5 ms·

Probably going to get downvoted for this, but how exactly is this sexism? It seems to be just plain old biology.

ximm 7y ago
You are defining equality via inputs. OP is defining equality via outputs, as in "society is obligated to even out the different starting conditions".
erikpukinskis 7y ago
If it turned out that it was just women’s breasts that caused the disparity... that women who have mastectomies do just fine in Academia, would you consider that to be “case solved, situation normal, plain old biology, no sexism here”? Or would you keep looking for a solution that allows women, who have the very normal female attribute of “having breasts”, to also be catered to and be able to get work done and be compensated despite the whole “breast having” thing?
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Try to think of it more in this way. Men are under-represented in breastfeeding and giving birth. How come we aren't looking for solutions to these issues? It's easy to claim this is plain old biology, not sexism. We need to be looking for solutions that allow women to also contribute to child births and rearing in these ways.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
How is it biology that only women are expected to leave work to care for children? I don't follow. Is there some biological reason why men are not expected to do the same? Do you mean something else by the "it" in "It seems to be just plain old biology"?
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  The article literally talks about this. The problem is unborn children, i.e. pregnancy. That's solely a burden for the mother, who will not be able to travel and keep up with strenuous work schedules for most of the duration of their pregnancy.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Pregnancy lasts nine months and for most of that period a woman can very well travel and keep up with work. Then recovery after birth takes a couple of months (lochia, marked by bleeding, lasts a month and a half). So that's less than a yaer overall, let's say a whole year to cover cases that have a more difficult delivery than usual (although there are still outliers that will suffer problems for many years after). So a year off work, at most. Let's say three if you want to have three children (most women in the Western world today will have one or two). How does that square up with giving up an entire career, that lasts considerably longer than three years?
- tasogare 7y ago
  You are missing purposely the fact that women have to bear the child, which is quite incapacitating especially in the last months. Then there is a recovery period. All in all that already about a year. So yes, it’s totally normal that the expectation of caring for children fall on women because it is the prolongation of their pregnancy. Actually this is not even disputed except by a minority of people in a minority of countries (the Western world).
  - alexchamberlain 7y ago
    Until I saw it for myself, I didn’t realise the extent of the effects of pregnancy on a woman - I don’t think this is well understood.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Not sure if this was just a side comment or not, but I don't think anybody is arguing that it takes a toll
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    So you are talking about leaving work to give birth and recover from it? That indeed is required, but I'm talking about leaving work to _raise_ the children that one gives birth to. I'm saying that it's only women who leave work to _raise_ their children and that _that_ is sexist. There is no reason to abandon your career to raise your children, there is no reason that this is never done by men (who can do it just as well as women because it does not involve special biological characteristics) and there is no reason that women are expected to do it. In the western world of course we have such things as maternal leave and in some countries even _parental_ leave which is an attempt at a solution to exactly the problem we're discussing here: that women are expected to leave their careers _permanently_ to raise their children even though they only need at most a few months or so to recover after giving birth (a year is an absolute extreme), and that men are not expected to do the same. EDIT: So, I say "in the western world" but it turns out that's not _all_ the western world. From wikipedia's article on parental leave: The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and a few island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries in the United Nations that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents.[6] EDIT 2: "You are missing purposely the fact". I'm not and I could assume you are wilfully misunderstanding _me_. And where would that get us?

ximm 7y ago

You are defining equality via inputs. OP is defining equality via outputs, as in "society is obligated to even out the different starting conditions".

erikpukinskis 7y ago

If it turned out that it was just women’s breasts that caused the disparity... that women who have mastectomies do just fine in Academia, would you consider that to be “case solved, situation normal, plain old biology, no sexism here”? Or would you keep looking for a solution that allows women, who have the very normal female attribute of “having breasts”, to also be catered to and be able to get work done and be compensated despite the whole “breast having” thing?

hanniabu 7y ago
Try to think of it more in this way. Men are under-represented in breastfeeding and giving birth. How come we aren't looking for solutions to these issues? It's easy to claim this is plain old biology, not sexism. We need to be looking for solutions that allow women to also contribute to child births and rearing in these ways.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

How is it biology that only women are expected to leave work to care for children? I don't follow. Is there some biological reason why men are not expected to do the same? Do you mean something else by the "it" in "It seems to be just plain old biology"?

enraged_camel 7y ago
The article literally talks about this. The problem is unborn children, i.e. pregnancy. That's solely a burden for the mother, who will not be able to travel and keep up with strenuous work schedules for most of the duration of their pregnancy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Pregnancy lasts nine months and for most of that period a woman can very well travel and keep up with work. Then recovery after birth takes a couple of months (lochia, marked by bleeding, lasts a month and a half). So that's less than a yaer overall, let's say a whole year to cover cases that have a more difficult delivery than usual (although there are still outliers that will suffer problems for many years after). So a year off work, at most. Let's say three if you want to have three children (most women in the Western world today will have one or two). How does that square up with giving up an entire career, that lasts considerably longer than three years?
tasogare 7y ago
You are missing purposely the fact that women have to bear the child, which is quite incapacitating especially in the last months. Then there is a recovery period. All in all that already about a year. So yes, it’s totally normal that the expectation of caring for children fall on women because it is the prolongation of their pregnancy. Actually this is not even disputed except by a minority of people in a minority of countries (the Western world).
- alexchamberlain 7y ago
  Until I saw it for myself, I didn’t realise the extent of the effects of pregnancy on a woman - I don’t think this is well understood.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Not sure if this was just a side comment or not, but I don't think anybody is arguing that it takes a toll
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  So you are talking about leaving work to give birth and recover from it? That indeed is required, but I'm talking about leaving work to _raise_ the children that one gives birth to. I'm saying that it's only women who leave work to _raise_ their children and that _that_ is sexist. There is no reason to abandon your career to raise your children, there is no reason that this is never done by men (who can do it just as well as women because it does not involve special biological characteristics) and there is no reason that women are expected to do it. In the western world of course we have such things as maternal leave and in some countries even _parental_ leave which is an attempt at a solution to exactly the problem we're discussing here: that women are expected to leave their careers _permanently_ to raise their children even though they only need at most a few months or so to recover after giving birth (a year is an absolute extreme), and that men are not expected to do the same. EDIT: So, I say "in the western world" but it turns out that's not _all_ the western world. From wikipedia's article on parental leave: The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and a few island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries in the United Nations that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents.[6] EDIT 2: "You are missing purposely the fact". I'm not and I could assume you are wilfully misunderstanding _me_. And where would that get us?