British 'man' becomes pregnant

Perhaps just start a different thread? Either in FWR or not. Then posters can engage if they wish to given that this is a huge derail for this thread

I agree ... I don't think this one is going to get any better.

Sorry Mostly. I'll try to limit my posts and their length from now on.

Typical male socialisation.

Aside from the issue of the thread itself, or the derail, have you actually got any sense of appropriate online behaviour, Qwerty? Because if you scroll back through this thread, there are huge stretches where every other post is by you, and some patches where there's strings of 3 or 4 consecutive posts by you. On a thread which wasn't started by you, in a section (feminism) where as a man you should be thinking "hang on a minute, is my voice the one which should be dominating the conversation?" You seem to lack any basic awareness of the give-and-take, and more importantly, of listening to the other person's point of view which characterises normal healthy discourse, whether online or in real life.

I'm sorry I really don't understand - you're right.

Let's forget gender identity. You say embodiment is sexed. In your view, does embodiment have to be sexed in the same way in all possible societies? Could there be a society where there is a different kind of sexed embodiment?

In other words, is the sexed embodiment determined by society, or is it naturally inevitable?

Believe me you don't understand it.

The point is not that within a patriarchal society gender is embodied.

It is that embodiment is sexed and society is patriarchal.

You are making the basic error of confusing sex and gender role and to confound things further you are lobbing "gender identity" into the mix up as well. This is basic stuff, feminism 101. You don't have a hope of understanding my feminist framed point until your grasp of the founding concepts and how they are used improves.

Perhaps just start a different thread? Either in FWR or not. Then posters can engage if they wish to given that this is a huge derail for this thread.

Ok, I'll go.

Qwerty you are boring everyone now and you have no right to demand that your questions are answered. You must know that? Perhaps try listening to yourself of you can't be arsed to listen to anyone on this thread.

I think I do understand Beachcomber's position - that within a patriarchal society gender is embodied.

But where (I think) Beach and I disagree is on the question of whether an embodied gendered identity is permanent, or trans-historical. My view is that it isn't. It could change.

In other words, in my view gender identity is embodied but that embodiment is a social phenomenon. Particular values are assigned to the experience of pregnancy, or a man's penis, by a society. It is not something that is biologically inevitable in all possible structures of power. There could be a society, theoretically, in which pregnancy is completely divested of all its scared meanings. One in which women do not value children anymore than men. To say otherwise would imo be essentialist (unless I have understood essentialism wrongly).

At least I hope I haven't explained women's experience of oppression to them. If I have, that is wrong. Please draw my attention to any example of this in my posts.

Rufus, maybe it is my fault, but I do not understand. It would help clarify matters if the above question were answered with a simple yes or no.

I think we should decide on a distinction between 'mansplaining' and a man explaining something. Just because some men explain things to women out of a desire to cower them, it does not follow that a man explaining something is always mansplaining. As it were.

Moreover, at no point have I explained women's experience to them. If I was on here telling women what it feels like to give birth or get raped you would be entirely in your rights to object.

However, all my points concern the designation and construction of gendered identity in a patriarchal society. As I am a gendered person living in a patriarchal society myself, my input is as warranted as anyone else's.

So if some does suggest that women value the lives of their children more than men because they give birth to them, or that men are more aggressive because they are born with higher levels of a certain hormone, I am entirely in my rights to offer my objections to those views.

If those are not the views of the posters and I have misinterpreted them, then explanations of how I have misinterpreted them should be more forthcoming. Or at least none of the explanations that have been offered have been satisfactory in my view.

qwerty

SHE HAS EXPLAINED HERSELF IN SUCH BASIC TERMS THAT EVEN I UNDERSTAND IT

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING

GO AND SIT ON THE STAIRS AND THINK ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS

I already posted my thoughts on that.

Shall I get my DH to come on repost them under a manly MN name (perhaps something like ManHereMakeWayForMyTesticlesofObjectivity) so that they can be uncloaked from the incomprehensibility of ladyutterances?

Are you saying that a world is possible in which men value children and human life as much as women do?

Beachcomber

What is your answer to the question beachcomber?

That if men spent half the time challenging patriarchal society as they do posting misogynistic wank on the internet we would all be living in a post gender fucking utopia.

Right back atcha YetAnotherSpartacus for this awesomeness:

Then make it clear that this is what you are saying (i.e. that it is your opinion only), because right now, and for the last xx pages of what was actually an interesting thread before you turned up, you have been behaving exactly, and without a shred of self-recognition or sense of irony, like the kind of patriarchal man that you also seem to be decrying. Practice what you preach. I very much doubt that with your convoluted reasoning and complete inability to treat with integrity what any woman has said here (by this, I mean actually take her words at face value, rather than impart your own meaning and interpretation) as well as with your attitude that you and only you as a man are right, (when talking about issues that impact women deeply and often painfully), that you will persuade anyone. All you are doing is making yourself the centre of attention and demanding women's time and energy in replying to you - as well as taking up women's space and telling us how to understand the very fabric of our lives and experiences. Sound patriarchal? Because it is.

What is your answer to the question beachcomber?

*Another aspect of misogynistic socialization is men thinking they have a right to women's time. On internet forums this manifests in a number of ways, one of which is asking women to explain things over and over again. Often if the woman does bother to explain, her thoughts will then be mansplained back to her with the inclusion of strawmen, misrepresentation, dumbing down of her ideas to the point of rendering them nonsensical and a good dose of telling her that she doesn't know her own mind.

Another is lots of long rambling posts that shit all over the discussion women are trying to have*

How right you are, Beach.

IMO, of course.

Another aspect of misogynistic socialization is men thinking they have a right to women's time. On internet forums this manifests in a number of ways, one of which is asking women to explain things over and over again. Often if the woman does bother to explain, her thoughts will then be mansplained back to her with the inclusion of strawmen, misrepresentation, dumbing down of her ideas to the point of rendering them nonsensical and a good dose of telling her that she doesn't know her own mind.

Another is lots of long rambling posts that shit all over the discussion women are trying to have.

Apologies if I have ascribed views to you that you do not hold. Please put me right on any points.

"just because they're women and I'm a man."

And, again, no woman on here said you should.

I think qwerty must be trolling now