British 'man' becomes pregnant

[slithytove]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-british-man-reveal-hes-9582789

Sorry, it's a mirror link

I don't usually post about this stuff, but it's really annoyed me this time.

Now 'men' can get pregnant? So 'men' will need maternity leave, 'men' will need maternity services, probably somehow different to women's.

Is it just me or does the fact they are calling this person a man instead of a transman, allow men (people born as men) to take even more from women under the trans rights umbrella?

Who would it hurt to call this pregnant person a transman?

I guess we should be grateful this person was born as a woman and is therefore socialised to not put themselves first.

He'll take that as a challenge you know!

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.

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.

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

"Because women are human."

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

kneels on prayer cushion next to Flora

"Women are at least as likely as men to kill or maltreat their children, for example."

Not so likely to be family annhiliators. Why is that?

Given gun availability in the US, for one, how relevant is physicality in murder?

"Women are at least as likely as men to kill or maltreat their children, for example

Ive never heard that

Do you have a link

Not so likely to be family annhiliators. Why is that?

Or mass shooting events.

That probably does have something to do with socialisation. Traditionally a man's status is closely connected with his position as head of the family. Some men will destroy their families along with themselves because they cannot bear the thought of their families continuing without them - without being owned by them. Or something like that. I would have thought.

And when some kid runs amok in a US High School it's often because some girl didn't go to the prom with him. Male entitlement at its most evil extreme.

But these men were not born with that status, or that violence. They acquired it. It was not in them as they lay in their cots.

And there is no reason why the power structure that in part created them will always exist.

And the link rufus requested?

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

It seems to me that that's rather irrelevant - if they are innately stronger, then even if we were socialised to have equally violent personalities, men would still have more power because of their size no? And practically, that's what matters.

But these men were not born with that status, or that violence. They acquired it. It was not in them as they lay in their cots.

And there is no reason why the power structure that in part created them will always exist.

Except that, as you agree, they are bigger (even in their cots actually!), they will always be bigger, so the power balance will always be skewed in their direction at the most basic level. All else being equal, their violence will always be more damaging. Socially, we have tried to counter that with rules like "don't hit girls" and the whole 'gentleman' thing, but that power imbalance will always be there.

Do you think that women give an actual fuck that violent, abusive, murdering, raping, trafficking, controlling, exploitative, misogynistic, women hating and destroying men didn't have it in them "when they were lying in their cots"??

I mean any women other than perhaps their mothers?

I already posted a link to this but lets actually read what these poor innocent men grow up to do and about the violence they inflict on girls and women.

UK STATISTICS
The Reality in the UK today:
One woman in four will experience domestic violence at some point in her life.
Domestic violence has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police).
Two women are murdered every week by their partner or ex partner.
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute.
One woman in four will experience sexual assault as an adult.
Only 5% of rapes reported to the police result in the perpetrator being convicted in court.
Women are more worried about rape than any other crime.
250 cases of forced marriage are reported each year.
Up to 1,420 women per year are trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation
One woman a month is murdered in the name of ‘so called’ honour.
Nearly 90% of local authorities do not have a rape crisis centre.
Over 20,000 girls could be at risk of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK.

INTERNATIONAL STATISTICS
It is estimated that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read .
In Lithuania 20 to 50% of those sexually exploited through prostitution are believed to be minors. Children as young as age11 are known to have been prostituted.
Every year, 2 million girls between the ages of 5 and 15 are coerced, abducted, sold or trafficked into the illegal sex market.
2 million females are killed before of at birth simply because of their sex.
One woman dies every minute from pregnancy related causes, most of which are preventable.
It is estimated that one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abuse in her lifetime.
Among women aged 15-44 years, gender-based violence accounts for more death and disability than the combined effects of cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war.

"when women do have a physical advantage over others they are no less likely than men to be violent towards them"

Yes, that is evident in how large women beat up smaller women all the time.

Oh wait.

I think the next time I encounter a woman whose partner kicks the shit out of her or rapes her or financially abuses her or emotionally controls and abuses her and who terrifies and terrorizes her, who gaslights her and who has destroyed her self-esteem that "he didn't have it in him when he was lying in his cot" - that will help her no end. NOT.

FFS

Is it possible to be any more vacuous and whitewashing? (Rhetorical question I suspect it is if previous posts are anything to go by.)

I will reassure her that "he didn't have it in him when he was lying in his cot"

Sorry, failed to preview due to being distracted by apoplectic cushion arsonery.

It's complicated. I've found this which concludes that women are more likely to maltreat younger children (under 11's) while men are slightly more likely to maltreat older children.

childhub.org/sites/default/files/library/attachments/1323_child_abuse_neglect_research_PDF_wdf84181_original.pdf

Obviously, some forms of child abuse are more more gendered. The majority of CSA is committed by men, though reports of female perpetrated CSA have increased vastly over recent years. The reported prevalence of female perpetrated CSA varies widely, from 6 to 20% of victims. Because of issues surrounding reporting and cultural prejudices there is no real way of knowing.

As for filicide, I do admit I was a bit off the mark there. The best meta-analysis I could find (below) is all over the place.

www.dewar4research.org/docs/chom.pdf

Some of studies referred to seem to show higher maternal than paternal filicide, and others vice versa. From what I've read it does seem to be the case that maternal perpetrators account for more deaths of younger children while fathers are overwhelmingly responsible for the deaths of older ones. And fathers are more likely to use more violent methods such as stabbing and beating while women are more likely to poison, smother or drown their children.