British 'man' becomes pregnant

I haven't engaged with it either. It's impossible to ignore this level of derailment and persistence and it is very clear he isn't here to educate himself. I think he's trolling.

Male violence is a major factor in how patriarchy is maintained.

Girls and women are subjugated through male violence (much of it sexualised) and the threat of male violence.

Yes. I agree Beach. Because they are socialised to be the more dominant, violent sex. In a post-patriarchal society they wouldn't be would they? By definition.

So therefore violence and domination does not necessarily follow anatomical advantage. If it did then there would be no point in feminism would there?

Look, all I am saying is that there is no such thing as a violent, dominative male psychology independent of socialisation.

If power follows physical advantage, and men will always defend that power, then feminism is completely negated.

Slithytove even!

Male violence is a major factor in how patriarchy is maintained.

Girls and women are subjugated through male violence (much of it sexualised) and the threat of male violence.

All this talk about size, strength, power etc is very economical with the truth.

(Sorry slithylove )

I haven't participated in this thread for the reasons given above. I do, however, take my hat off to those who persisted in trying to get qwerty to grasp basic feminist beliefs. Complete waste of time, but you never know, he might have started listening

I just don't have the patience. If I don't believe someone is debating in good faith I won't engage or, if I do, I feel annoyed with myself later.

I can't help wondering whether qwerty is a very slow release GF.

And yes i am being flippant

Nothing obligated any of you to give him any attention whatsoever

Just socialization getting us to take care of a newcomer

It's been a textbook example of sexed socialization, the women taking care of a newcomer while the man expects to be made a fuss of and have his opinions deferred to

You could all have hidden the thread/ ignored Qwerty/ started a new thread. Nothing obligated any of you to give him any attention whatsoever.

You keep saying that we're saying that men seek power because of testosterone. I'm saying that as the larger, stronger sex, they already have that power, they are already defending the higher ground.

Yes, but whether they are compelled to defend that power is another matter. And they can only exercise it in certain contexts. Power is not just a case of physical strength. Margaret Thatcher had enormous power even though she did not have physical strength. She sank the Belgrano with a mere word.

In lots of contexts men do have power over women by virtue of being physically stronger. But whether they have any desire to exercise or defend that power is completely down to socialisation.

As an adult I have more physical power than children. But I have no desire to exercise it over them, or defend it.

If men will always defend the power they already have patriarchy can never be overcome, surely?

In pre-history through to now male power was asserted through physical strength. But as I have said before, as more human interaction and institutional power is mediated by machines, that will change. Much power is now exercised in cyberspace.

My theory is that mass automation and digitisation will be the undoing of patriarchy. Because male strength will count for nothing. Men will no longer be necessary - economically or socially. Robots will be the friends of women.

And God knows what technologically facilitated forms conception and pregnancy will take in the future. It won't always be the same.

And there is nothing innate about men being compelled to oppress women

Sorry, missed this.

Are you sure? Because it seems to me that there is an innate tendency to defend advantage. The silverback leads the pack and has to win challenges, my boss at work is required to give direction rather than have me tell him what to do, hierarchies at play, and those at the top want to maintain their position above the people below.

This can take many forms, but to suggest that physical violence isn't one of those forms would be untrue.

It's socially unacceptable now, but how many of us were smacked as a kid? Our parents enforcing the hierarchy with physical violence was perfectly normal. How many times do you hear about it happening, until the son got big enough to whack his dad back?

For instance, the view that women value life more because they give birth to children. Or that men seek power because they have penises and higher levels of testosterone.

You keep talking about nurturing and care when it comes to pregnancy. I'm talking about risk and danger. If something is produced, and high risk and cost, then it is valued higher - except, when it comes to humans, when suddenly, babies are produced at great danger and effort, but considered relatively worthless in the grand scheme. NOTE caring and nurturing are not needed here! Purely talking cost of acquisition vs. societal value.

You keep saying that we're saying that men seek power because of testosterone. I'm saying that as the larger, stronger sex, they already have that power, they are already defending the higher ground.

OMG, still this

Totally agree Prawn what a waste of female time, and what a pity about what started out as a very interesting thread.

It's been a textbook example of sexed socialization, the women taking care of a newcomer while the man expects to be made a fuss of and have his opinions deferred to

think? thing

100% agree with you.

My argument can be boiled down to this:

There is no such think as a male or female personality independent of socialisation.

Sorry prawn didn't mean to bump the thread. I'm off too now!

men were not born with a compulsion to opress women

I do believe if males were socialised in a different way they would not opress women. They would not abuse their power. They may actually use power in a more egalitarian way.

Under patriarchy, males are socialised to advance themselves and other males around them, and are psychologically conditioned to opress women. Women are psychologically conditioned to be passive.

The signifiers of this conditioning are based upon sex and the biological consequences of being of one sex or another.
Gender is a tool used by present day society to accentuate and exacerbate the differences between the sexes which is why it's important to understand the difference between sex and gender.

As for women not having an innate desire to care for children I'd also agree. If you look at communal societies equal care is provided by both adult males and females.

I have been reading this epic derail and find it disheartening qwerty has managed to get so much in the way of responses from eloquent women spending their time explaining feminist tenets.

Qwerty, it is nobody's job to give you an education. If you're sincerely interested you could do some reading. Your performance here demonstrates that you don't know anything as much about feminism as you think you do, and that you aren't prepared to actually listen to anyone

During your umpteen exchanges with Beachcomber I found myself muttering to the screen "but that isn't what she said. She said the opposite, ffs!" You seem to wilfully reinterpret feminist points and language to suit your agenda. To have reached this point in an interminable exchange and still not understand the difference between sex and gender suggests you haven't taken the debate seriously or, I'm sorry to say, with integrity.

It's been a textbook example of sexed socialization, the women taking care of a newcomer while the man expects to be made a fuss of and have his opinions deferred to. However, with all credit to the women who engaged (I really don't have the patience) I suspect it's been a total waste of time.

I partly agree Ophelia. The fact that men are stronger than women and have penises is germane to female oppression - the fact that they have the capability to oppress women physically - is germane.

The fact that children are physically weaker than adults is germane to child abuse. But people do not abuse children purely because they are weaker and smaller. If that were the case, then we would all be child abusers. The reasons why adults are MOTIVATED to abuse children - their psychology - is a completely different matter.

And of course there is everything innate about females giving birth and breast feeding, but there is nothing innate about them being kind, nurturing or caring. And there is nothing innate about men being compelled to oppress women. Men were not born with a compulsion to oppress women. And women are not born with a desire to care for a children - or at least they are no more likely than a man to be born with such a desire.

I'm not really talking about capability but psychology. I'm capable of doing all sorts of things which I don't do - because I don't want to them.

Well qwerty exactly. Male and female identities are constructed around biological reality.

You can't self-identify yourself out of your biological reality no matter how many artificial hormones you take or how much you play fancy dress.

Ideally, men would be socialised to curtail their nature-given power (males being physically stronger etc) perhaps under a matriarchy they would be.

Ideally females could have options outside of the socially constructed constraints that limit a woman's options to the home, which is presently economically undervalued.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in patriarchy. We live under abuse of male power.

There is nothing innate about women putting on makeup and wearing a skirt then being blamed for their own rape because they wore a skirt and makeup. Nothing innate or immovable about Women simply being decorative, the listener, not the informative. That is all socially constructed.
There is everything innate about women giving birth and breastfeeding. Men being stronger, taller, more streamline when running etc. Sex based differences should be recognised and respected as they are immovable.

Gender based appearence-led differences need to be dismantled to liberate women from men's opression.

So hold on, you want to talk about an imaginary world, where men and women are the same size, neither is endangered by pregnancy, and it's completely free from effort and risk.

No, of course not. What I'm talking about is how male and female is identity is constructed around those realities. For instance, the view that women value life more because they give birth to children. Or that men seek power because they have penises and higher levels of testosterone.

I'm saying those things are not true independent of socialisation. Of course there will always be hardship surrounding pregnancy, child-rearing and absolutely everything else in life. But what systems of meaning and power surround those basic biological realities is another matter entirely. At the moment they are systems which favour male dominance - which construct women as passive and nurturing and men as active and aggressive. But this is a constructed system. It is not immutable.

I hope that you feel better soon Beachcomber.

Meanwhile a man requiring a sperm donor to get pregnant does rather boggle the eyeballs.

There could be a society, theoretically, in which pregnancy is completely divested of all its scared meanings

So hold on, you want to talk about an imaginary world, where men and women are the same size, neither is endangered by pregnancy, and it's completely free from effort and risk.

You're saying that in that world, in your opinion, men wouldn't be more violent than women.

I agree.

However, in this world, men are bigger, and are likely to remain so (at least for the next few hundred thousand years without interference). Pregnancy is both effort and risk, and will remain so for a good while yet I would expect, so I fail to see what use at all your thought experiment is.

If we change all the reality so everyone is the same, then yes, every one is the same. Film at 11.

My apologies to everyone for feeding the derail. Sorry, I'm in bed recovering from a virus and I'm at the bored stage of betterness.

I have been googling Hayden Cross though and came across this which actually describes Cross as male.

Man is bad enough but male is another level.

www.itv.com/news/2017-01-08/uk-male-set-to-give-birth-after-finding-sperm-donor-over-facebook/