On pregnancy and (certain forms of) equality...?

Question

What do you all think about how pregnancy affects the female condition? Part of the reason (if not most of the reason) why women haven't created as many works of art/innovations as males in the past has been pregnancy/childcare.

Since there is little that can be done to change this on the whole as women must continue to have children if the human race is to survive, do you think this will be a major factor in constant inequality between men and women?

By inequality I refer mainly to things like the wage gap, inventions, etc. All responses are welcome.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'll explain:

Condition as in the sense of the "human condition." If you don't understand that, you haven't taken a high-school English class and there's nothing I can do for you.

Lord almighty! Only a few people seemed to understand what I was saying.

Let me clear this up. When I refer to "equality," I refer to equality of production, not equality of opportunity. Everyone should have that. I am merely saying that pregnancy and child care are necessarily going to take away from the TOTAL effectiveness of women. It's just a partial reason why it is ludicrous to think that the "wage gap" will ever become 0- men don't have to take care of children the way women do (from a social perspective, at least), so they will have more time to work and make money. Earlier in history pregnancy and child care were a HUGE part of the "female condition" and experience. Arguing otherwise is folly. I am also aware that the pregnancy and child care do not take away ALL the time, but they certainly impact productivity, which is the WHOLE POINT of this question- namely, how does it impact that productivity and exactly how important is it?

For Yaggy: Quiet.

For Dierdre: I NEVER tried to defend any poster with my previous statement. You asked that "feminist-lesbian/masculist-gay" question, and I clarified that absolutely NO masculist to my knowledge has ever said such a thing is necessary to be a true adherent to the cause, while a feminist has. Therefore, insinuating that the two are somehow equally likely is ludicrous.

Whether or not some of your family members died during the Holocaust has NOTHING to do with the term "feminazi," even though I didn't call you that. My ancestors DIED on slave boats coming over to the Americas. The term simply refers to the BEHAVIOR of SOME feminists.

Get it?

Answer 1

According to The Feminine Mistake (highly recommended reading), when a working woman decides that she wants to be a mother, she views her career as a burden rather than a calling. It sounds reasonable to me. In order to alleviate this problem, we should be doing more to encourage work-life balance and hammer the point home that women can and do have both.

Yes, of course women must continue to have children, but not all of them — with 6 billion people already, a good chunk of them orphans, how many more do we need? You're not going to see any little Rios scampering about any time soon (which, to many of you, is probably a good thing).

Answer 2

There are two kinds of equality. Subtstantive equality and formal equality. Standards were made by men for men they have never included women with any input nor have they considered women when these were put in place.
Substantive equality changes the playing field to make the tests more inclusive so that in cases such as Law School Entrance exams minorites, people of colour, aboriginal and others have the opportunity to become lawyers. They actually took some questions out of the LSAT's concering period furniture and architecture since these obvious meant nothing in becoming a good lawyer but were certainly not inclusive with minorities and other classes that did not have the same opportunities. The pre law exams have been shown to favour white, males in their mid twenties and this leaves out any others from being judged fairly.
Women also have to take time off for children and in the legal profession they do not have the billable hours or the time on the job to make partnerships so consequently female lawyers are also at the disadvantage to also to become judges and contribute to jusiprudence.
Women do not let their families go hungry while they are out inventing something. They worry about who is going to pick up the children while their husbands work late and build up a clientele.
Whats more in my last question you answer had nothing to do with what I was asking so here again is an example of male egocentrism where they see the world revolving around them their needs and their opinions which to me is of very very little consequence. You are one of the most unfair judgmental people on yahoo answers. You constantly side with the males and even when I had been personally attacked over and over by an individual you had the chutzpah to chide me for calling him a misogynist after he referred to me as a femnazi, a lesbian and that my husband kicked me to the curb. None of which are true. I find it quite distasteful that after I have lost family member to the nazi holocaust I am refered to in those terms. Maybe in you ultimate naivete you find that ok but I find it beyond reproach. This once again is another example of males and their views that women's ideas are less than theirs and that they have no feelings and what is said about them is of no consequence.

Answer 3

I think so.. but not only that.. It also continues the divde between the male and female in terms of economic security. women have to drop out of their professions to have kids...women suffer from loss of wages...loss of social security like earning potential, women have to sacrifice certain positions as they may not be able to work the long hours as others and therefore if they can not accept the long hours may not be able to acquire the job skills, and upward mobility. women also , usually in a family, even though they are working, they have to pay for daycare out of their own earnings which are typically less than the man's.. I can tell you that there are issues now in medicine because many women doctors are deciding to leave medicine or work part time while they have and raise kids, and this is increasing the doctors shortage. some women have decided not to go into medicine at all because they feel that it is not worth the debt, the time in training etc...especially condering they will stil not be as respected in the profession as the men. I'm not being mean, that's just reality. women can do anything they want to..but in certain disciplines within medicine you do not haveas high a percentage because of this child rearing/time scrifice issue. you do not have as many women surgeons, neurologist, orthopedist etc. women tend to go into primary care, or pediatrics becauyse but these are much lower paying than the other specialties I just mentioned. it is less training. also.... we will never be able to get the same percentage of 50/50 of male vs female surgeons

Answer 4

???

It's not necessary, for the continuation of the species, that all women be pregnant all the time.

Nor does pregnancy require women be sequestered for the entire pregnancy.

Given that most women have 1, 2, or 3 babies (and many have none), that's no reason for society to prevent them from contributing the vast majority of the time they're of working age.

Furthermore, there's no reason why men can't have a role in childcare. In fact, it would be better for everyone if they did.

(How many men have died, regretting that they entirely missed their children's childhood? How many children have suffered all their lives from not knowing their fathers?)

Pregnancy and child care are NOT the reasons women have been prevented from art or innovation or other forms of contribution to society (in so far as they were -- which was never entirely the case).

The beliefs and desires of most men (and many women) was a major factor in keeping most women from doing things other than bearing and caring for children.

But, given that those attitudes have been changing, and we see that, in fact, women participate in much art and innovation (as well as in just about every other kind of work there is), I see no reason to expect that women will always be treated as less than men.

There's no good reason to fail to hire or promote or pay a given woman because of her sex.

That not enough people seem to understand this is the primary cause of the current inequality in treatment of women in the working world.

Also, if the society were set up in such a way as to not prevent parents from caring for children, there would be nothing preventing women from contributing even more than they do now.

(By preventing child care, I'm talking about the increasing, though completely insane, expectation of employers that employees are slaves who need to spend 24/7/365 on the job.)

If employers acknowledged and allowed for the necessity of propagating the species, everyone would be better off.

Answer 5

I cannot imagine any more important job for a woman than having a child. I am a woman with no children, and no plans for children, because I don't want to have to make that sacrifice. I take the childbirth and raising role extremely seriously...afterall, what could be more important that bringing a new life into the world, and ensuring its care and safety? And I feel that if I am not willing to make that the top priority in my life, then I have no business having children.

Now, onto your question....I don't think that there is an inequality where pregnancy and its effects are concerned. In Canada, a woman has a paid maternity leave of up to 18 months. And her job MUST be secured for her return, if she chooses it. If anything, I think this is ridiculously unfair for employers and the male working counterparts! Our society has made all kinds of sacrifices for the pregnant woman wanting to work...and now, tax dollars are going to the daycare costs for them! As a woman without children, I don't understand why I am expected to pay for one who has chosen to have children, but cannot afford to pay for them! Perhaps I sound selfish, but I think that you must be able to provide for children before you decide to have them.

Answer 6

Your question is a valid one. But you asked it like a tourist informing the tour guide of the sites. (As in: you are an underage male in a section designed for woman's studies.) That has a tendency to offend some. Especially women who have faced discrimination in the work place because of their gender. Your language could be interpreted as insensitive and even, inflamatory. I consider your age, the intent and the question. I do not feel offended.

First of all, I think others have addressed this issue already, but women have made contributions in all fields, but less so than men in numbers due largely to less opportunity. Only in more recent history have women had access to equal education, work, etc. I think that's something on which we all could agree.

But the present times have brought us to a place where with the FMLA** a woman or man can take time off from work, even unpaid leave time after the birth or adoption of a child. This goes a long way towards leveling the playing field for women who YES, due to not being on the job, could suffer setbacks WHILE leveling the playing field for men as fathers. Men have just as much right to spend time with the family as women.

So as Both parents are given legal rights re: the option of leave time re: parenting, then employers must have a system in place to compensate for the potential loss of productivity for any of its employees regarding parenting. Therefore, unequal pay cannot be justified by lack of productivity due to parenting issues.

Many women work out of necessity to either support or help support their family. Staying home for child rearing purposes may not be an option. This means child care arrangements must be made. More employers have become sensitive to this for BOTH men and women in the middle income bracket. Some even providing work-site daycares. However, wage earners working poor and in the upper income bracket that work for corporations or time demanding fields (physicians/attorneys) statistically have employment situations less lenient. Women are hardest hit there.

I think the key issue will be when the USA wakes up and realizes that the Human Resource Factor is suffering. Our children do not recieve priority in our Nation. The USA is rated DEAD LAST in education of any industrialized nation ... how can we possibly expect to keep up with the changes Globalization will bring? The "No Child Left Behind" Education Reform left many children behind with a higher High School drop-out rate than before the program was begun.

Many children do not have access to health insurance or adequate health care (in my state over 200,000 children of the working poor are uninsured and cannot be covered by the Welfare program, due to State Budget limits). This means less preventative care, more sickness, less healthy children and potentially more employer problems due to parental absences.

Again the parents must decide which one of them will shoulder that responsiblity (the higher wage earner of the two may get the "benefit" of less absence time there instead of the need being equally divided). If the situation is of single parenting, the results can be devasting. The working poor are the largest growing number of homeless, frequently women with children. One of the number one complaints is related to daycare/health care issues.

So our laws in the USA** have put into place a system that protects the rights better of parents (both women and men), but our nation has far to go in supporting our future with our most precious national resource ... our children, both female and male.

Thank you for this question. It's such an important topic for us all to discuss. Stay curious and keep questioning! It's the foundation for learning, is it not?

Answer 7

People keep bringing up that women haven't made as many strides and acheivements as men. It's because WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO. If women were allowed to work all those thousands of years, then I'm sure we would've created just as many wonderful inventions/advancements in life.