British 'man' becomes pregnant

"if I, a woman, feel more violent in the week before my period due to hormones? Does that give me a free pass to twat someone who annoys me?"

Good example. I am often tense, frustrated, and confrontational before my period. No, it doesn't give me a free pass with DH, friends, or strangers.

It would do no good to pretend this biological effect isn't happening. I hope you would all join me in going if you were told that a feminist committee has reached the "consensus" that PMT doesn't have a basis in biology.

"There is very little evidence of innate differences between male and female brains, or that testosterone makes people more aggressive."

The second part of that sentence is blatantly false. Go to scholar.google.com and start reading up on testosterone and aggression.

"that's feminism scuppered isn't it?"

No. Feminism is about equal rights and opportunities.

Yes, men have a tendency to be more aggressive and violent. That's why we have laws and education.

My hair has a tendency to keep growing but I can cut and style it. White-skinned Northern Europeans have a tendency to burn in the sun but can use sun protection and keep out of the sun around noon. Children have a tendency to hit and snatch but can be taught to take turns and say "Please". Men are more aggressive than women but laws and society keep the behaviour of the vast majority in check. (Until war or similar breaks down authority and then we see them killing or raping their neighbors).

Sorry that was so long!

Beathcomber I'd be more than happy to agree that parenting (and of course I am assuming whole hearted nurturing parenting here) is likely to make you value life more, I just don't think that the pregnancy/childbirth part is the most important thing when it comes to how women think about life, at least compared to their male parenting counterparts (or indeed female but non biological parents).

In systems where women do the vast majority of the childrearing as well as run the initial risks (and I wonder if that might be the case in the US community you describe) I would absolutely agree that they would care more than men who had opted out, I just don't think that this is inherent to being a woman or a mother.

Feminist theory about how patriarchy values women only for their reproductive abilities (and fears/controls them for the same reason) doesn't I think cover how women feel about life does it?

Oh and personally I didn't have a terrible pregnancy but I really didn't enjoy it and my two c-sections weren't a walk in the park. Sure it pissed me off that my dh couldn't have carried at least one of them, and the other day dd and some of her girl friends were bemoaning that they had to put up with periods while their brothers did not. Not sure any of those experiences made us more caring (about anything really) though.

Probably a bit of both

Good for you ageingrunner. My girlfriend says she sometimes wants to twat me, but I'm not sure if that's because of her hormones or me

I agree. Hormones don't in themselves cause violent behaviour. Sometimes they really make want to twat someone, but I manage not to and so do most men

No, and testosterone doesn't give men a free pass either. Someone who is violent makes a choice to be so

No and no-one has said that except Cote mentioned testosterone as the cause (although then conceding socialisation might be a factor too)

What if I, a woman, feel more violent in the week before my period due to hormones? Does that give me a free pass to twat someone who annoys me?

The very fact that most women don't go around twatting people when they're on their periods when lots of men do proves that hormones do not not determine violence.

You're talking about whether testosterone EXCUSES aggression there. That's a different argument. But the fact remains that if men are MORE LIKELY to be aggressive than women because of their hormonal make-up, then more of them always will be - regardless of whether they should or not. And therefore patriarchy will always endure because it is indelibly inscribed in a male neurology which lots of morally inferior men will always default to.

Anyway, this is all moot because recent research suggests that there is no clear link being testosterone and aggression. Its a myth that stems from crude experiments in which rodents were castrated. It is mainly used by male chauvinists to justify their behaviour as natural.

What if I, a woman, feel more violent in the week before my period due to hormones? Does that give me a free pass to twat someone who annoys me?
No, and testosterone doesn't give men a free pass either. Someone who is violent makes a choice to be so.

Well if men are neuro-biologically predisposed to be more aggressive, overall, than women - then presumably they always will be. And it doesn't matter if they're on the savannah or throwing their weight around in a corporate boardroom, boys will be boys, because of all that testosterone having an effect on their amygdala's. Where as the women presumably, lacking all that testosterone, and being less badass because they get pregnant and care about human life more, will be at home looking after the kids.

Of course I don't believe that though. There is very little evidence of innate differences between male and female brains, or that testosterone makes people more aggressive.

Why does that mean feminism is scuppered? Why should aggressive and violent hormone driven behaviour prevail in our civilised times? We're not on the savannah now. There is no reason why this should be the case. What about the benefits of cooperation and community?

Wasn't there some research done that found exogenous testosterone made people calmer and less violent? Sorry I can't remember the details.
Even if men have more potential to be violent, if violence wasn't accepted in society, they wouldn't be as violent imo. I'm sure men could control themselves much better if socialised not to be violent, but obviously that is not something that could be achieved quickly or easily.

Women who have never had children are still not violent like men.

No Cote, you are right. I'm not putting it forward as the sole explanation by any means. I just wonder if it is a factor.

It seems evident to me that both are true. Men are more aggressive & violent than women because they run on testosterone and this aggression is sanctioned (even encouraged) by their socialisation.

Ok, but that's feminism scuppered isn't it? No arguing with the effects of testosterone on the amygdala.

Yes but the 'lived experience' of pregnancy is biologically limited to females. So therefore, by implication, female psychology is biologically determined - according to your theory.

'Nurture' denotes influences that are socially relative, and that could change. Pregnancy is not socially relative. It is a biological fact of female of experience that can never ever change. Therefore, if this fixed female experience makes women value human life more, then that is tantamount to saying that differences in male and female psychology are biologically immutable.

It's a theory Beachcomber, but an essentialist one. It is tantamount to saying that men are biologically predisposed to be more violent than women - which goes against much feminist thought.

No it isn't.

As I have already said to you, I am talking about menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth as lived experiences.

A lived experience comes under the heading "nurture" not "nature".

As I have already said, I may be wrong but what I am not is making an essentialist argument.

Saying that our lived experiences influence how we see the world is the opposite of an essentialist argument.

It seems evident to me that both are true. Men are more aggressive & violent than women because they run on testosterone and this aggression is sanctioned (even encouraged) by their socialisation.

I don't give a shiny one about whether or not this confirms with anyone's "consensus".

Well I thought the third wave consensus was that men were socialised into being more violent? Could be wrong. But if you're saying men are naturally, neuro-biologically more violent, you are on VERY problematic ground - because you're in effect saying that male violence is not a political phenomenon that can be changed, but part of the natural order of things (which presumably can't). That is generally how violent and dominative men justify they're behaviour. They legitimise it as natural and therefore inevitable.

"why men as a class are more violent towards other humans than women are as a class. I'm suggesting that perhaps women as a class are less cavalier with human life than men as a class because women as a class are the ones who expend time and energy in growing that human life in their bodies."

One word: Testosterone.

Women who have never had children are still not violent like men.

"It is tantamount to saying that men are biologically predisposed to be more violent than women - which goes against much feminist thought."

It does? I would be surprised if this "feminist thought" you speak of is not aware of the effects of testosterone on amygdala activation and suppression of prefrontal restraint.

I think we need to be vary wary about making statements about what men and women do and do not value. While patterns of gendered behaviour do exist, men and women are not homogenous unitary consciousnesses. They do vary a bit from individual to individual, to the extent that there are mothers who could not give less of a shit about their children and fathers who love them dearly. This is not to deny that men are not overall more violent.

Agree with Floggin

Men obviously value the life of the mother more than the children though.

Erm..do they?