British 'man' becomes pregnant

kneels on prayer cushion next to Flora

And yet, in human history, this seems to have happened extremely rarely. It could be co-incidence, it could be that we haven't evolved far enough yet (after all, in animal communities, the males certainly dominate through strength), but the idea that it's entirely socialisation does seem a little far-fetched to me. It would seem that there's at least something else going on.

True, but I would say that in human history most societies have been male-dominated, and men have dominated through strength. Therefore unsurprisingly most of the violence has been perpetrated by men - both against other men and women and in both social and militarist contexts. As I've said before, the fact that men have greater muscle mass than women and penises is salient. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean they have, in general, more innately violent personalities.

There is evidence to suggest that when women do have a physical advantage over others they are no less likely than men to be violent towards them. Women are at least as likely as men to kill or maltreat their children, for example.

We have a document at work now explaining why we must refer to 'gender assigned at birth' rather than being born male or female.

My daughters - both of whom have had fierce and fearless arguments with boys at school in which they've said no, women can't rape, rape is a thing that can only be done by a man, and so on - both got furious at the weekend when I referred to transactivists threatening Julie Bindel with death as 'men telling women how to do feminism.'

I'm not brave enough to say what I think, or even retweet someone else who's saying what I think.

What is to be done?

There is no reason why a society that gives women equal or greater power might not develop, even though that power would not be phallically exercised. Theoretically speaking. Power and its abuse is not inherently phallic. To suggest it is would be essentialist

And yet, in human history, this seems to have happened extremely rarely. It could be co-incidence, it could be that we haven't evolved far enough yet (after all, in animal communities, the males certainly dominate through strength), but the idea that it's entirely socialisation does seem a little far-fetched to me. It would seem that there's at least something else going on.

My money would be on the combination of size and physical vulnerability of women as someone else said above. Is it entirely determined by that on an individual basis? No, but we're talking about populations here, so population level differences are enough.

Yes exactly Prawnofthepatriarchy.

Plus why does so domestic violence either begin or worsen during a woman's pregnancy?

Pressing questions that men refuse to examine.

"Because women are human."

Well, this has been enlightening. Thank you for taking the time from your school to educate us

ignore the above, it was in relation to another thread rather than this one.

Not all men are violent by any stretch. So it's unfair to lump them all in together which is what happens when people start to talk about male violence. Just as it's unfair to talk about Muslim terrorists in the context of 'how to deal with muslims'. Statistics have a very important role in policy making but should never be used by everyday people to make judgements.

They could just stop. Right now. If they wanted to.

So true, Beachcomber. Male violence is often calculated. How frequently do we hear on MN from some distraught woman whose DP is hitting her? And how often does it turn out that this poor misunderstood man never, ever hits anyone outside the family, thereby demonstrating that his violence is entirely under his control.

And then there's the way society deals with male violence. My understanding is that the criminal justice system lets violence from men go by on the nod: the boys will be boys approach. Women are held to a higher standard.

He'll take that as a challenge you know!

Haha yeah that's exactly my experience of the internet - it's the dawn of MY time - woo! Oh except for the doxxing and the pretty much constant rape threats if you speak about feminism, and the fact that anyone with a slightly feminist or gender critical POV gets pre-modded on mainstream news sites whilst white-supremacists and MRAs are allowed free reign.

Sorry that was to Flogging's post

😂

It's incredible really how little is known about male violence considering how prevalent it is and how much damage it does.

It's such a taboo subject, with a shying away from naming it, let alone examining it. It is a massive and ghastly elephant in the room which has bearing on pretty well every aspect of human life.

Just look at these stats from Million Women Rise: www.millionwomenrise.com/about-male-violence.html

And when men are confronted with it by women all you get is a volley of NAMALT/women do it too/stop being a man hater/yeah but no but men invented the wheel/women would be just as bad if they were men/etc and if you're lucky a bit of hand wringing over men not being able to help being so big and strong.

They could just stop. Right now. If they wanted to.

querty obviously moonlights as Mystic Meg.

I just want to make one last point. Material conditions engender power structures, and hitherto (at least in Western societies) those material conditions have favoured male dominance.

But that is changing. The internet will revolutionise gender relations. This new digitised, post-industrial world we will be entering will allow women power they have never had before. In a century or two machines will completely dominate an economy that was once dominated by men.

I know it probably doesn't seem like that now because there is all the misogynist porn and rape threats on Twitter etc. But that is men frightened and enraged, trying to dominate a cyberspace that for the first time allows you a voice. Because now you don't need a penis and a six pack to assert your power anymore - just a broadband connection.

This is the beginning of the end of our time, and eventually it will be your time. And you will have power - sexual power, economic power. And that power will be intoxicating but it will also come with a dark side. It will be a burden of moral responsibility, and woman will do evil with it as well as enormous good.

Because women are human.

The person who is pregnant is a woman whatever they call themselves as men cannot be pregnant. If they then go on to fully transition then they are a transman in my mind. If they don't do anything to physically transition but just dress as a man then they are a woman who likes to dress manly. They can call it what they like but it is bloody ridiculous to say a man is pregnant.

Now I come to think of it, the only essentialism that we have seen on this thread is the notion that the only reason men are violent oppressors of girls and women is because of their (innate!) manly strength and physique. Ahem.

That's a fair point. I was kind of wrong there I think. I suppose I was trying to say, albeit not very well, that patriarchy started because of that capability - and successive social structures accrued, perpetuating the subjugation and violation of women.

It's a bit like saying that if you give one group of people a load of guns and tanks, then the chances are they will assume a superior status because they have that power. Because they can. And from then on the gun and tank owners come to culturally define themselves as more superior than the non-tank owners. But that is reversible. It is not essentialist.

There is no reason why a society that gives women equal or greater power might not develop, even though that power would not be phallically exercised. Theoretically speaking. Power and its abuse is not inherently phallic. To suggest it is would be essentialist.

Patriarchy is reversible. We now have a society where physical might does not carry the power it once did in a Bronze Age community. A lot of power is wielded in non-physical ways. Even warfare is being digitised. Quite a few of those Russian hackers were young women.

My point is that if any class of humans find themselves with the opportunity to exercise undue power (and men in primitive societies did) then they will abuse that power.

No, YetAnotherSpartacus that wasn't referring to anything you have said. It as an idea put forward by qwerty quite early on in the thread

Thanks for letting me know.

And I totally get and agree with what you just posted YetAnotherSpartacus.

Indeed what you say above it is what I meant by bringing phenomenology into it.

The 'chap' in question was papped today...

How long before we gave him in celebrity big brother?

No, YetAnotherSpartacus that wasn't referring to anything you have said. It as an idea put forward by qwerty quite early on in the thread.