Understanding men

[cailindana]

I've had some interesting conversations with DH lately (who has recently got into feminism in a big way) about how patriarchy has affected him. It's something I'm interested in as I think it's part of the bigger picture and worth knowing in terms of combatting the effects of how our society is structured, both on women and men. As a woman of course I have limited insight into how men see the world and so would appreciate views specifically from men.

What DH has said to me is that he has been trained by his upbringing to overvalue what men do and undervalue what women do.
He says he has found it extremely hard to be in any way honest about his feelings as he has learned that it is not acceptable for him to share how he really feels.

Both of these things have contributed in large ways to the problems in our relationship and now that he's recognised them and tried to overcome them things have changed. I have to admit though I am a bit discombobulated by the change almost as though he doesn't quite fit my expectation of how men should be (indoctrinated in me by my sexist asshat of a father). So I've also had to change my attitude.

Any thoughts?

I thought some of you might find this interesting:

feministing.com/2015/05/07/gay-israeli-men-and-surrogate-babies-evacuated-from-nepal-mothers-left-behind/

"I like the idea of a tomb of the unknown mother."

Me too, even though I don't think you negated my point.

(Off to brush up on my history...).

I'm wondering what the men have to say about it Buffy. They say men have no feelings about the fact that women have babies, except for not really wanting to do it themselves. So why not say, oh yeah it'd be nice to commemorate the women who've risked their lives in childbirth? Why even argue about it, if you're not bothered? And why has patriarchal society been so obsessed with controlling women's sexuality and fertility?

I agree, any threat felt is due to questioning paternity.

That threat wouldn't be there if men could have the babies themselves. Thus the need to socially control women while at the same time making out having babies is an ordinary thing that warrants no recognition.

I do think it (marriage) was men trying to ensure the continuation of their lineage. Marriage was originally - in Britain anyway - an agreement between church and state of the 'legality' of a relationship. I think it started with the Normans and the Pope at the time of William the Conqueror - 1066 and all that. Marriage legitimised inheritance, and protection of power and title. I assume it just filtered down from the nobility to the proles.

It was a tool of the powerful to keep wealth within a family. I can understand the narrative of women's power to give life, but I've always found that a bit earth-goddess-y.

It's funny how having babies was a major thing back when it was used as a form of social control. So, for a woman, having a baby outside of wedlock in the 50s, say, was a huge disaster, a massive big deal, a transgression that warranted social stigma and in many cases the removal of the baby. In Ireland it warranted incarceration and slavery, sometimes for life. But when women take control of the situation and it's ok to have babies alone, suddenly it's no big deal. Just ordinary. Funny that.

Cailin Whatever the reason(s) were - it doesn't look as if it was about feeling threatened by women's ability to have children.

I am not much of an historian and have little knowledge of life as lived by the general people throughout the ages in this country, but I can imagine a lot of men (or their families) when choosing a bride, might not what candidates with a rich and varied sexual history. Maybe men ( don't forget the 'poor lambs' and 'fragile egos' memes see 'feminism 101') might simply not have wanted frank but unhelpful comparisons to their own fumblings in the early marriage bed. of course, the same thing can be said of women's choices about their husbands.

As I say, I don't know, but I am not persuaded by your answer.

What's wrong with it being earth-goddessy Yops? Genuine question, I'm interested to know what the problem is with celebrating the power to give life.

I don't believe men have made out that giving birth is just some ordinary event. It's just that it is something which is common that occurs mainly for the benefit of the woman and her family.

Certainly men throughout history would have been interested in controlling women's sexuality/fertility in order to ensure that they are raising their own children and not another man's.

Cadno, men were supposed to 'sow their wild oats,' women were supposed to be pure and virginal. A woman suspected of not being pure was ruined, worthless. What are you not persuaded about?

A soldier shooting another soldier benefits that soldier, in that it prevents him being killed. In the long run it benefits the war effort. Equally a woman having a child benefits herself and her family and in the long run society in general by perpetuating the species. I used the word ordinary because that's the word that has been used here by others.

Cailin - is there an optimum number of children that benefits society. Does someone that is child free benefit society less than someone with a child? Is a woman with 16 children more earth goddessy than a woman with 3 children?

It's funny how some people seem to think that marriage didn't exist before the church decided to legitimise it.

To go back to the relative pay and 'worth' of jobs is that the more feminised it is, the less the status/pay. So, for example, teaching, which was once high status and male dominated (at least when it came to teaching boys) has lost status and pay as it becomes more and more feminised. The same can be seen to be happening in the law and medicine. The opposite movement can be seen in computing where women exclusively wrote the code in the early years and were relatively lowly paid and low status. As men entered the profession, the status has gone up, along with the pay, and there has been a noticeable squeezing out of women.

To be clear, I'm not hot on the earth goddess thing either, I'm more interested in why celebrating it seems 'earth goddessy' and therefore undesirable?

I'd agree slug. Maybe not with computing though. That sector has evolved massively. There is now a real market for this type of technology. I think this is why wages have increased in this area. If anything there has been a move away from the upper class writing code and it has become a wider and more diverse profession.

My lack of persuasion ? Your reasoning as to why you believe that men feel threatened by women having children.

I'm not convinced either with the thought that men were expected to 'sow their wild oats' - I think that in villages and towns throughout the ages there would have been a lot of control on both sexes regarding them having sex. But as unfair as it is, it would have been the woman being the one literally left holding the baby 40 weeks later - she's left having to explain to the whole village, that the father is not around - but was most likely a passing handsome tinker with a twinkling in his eye, who came through the village a couple of seasons back. It not fair - but it is so.

Maybe too men may well been a scarce commodity in times gone by - the ones left could afford to be more choosy.

(No need to insult the OP's DH. How rude.)

Cailin - I don't think anyone would mind a monument or a celebration. I like the statue in brum.
Maybe you might gets some resentment from bigots. Some resentment from the greens, animal rights. Maybe some from physicists that believe the universe is the creator and maintainer of life. But on the whole I think it would be welcomed.
My enviro friend believes that humans are the worst thing to happen to the planet and would want them celebrated.

Wouldnt

Slug, I saw a documentary on marriage being a tool of the Norman aristocracy and the church. Prior to that, I don't know how it worked.

Cailin, I have no issue with the earth-goddess aspect if people want to celebrate it. It seems positive, rather than negative and destructive. It's just I don't think it influences male thinking at all.

My mum was married when pregnant with me, back in the 1960s. She was fully legit, as was I. However, she tells me that there was no celebration of the pregnancy back then - not like there is now. No baby showers, no Facebook updates, no preferential seating, and no endless discussion/tv/radio/media coverage of trimesters, morning sickness or PND. It was pretty much ignored and not referred to. Was that to do with our British embarrassment about sex? I think that in comparison we do celebrate it now. Unless you are poor, of course. Then you are just a sponger.