a developmentally appropriate level. They accompany kids undergoing procedures also. They are masters at helping kids manage anxiety and helping them understand what’s happening to their bodies provide  behavioral support and work with children adjusting to major life changes, such as new mobility challenges or a chronic diagnosis. They also work with families in end of life situations with siblings, parents or other people that are important to them. They are amazing people.
ETA:  An MS is the entry level degree for this work, usually in child development but sometimes in other related areas. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by TechWife

[TechWife]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:46 AM, Carrie12345 said:

Child rearing is essential to our societal existence. It impacts all of us across the lifespan equally. (As a whole; I don’t want anyone to think I think all women must make humans.)
So why isn’t the work (other than carrying, birthing, and perhaps breastfeeding) shared equally across the genders, whether parent or hired caregiver?

Related - one of my many pet peeves is when people say “they are pregnant” when referring to the male & female parents together. No. She is pregnant. “They” are expecting a baby on their family, “they” will be parents, but she is the only one pregnant. It’s important. 

[TechWife]

On 9/28/2023 at 8:58 AM, SKL said:

The two examples you listed are in conflict with each other.  One supposedly treats everyone the same, the other is intended to provide treatment to people of one sex only.  (I never heard of that 2nd one btw.)

…

I think you might have two different concepts mixed up. The ERA is about equality - having the same rights. The second issue is about equity - providing a work environment that is safe and healthy for both women and men. Sometimes equity requires that people have access to different services so that they can function on the same level as their peers. A desk at a height that  will accommodate a wheel chair, breaks to check blood sugar and the accompanying dietary needs for a diabetic, more frequent bathroom breaks and access to women who are pregnant and have babies sitting on their bladders and relying on them for basic nutrition. That’s equity. 
 

[TechWife]

On 9/28/2023 at 1:26 PM, SKL said:

I had a whole answer to this, but I decided not to be argumentative.  I'll just say that I don't generally see this in the generations currently raising kids.

As a mom of girls, I need to make sure my kids are ready to be realistic and communicative when laying down ground rules for sharing a home.

I think the idea of “ground rules” is problematic. A sense of connectedness and common goals combined with respect for others is much more important than having specific rules surrounding expectations of raising children. The ground the rules are built on shifts constantly. No two kids are the same, no two parents are the same, kids have different interests & needs, careers go through varying levels of demand that, even if work isn’t brought home at night, affects the energy level and mood of the people involved. Being connected, having common goals for your family (which can change as time and needs dictate) that are rooted in a deep respect for one another as a couple and for the children as full and complete human beings will lead to a stronger family that roll with the punches, so to speak, and work together for the good of the family will be more effective than expectations surrounding ground rules. 

On 9/28/2023 at 2:00 PM, Heartstrings said:

I think some of that is that everyone lives in sort of a bubble.  No one I directly know is leaving because hubby won’t do dishes or change diapers, but Im aware of being in a traditional, religious, homeschool bubble. Very few people that I know personally are divorced, or single.  If I went by my circle I would put the homeschool rate at 90%, the divorce rate at 10%, and the mothers working full time rate at around 2%, but I know that’s not representative of the whole country.

 

 

 

I was in that same bubble when I homeschooled. But, as the kids have graduated and moved to college and/or taken good jobs, the divorce rate among my acquaintances from homeschooling circles and at church (mix of educational scenarios) has skyrocketed. People I never imagined would divorce did so in very short order - 20 & 25 year marriages stopped in their tracks. Needless to say, marriage & child demographics undergo drastic changes as kids and parents get older. 

[Faith-manor]

6 hours ago, TechWife said:

 

I was in that same bubble when I homeschooled. But, as the kids have graduated and moved to college and/or taken good jobs, the divorce rate among my acquaintances from homeschooling circles and at church (mix of educational scenarios) has skyrocketed. People I never imagined would divorce did so in very short order - 20 & 25 year marriages stopped in their tracks. Needless to say, marriage & child demographics undergo drastic changes as kids and parents get older. 

This is what are experiencing. There were large numbers of homeschooling families in the area back when our kids were elementary/middle school age. We were acquainted with many of them though I would not call most of them our inner circle because we were outliers since most of them were not classical homeschoolers, much less heavy math and science oriented. But, still, we knew of there families, were aware of their religious leanings, and crossed paths often at the library. I did the math. The divorce rate is astronomical. Well above the national average. These are folks who are religiously affiliated with deep, dim views of divorce. I think for a lot of relationships, staying out of the work force for the bulk of the marriage to raise kids and homeschool while maybe very good for the kids was a real detriment to the marital relationship.

[TechWife]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:56 PM, Heartstrings said:

…

I think the number of women choosing to stay single, or choosing to leave relationships because of domestic labor says that women are getting tired of it.  As the stigma of being single lessens I think we’ll see this more and more.   Women don’t have to accept working, plus doing childcare and all of the household duties all while the hubby plays video games for 6 hours every evening.  

 

Meanwhile a number of single men complain about women not being willing to do things like mom and grandma did. They really want women who will work, and do all the domestic labor while asking nothing of the men.  
 

These 2 things combined are going to reach a crisis at some point. 

 

On 9/28/2023 at 11:46 PM, Frances said:

It’s already reached a crisis point in places like Japan. 

Yet somehow, there is a perceived “crisis in manhood” because women are making different decisions than those they have traditionally made. I’m always floored when I think about that at any length. The reduction in the acceptance of misogyny has caused a crisis for men. Well knock me over with a feather. Women have always had to step up and adapt. It’s time for men to stop whining and do the same. 
 

BTW - my husband also believes that this “crisis in manhood” is manufactured. The only crisis is that men don’t historically recognize the contributions women make to our culture and when those contributions disappear because women are just done - they don’t know how to deal with it and don’t seem to want to learn. 

[TechWife]

13 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Something in me flipped a switch 10 or so years ago. I was just...DONE.

 

11 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

A switch flipped for me somewhere around the same time when I woke up, Rip van Winkle like, from a decades long nap during which I vaguely dreamed the narrative arc is long but it bends towards justice, and I looked around and realized

And I felt like a complacent moron.

Switch. Flipped.

No putting myself back into that dreamy rose-colored box.

My switch flipped in 2016. My parents died, as the executor of the estate I had to deal with my misogynist brother who was living in their house at the time, along with a national level embracing of misogyny. I knew things didn’t have to be this way, that culturally an intentional choice was being made. I was done. My switch flipped and I’ve never looked back.

The song “You don’t own me” played in my head nearly constantly as I broke through the immediate barriers to get done what needed to be done. Boy do I have stories from that time period. 

[maize]

Part of the problem I see is that we continue to hold up a pattern of life established by and for males as the template of a successful adult life.

And that template is a very poor fit for females. Reproduction and caregiving are not just cultural expectations for women,  they are biological mandates.  Look at all our mammalian cousins; almost universally, mothers carry the load not only of gestating and birthing offspring,  but overwhelmingly of caring for them. We homo sapien females did not lose that nurturing drive just because our brains developed creative and analytic capacity beyond that of other species. It isn't culture alone that leads us to care profoundly and persistently about our offspring, to have them at the forefront of our minds more consistently than males of our own species do. It's not just culture that women pour more of our time and resources into caregiving, and I don't just mean direct, hands-on, taking care of the infants and children and disabled and elderly humans in our circles ourselves caregiving. Women are also the ones who organize external care--we're the ones visiting daycares, interviewing nannies and babysitters, researching preschools,  reading about educational methods, buying parenting books, signing our kids up for soccer and dance and music lessons, organizing carpools, attending parent-teacher conferences, making doctors appointments. Every mother I know,  even those who view themselves as not particularly nurturing, pours significant time and energy into their child(ren)'s growth and opportunities.

But our cultural pattern of successful adulthood has little to do with caregiving and everything to do with focused competitive striving.

We need to flip that perspective. Yes women can do nearly everything men can do (there are a few activities reliant on physical size and strength that males on average are better suited for). But a pattern of life established by men unencumbered by caregiving because the women of the community were handling all of that isn't a pattern well-suited to women as a group. 

That pattern doesn't have to be the universal expectation of adults participating in the greater economy.

It's possible to establish a pattern that is flexible and recognizes caregiving as the massive contribution to society it is, and makes room for both women and men to integrate caregiving into their lives at whatever level is fitting at a given time.  Recognizing the value of and making room for caregiving as an integral part of normal life, not something that needs to be segregated out (at home moms) or fit into the margins (working moms), will benefit women immensely without detracting at all from men. I fully believe that men benefit from more flexibility in life and education and career as well, it's just not as nearly impossible for them on average to navigate the current set-up as it is for mothers.

Edited September 30, 2023 by maize

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

 

My switch flipped in 2016. My parents died, as the executor of the estate I had to deal with my misogynist brother who was living in their house at the time, along with a national level embracing of misogyny. I knew things didn’t have to be this way, that culturally an intentional choice was being made. I was done. My switch flipped and I’ve never looked back.

The song “You don’t own me” played in my head nearly constantly as I broke through the immediate barriers to get done what needed to be done. Boy do I have stories from that time period. 

Quoting myself to add an additional thought. There are many books that target women's self esteem and tell us not to value ourselves based on what we do, but who we are. This material a side message that what we do, is not valuable, whatever it is. Both women and men heard that message loud an clear. But, men didn't read the book, so to speak, so they totally missed the message that they are also more than what they do. As a result, when they run into changes in their professions or personal lives, they are stumped. We can read all the articles we want to about how men need this or that because they are goal oriented and women aren't as "driven", or whatever and not see a single reference to the fact that men need to see themselves as complete human beings, not just workers, providers, hunter/gatherers, or whatever name you want to put on it. Instead, it's the women who are told we have to be understanding towards the men in our lives and that they may feel "less than" because of what we accomplish. Additionally, men in conservative circles have received the message that they shouldn't feel pressured to be approach problems "like a woman," or to adopt what are perceived as female  character traits or habits. 

This is not a manhood crisis. Instead, what is happening  is that men need to grow as people within an ever-changing culture. This is just real life. Welcome.

Edited September 30, 2023 by TechWife

[SKL]

9 hours ago, TechWife said:

I think you might have two different concepts mixed up. The ERA is about equality - having the same rights. The second issue is about equity - providing a work environment that is safe and healthy for both women and men. Sometimes equity requires that people have access to different services so that they can function on the same level as their peers. A desk at a height that  will accommodate a wheel chair, breaks to check blood sugar and the accompanying dietary needs for a diabetic, more frequent bathroom breaks and access to women who are pregnant and have babies sitting on their bladders and relying on them for basic nutrition. That’s equity. 
 

But if you have a law that requires equality in the way we legally treat the sexes, then you have to break that law every time you treat one sex differently in the name of "equity."  You can't have it both ways.

Edited September 30, 2023 by SKL

[regentrude]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

But if you have a law that requires equality in the way we legally treat the sexes, then you have to break that law every time you treat one sex differently in the name of "equity."  You can't have it both ways.

but the accommodation that was talked about was not just generally because of sex. It wasn't that any woman should be allowed to take additional breaks, it was specifically a pregnant woman.
This is just like making accommodations for a person with a disability which does not grant all persons of that gender a different treatment - just those persons whose specific condition requires that accommodation.

ETA: And some conditions affect almost exclusively men. Would anyone argue that accommodating color blindness violates equal treatment of the sexes?
 

Edited September 30, 2023 by regentrude

[bolt.]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

But if you have a law that requires equality in the way we legally treat the sexes, then you have to break that law every time you treat one sex differently in the name of "equity."  You can't have it both ways.

I have the sense that people are capable of writing laws with sufficient nuance, as to prevent them from being applied in one-dimensional ways that aren't sensible.

No one suggests that the other laws of equality have had the impact of reducing equity-based activities.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, maize said:

It's possible to establish a pattern that is flexible and recognizes caregiving as the massive contribution to society it is, and makes room for both women and men to integrate caregiving into their lives at whatever level is fitting at a given time.  Recognizing the value of and making room for caregiving as an integral part of normal life, not something that needs to be segregated out (at home moms) or fit into the margins (working moms), will benefit women immensely without detracting at all from men. I fully believe that men benefit from more flexibility in life and education and career as well, it's just not as nearly impossible for them on average to navigate the current set-up as it is for mothers.

I've been saying this for decades.  I was on the committee to try to move this forward in my male-dominated company 20 years ago.

I still don't think we have a clear picture of how this should be done in practice.  There are many disjointed ideas ... many of them in conflict with each other.  I think progress has been made, but I still think things are harder than they need to be for career women with children (which is most women in the US, sooner or later).

Some movements, many led by women, work against this.  Well, honestly, the whole women's movement since I was cognizant (read my first NOW publication in high school 40+ years ago) focused almost exclusively on abortion and lesbians, neither of which contributed anything to moms with careers (or to women's safety from violent men, for that matter).

Another thing that works against career mom goals is the way we aren't allowed to admit that men and women are in fact different - biologically and neurologically - as a fact of nature.  We need to stop trying to hide or change or punish that, and figure out how to deal with it productively.

And then there's the conflict between women - why should I pay more taxes so she can stay at home - why should I pay more taxes so her kids can be in daycare all day - why should my hard work pay for other people's family benefits - and judge judge judge.

Ultimately, the amount of productive energy that is channeled to actually solving this problem is a tiny fraction of what it could be.

[TechWife]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

But if you have a law that requires equality in the way we legally treat the sexes, then you have to break that law every time you treat one sex differently in the name of "equity."  You can't have it both ways.

We actually can have it ,both ways. Equality doesn’t mean the same thing. Equality is when everyone has a right to the same job benefits, such as being able to take breaks when needed for medical reasons. Equity is allowing everyone with medical needs to take breaks when needed. Inequity is allowing the diabetic to take breaks, but not the pregnant woman. 
What you’re proposing is that equal rights would do away with any acknowledgment that people’s bodies are, indeed, different than one another. 

8 minutes ago, regentrude said:

but the accommodation that was talked about was not just generally because of sex. It wasn't that any woman should be allowed to take additional breaks, it was specifically a pregnant woman.
This is just like making accommodations for a person with a disability which does not grant all persons of that gender a different treatment - just those persons whose specific condition requires that accommodation.

ETA: And some conditions affect almost exclusively men. Would anyone argue that accommodating color blindness violates equal treatment of the sexes?
 

Another example would be testicular cancer being excluded from health coverage or disability benefits, or not allowing men to have specific roles because they “might” get testicular cancer. 

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I have the sense that people are capable of writing laws with sufficient nuance, as to prevent them from being applied in one-dimensional ways that aren't sensible.

No one suggests that the other laws of equality have had the impact of reducing equity-based activities.

Well the US Supreme Court recently caused a lot of fuss when it said discrimination for the sake of equity is still discrimination and not legal.

I agree that people should be able to write sensible laws that work.  I don't know anything about the pregnant pee break law, I never heard about it until this thread.  There are many possible reasons why it hasn't passed ... just like many other very reasonable-sounding, uncontroversial laws.  Lawmaking in this country is not straightforward at all.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

We actually can have it ,both ways. Equality doesn’t mean the same thing. Equality is when everyone has a right to the same job benefits, such as being able to take breaks when needed for medical reasons. Equity is allowing everyone with medical needs to take breaks when needed. Inequity is allowing the diabetic to take breaks, but not the pregnant woman. 
What you’re proposing is that equal rights would do away with any acknowledgment that people’s bodies are, indeed, different than one another.

I wasn't proposing anything, I was pointing out a legal incongruity between two things some people want at the same time.

Maybe if women hadn't railed against the concept that pregnancy is a medical condition, this would have been resolved long ago.

Edited September 30, 2023 by SKL

[TechWife]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Well the US Supreme Court recently caused a lot of fuss when it said discrimination for the sake of equity is still discrimination and not legal.

I agree that people should be able to write sensible laws that work.  I don't know anything about the pregnant pee break law, I never heard about it until this thread.  There are many possible reasons why it hasn't passed ... just like many other very reasonable-sounding, uncontroversial laws.  Lawmaking in this country is not straightforward at all.

It’s accommodation, not discrimination. No one is proposing that allowing pregnant women to go to the bathroom when needed removes the opportunity for someone else, pregnant or not, to go to the bathroom when needed. Equality isn’t the same thing as equity. They are separate concepts that interact with each other, but can also operate independently of each other.

[SKL]

Well I'd like to know why you wouldn't want a non-pregnant woman or man to pee if s/he needs to pee.  Shouldn't all workers be allowed to pee when they need to pee?

[TechWife]

Just now, SKL said:

Well I'd like to know why you wouldn't want a non-pregnant woman or man to pee if s/he needs to pee.  Shouldn't all workers be allowed to pee when they need to pee?

Yes, they should be, but currently that isn’t guaranteed by law, nor are employers required to allow it. A pregnant woman can get fired, not because she’s pregnant, but because she’s taking too many breaks, because anyone can get fired for taking too many breaks. 

[TechWife]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

I wasn't proposing anything, I was pointing out a legal incongruity between two things some people want at the same time.

Maybe if women hadn't railed against the concept that pregnancy is a medical condition, this would have been resolved long ago.

You’re  proposing that your of understanding equality rules out equitable treatment. It does not. They are two separate things. 

I don’t think anyone ever said pregnancy isn’t a medical condition. There was a big push to acknowledge that pregnancy isn’t an illness, which is correct because pregnancy and illness are two separate things that sometimes interact with each other but can also exist independently of one another. Accommodating pregnancy is no different than accommodating someone who is paralyzed.

Equality does not remove the need for equity. If it did, there would be no wheelchair ramps in public places. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by TechWife

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

You’re  proposing that your of understanding equality rules out equitable treatment. It does not. They are two separate things. 

I don’t think anyone ever said pregnancy isn’t a medical condition. There was a big push to acknowledge that pregnancy isn’t an illness, which is correct because pregnancy and illness are two separate things that sometimes interact with each other but can also exist independently of one another. Accommodating pregnancy is no different than accommodating someone who is paralyzed.

Equality does not remove the need for equity. If it did, there would be no wheelchair ramps in public places. 

I'm an attorney and I am fully aware of the difference between equality and equity.

You seem to have a strong need to be right today.  That's fine.  I have to get back to work.

[livetoread]

56 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, honestly, the whole women's movement since I was cognizant (read my first NOW publication in high school 40+ years ago) focused almost exclusively on abortion and lesbians, neither of which contributed anything to moms with careers (or to women's safety from violent men, for that matter).

I would argue that abortion rights very much can impact women with careers and women's safety from violent men (especially that), but also don't want to derail.

 

56 minutes ago, SKL said:

we aren't allowed to admit that men and women are in fact different - biologically and neurologically - as a fact of nature.  We need to stop trying to hide or change or punish that, and figure out how to deal with it productively.

It is very hard to do this in a way that isn't discriminatory because while you can find small differences when comparing large groups of men and women, there is considerable overlap between the sexes. So while, for example, men tend to be stronger than women, there are plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. Do a bell curve of male and female strength or nurturing or whatever and the part where they overlap will be most of it.

It isn't particularly helpful to try and develop policies around this, IMO, because the variance among the sexes is much greater than the variance between the sexes. Give me any particular man or woman and I would often be wrong if I tried to say one is better at x. It really depends on the person more than the sex.

Editing to add, this is why I think language around sex and ability is so fraught. Yes, there are some biological differences, but we don't understand them well at all, and we really don't know how much culture impacts those biological differences (especially brain differences which are a big chicken/egg thing IMO). Bringing sex into the equation when talking about the specific ability of a person isn't all that helpful generally, IMO. We know language has impacted generations before us and their opinions of what men and women can do, and we aren't over it yet.

Edited September 30, 2023 by livetoread

[Frances]

3 hours ago, TechWife said:

 

Yet somehow, there is a perceived “crisis in manhood” because women are making different decisions than those they have traditionally made. I’m always floored when I think about that at any length. The reduction in the acceptance of misogyny has caused a crisis for men. Well knock me over with a feather. Women have always had to step up and adapt. It’s time for men to stop whining and do the same. 
 

BTW - my husband also believes that this “crisis in manhood” is manufactured. The only crisis is that men don’t historically recognize the contributions women make to our culture and when those contributions disappear because women are just done - they don’t know how to deal with it and don’t seem to want to learn. 

I haven’t heard the phrase “ crisis in manhood”, so wasn’t thinking of that when I said it was a crisis in Japan. I was thinking more from a population and economic perspective. Since many women there are no longer willing to handle virtually all of the child rearing and household responsibilities, often in addition to working full time, the population is below replacement level and  this effects the economy.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, maize said:

Part of the problem I see is that we continue to hold up a pattern of life established by and for males as the template of a successful adult life.

And that template is a very poor fit for females. Reproduction and caregiving are not just cultural expectations for women,  they are biological mandates.  Look at all our mammalian cousins; almost universally, mothers carry the load not only of gestating and birthing offspring,  but overwhelmingly of caring for them. We homo sapien females did not lose that nurturing drive just because our brains developed creative and analytic capacity beyond that of other species. It isn't culture alone that leads us to care profoundly amd persistently about our offspring, to have them at the forefront of our minds more consistently than males of our own species do. It's not just culture that women pour more of our time and resources into caregiving, and I don't just mean direct, hands-on, taking care of the infants and children and disabled and elderly humans in our circles ourselves caregiving. Women are also the ones who organize external care--we're the ones visiting daycares, interviewing nannies and babysitters, researching preschools,  reading about educational methods, buying parenting books, signing our kids up for soccer and dance and music lessons, organizing carpools, attending parent-teacher conferences, making doctors appointments. Every mother I know,  even those who view themselves as not particularly nurturing, pours significant time and energy into their child(ren)'s growth and opportunities.

But our cultural pattern of successful adulthood has little to do with caregiving and everything to do with focused competitive striving.

We need to flip that perspective. Yes women can do nearly everything men can do (there are a few activities reliant on physical size and strength that males on average are better suited for). But a pattern of life established by men unencumbered by caregiving because the women of the community were handling all of that isn't a pattern well-suited to women as a group. 

That pattern doesn't have to be the universal expectation of adults participating in the greater economy.

It's possible to establish a pattern that is flexible and recognizes caregiving as the massive contribution to society it is, and makes room for both women and men to integrate caregiving into their lives at whatever level is fitting at a given time.  Recognizing the value of and making room for caregiving as an integral part of normal life, not something that needs to be segregated out (at home moms) or fit into the margins (working moms), will benefit women immensely without detracting at all from men. I fully believe that men benefit from more flexibility in life and education and career as well, it's just not as nearly impossible for them on average to navigate the current set-up as it is for mothers.

I’m seeing this already with my coworkers and now having paid leave in my state. I work in a male dominated profession. The men in my group all take paid leave when they have children, just like the women, and they very frequently flex their schedules for school pick-ups/drop-offs, child medical/dental appts, school field trips, etc., and they openly talk about doing so. Those with young children also schedule their work hours to be available when their children arrive home from school and this is with a mix of working and non working (outside the home) spouses.

[fraidycat]

On 9/29/2023 at 1:08 AM, Frances said:

And in the US we still haven’t had a female president despite electing some epically unqualified (but tall!) men. If this isn’t evidence that misogyny is alive and well, I’m not sure what is.

Canada is not doing any better on this front. There was apparently once a female PM for a couple months, because she assumed the position when the male PM resigned. 
We currently do not have female national party leadership in any of the viable parties.

 

 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

 

Another thing that works against career mom goals is the way we aren't allowed to admit that men and women are in fact different - biologically and neurologically - as a fact of nature.  We need to stop trying to hide or change or punish that, and figure out how to deal with it productively.

 

Personally, as a white female, I’ve been empowered & encouraged by the push for diversity over the past few years.
I’m sure we haven’t “arrived” yet in equitable application, but I’m  empowered because the  emphasis 

a) recognizes people are different than one another 

b) recognizes that our differences affect our life experiences 

c) acknowledges that people need a “seat at the table” when issues/ideas/decisions are being discussed which they are knowledgeable about or that concern them directly.

Of course there’s a lot more wrapped up in the DEI discussion, but these are the components that have meant the most to me and have empowered me to take an active, not passive, role in all areas of my life. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I am done with the old status quo and have adopted a new way of thinking & operating in this world. 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I'm an attorney and I am fully aware of the difference between equality and equity.

You seem to have a strong need to be right today.  That's fine.  I have to get back to work.

Here I thought I was just taking part in a discussion. I didn’t realize that it’s a battle of wits.  Who knew? 🤷‍♀️

Edited September 30, 2023 by TechWife

[Melissa Louise]

5 hours ago, livetoread said:

I would argue that abortion rights very much can impact women with careers and women's safety from violent men (especially that), but also don't want to derail.

 

It is very hard to do this in a way that isn't discriminatory because while you can find small differences when comparing large groups of men and women, there is considerable overlap between the sexes. So while, for example, men tend to be stronger than women, there are plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. Do a bell curve of male and female strength or nurturing or whatever and the part where they overlap will be most of it.

It isn't particularly helpful to try and develop policies around this, IMO, because the variance among the sexes is much greater than the variance between the sexes. Give me any particular man or woman and I would often be wrong if I tried to say one is better at x. It really depends on the person more than the sex.

Editing to add, this is why I think language around sex and ability is so fraught. Yes, there are some biological differences, but we don't understand them well at all, and we really don't know how much culture impacts those biological differences (especially brain differences which are a big chicken/egg thing IMO). Bringing sex into the equation when talking about the specific ability of a person isn't all that helpful generally, IMO. We know language has impacted generations before us and their opinions of what men and women can do, and we aren't over it yet.

 At a population level, women and girls are impacted by issues relating to their reproductive sex,

Pregnancy, the first year of an infant's life when that infant is being breastfed, endometriosis, menopause, etc. have unique impacts on women. 

I think we do women a great disservice by telling them the differing outcomes (on average) are down to women being socialized to 'not know their worth'. That's a way of blaming the individual (just have better self-esteem!) instead of the system.

Of course, reproductive sex interacts with social factors. But it is not absent. 

It's a sad world we live in if the only path 'away' from misogyny (I think it's just misogyny in another guise) is for women and girls to pretend their reproductive sex (at a population level) has zero or trivial effects.

How about we live in a world where sex matters where it does (not everywhere) AND it makes no difference to one's ability to thrive in society because that society has faced and tackled its issues of misogyny?

 

 

 

 

 

[Frances]

6 hours ago, TechWife said:

Here I thought I was just taking part in a discussion. I didn’t realize that it’s a battle of wits.  Who knew? 🤷‍♀️

At least you didn’t get told to go write a book instead of participating in a discussion on the WTM board. 😜

[Scarlett]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:26 PM, Frances said:

I’ll admit to silently judging parents who both work full time and have their children in full time daycare or before/after school care for older children, partly because so much of the care I’ve seen is just not high quality. I certainly know there are situations where a family needs two FT incomes to survive and and I’ve always worked at least part time since my son was born. And while I would never, ever say anything directly or indirectly about how I feel to such parents, I am inwardly judging probably similarly to those judging SAH parents.

Same.  

[Carrie12345]

19 hours ago, SKL said:

 

And then there's the conflict between women - why should I pay more taxes so she can stay at home - why should I pay more taxes so her kids can be in daycare all day - why should my hard work pay for other people's family benefits - and judge judge judge.

It isn’t just a conflict between women on childcare. Our society has become so individualist and capitalist that we see anything “for someone else” as taking away “from us”. We ignore what is actually required of a functional society and our greater good in favor of having a leg up on others, or even just a potential leg up.

We genuinely prefer for people to starve than provide food.  
On our better days, we prefer to take children away and give strangers money to raise them rather than help their parents to do so.  
We underfund education for those who could benefit the most.  
We choose corporate welfare over individual welfare.   
We stand by as people ration insulin.
We designate social problems as individual problems and wash our hands.

We’ve lost our humanity.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

It isn’t just a conflict between women on childcare. Our society has become so individualist and capitalist that we see anything “for someone else” as taking away “from us”. We ignore what is actually required of a functional society and our greater good in favor of having a leg up on others, or even just a potential leg up.

We genuinely prefer for people to starve than provide food.  
On our better days, we prefer to take children away and give strangers money to raise them rather than help their parents to do so.  
We underfund education for those who could benefit the most.  
We choose corporate welfare over individual welfare.   
We stand by as people ration insulin.
We designate social problems as individual problems and wash our hands.

We’ve lost our humanity.

Absolutely.  

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

It isn’t just a conflict between women on childcare. Our society has become so individualist and capitalist that we see anything “for someone else” as taking away “from us”. We ignore what is actually required of a functional society and our greater good in favor of having a leg up on others, or even just a potential leg up.

We genuinely prefer for people to starve than provide food.  
On our better days, we prefer to take children away and give strangers money to raise them rather than help their parents to do so.  
We underfund education for those who could benefit the most.  
We choose corporate welfare over individual welfare.   
We stand by as people ration insulin.
We designate social problems as individual problems and wash our hands.

We’ve lost our humanity.

Spot on.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

It isn’t just a conflict between women on childcare. Our society has become so individualist and capitalist that we see anything “for someone else” as taking away “from us”. We ignore what is actually required of a functional society and our greater good in favor of having a leg up on others, or even just a potential leg up.

It's not about capitalism, it's about "I just wanna get mine."

And I expect this on the level of people who are relatively uneducated, immature, and powerless.

But it's also rampant in the institutions that have real power (not just in the US but worldwide).  It's proven a great way to divide and conquer.

And it's not like this board isn't full of it too.

[Carol in Cal.]

23 hours ago, SKL said:

 

And then there's the conflict between women - why should I pay more taxes so she can stay at home - why should I pay more taxes so her kids can be in daycare all day - why should my hard work pay for other people's family benefits - and judge judge judge.

Ultimately, the amount of productive energy that is channeled to actually solving this problem is a tiny fraction of what it could be.

I have the answer to this one.  Provide a meaningfully sized income tax reduction for each dependent.  Then parents can use it whether there is a SAH parent or not.  Also, eliminate sales taxes on things like diapers, baby bottles, etc.

[Carol in Cal.]

On 9/29/2023 at 12:08 AM, Frances said:

And in the US we still haven’t had a female president despite electing some epically unqualified (but tall!) men. If this isn’t evidence that misogyny is alive and well, I’m not sure what is.

Unfortunately our most competent woman leaders have not run for the presidency.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Unfortunately our most competent woman leaders have not run for the presidency.

Not trying to get political, but I want to say that the degree to which one needs to sell one's soul in order to be a "successful" politician is a major deterrent to good, competent people of both sexes.  Looks like statistically it doesn't bother men quite as much as it bothers women.

My mom was a small-town political appointee who then had to run to keep her position.  It was so horrible to watch.  The horrible things said (mostly lies, the rest low blows) and having to decide which ones were worth responding to.  She won the first time, and decided not to fight the second time.  I honestly think her debilitating chronic illnesses that started back then were caused by the politics.

I would never run, even if I thought my ideas would save all the starving children in the world.

It would be amazing if we could benefit from great ideas and ideals without destroying the humanity of those who possess them.

[Carol in Cal.]

On 9/29/2023 at 12:22 PM, Momto6inIN said:

I think the reason that child care is devalued in our society is because society devalues children, not women.

I have felt misogyny (definition = the idea that women are inherently less valuable than men) from a very few individual men in my lifetime, but not from an institution or a system.

I have read that in colonial times, children were an economic benefit/asset.  (See, for example, “In labor-scarce America the services or wages of a child over ten was one of the most valuable assets a man could have. Thus fathers, without dispute, had almost unlimited authority of custody and control over their natural, legitimate children, leaving almost no room for maternal authority, at least during the fathers’ lifetime. This authority was enshrined in the common law”. FROM:  https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-sites/mary-ann-mason/books/from-fathers-property-to-childrens-rights-a-history-of-child-custody-preview/.). They would participate in family businesses and provide labor in higher amounts that the cost of raising them.  And that fathers generally got custody in divorce proceedings. 

Then later when that switched, and children because a net cost, mothers started generally getting custody in divorce proceedings.

I find that interesting.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Not trying to get political, but I want to say that the degree to which one needs to sell one's soul in order to be a "successful" politician is a major deterrent to good, competent people of both sexes.  Looks like statistically it doesn't bother men quite as much as it bothers women.

My mom was a small-town political appointee who then had to run to keep her position.  It was so horrible to watch.  The horrible things said (mostly lies, the rest low blows) and having to decide which ones were worth responding to.  She won the first time, and decided not to fight the second time.  I honestly think her debilitating chronic illnesses that started back then were caused by the politics.

I would never run, even if I thought my ideas would save all the starving children in the world.

It would be amazing if we could benefit from great ideas and ideals without destroying the humanity of those who possess them.

I completely agree.  But there are some women who have participated in various political forums over the years who I think would have made outstanding presidents, and it’s our loss that they have not pursued that, IMO.  Although I completely agree, I certainly would not.

[Carrie12345]

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's not about capitalism, it's about "I just wanna get mine."

And I expect this on the level of people who are relatively uneducated, immature, and powerless.

But it's also rampant in the institutions that have real power (not just in the US but worldwide).  It's proven a great way to divide and conquer.

And it's not like this board isn't full of it too.

How do you not see capitalism in that? 
How did those institutions get so much power?  
The system says eat or be eaten. Produce or suffer. What’s good for the goose makes better for the goose, gander be damned.

Yeah, it takes place on this board because it takes place everywhere. It takes place in me. Dismantling is HARD and requires a large group effort.

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not trying to get political, but I want to say that the degree to which one needs to sell one's soul in order to be a "successful" politician is a major deterrent to good, competent people of both sexes.  Looks like statistically it doesn't bother men quite as much as it bothers women.

My mom was a small-town political appointee who then had to run to keep her position.  It was so horrible to watch.  The horrible things said (mostly lies, the rest low blows) and having to decide which ones were worth responding to.  She won the first time, and decided not to fight the second time.  I honestly think her debilitating chronic illnesses that started back then were caused by the politics.

I would never run, even if I thought my ideas would save all the starving children in the world.

It would be amazing if we could benefit from great ideas and ideals without destroying the humanity of those who possess them.

I’ve seen it happen, too.

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I completely agree.  But there are some women who have participated in various political forums over the years who I think would have made outstanding presidents, and it’s our loss that they have not pursued that, IMO.  Although I completely agree, I certainly would not.

We absolutely should be propping up the brave, competent woman who make these unreasonable sacrifices to represent us.

[SKL]

Just now, Carrie12345 said:

How do you not see capitalism in that? 
How did those institutions get so much power?  
The system says eat or be eaten. Produce or suffer. What’s good for the goose makes better for the goose, gander be damned.

Yeah, it takes place on this board because it takes place everywhere. It takes place in me. Dismantling is HARD and requires a large group effort.

Individual interest was not invented by capitalism, it exists in all types of economies and always has and always will.  For that matter, "eat or be eaten, produce or suffer" predates the earliest forms of government and economic structures.

How did those institutions get so much power?  By divide and conquer I guess!  How else could it have been possible?