Only “job” (and “ability”, too) as defined through a culture that optimized jobs for men. A system that considered pregnancy and nursing in the first place would not have any detrimental side effect for anyone - no one would be at a disadvantage or advantage. Culture has always wanted healthy babies and successful nursing, and has provided for that. But it hasn’t provided for such things in conjunction with women having careers. That’s a conscious choice on culture’s part, and it was never necessary. Path of least resistance? Especially in a patriarchy? Yes. Necessary? No.
Natural disadvantage, sure. But not cultural. I think where we’re sticking here is when (or if) natural disadvantages can actually translate to cultural disadvantages without discrimination. I say they cannot, even given all your examples, I’ve tried to show where those still fail to address how they can be chosen to become embedded into culture as disadvantages (vs. simple differences) without discrimination.
More difficult, maybe, but not definitely. Technology has made change within a globally connect economy easier, but I’m not sure it somehow changed how easy it would have been to establish a different system from the get go.
You’ve lost me on this one, as to what you’re trying to say. How could men possibly be considered discriminated against with a retirement age optimized for them? Also, the retirement age difference was a fictional system, as I said. There aren’t any that exist that have been optimized for women.
Again, this is in our current system, where our schooling, parenting, and ability to start careers are centered around men’s maturity rates. If if was centered around women, and it was natural to finish school earlier and begin careers earlier, good careers that were not exploitative or unusual - and if this happened as a natural part of the system and not as an odd bird which doesn’t fit - then it’s no easy argument to say it would be still be the same.
