Hard News: Feminist as crazy old man
468 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
It's a biological reality of gender that I cannot breast-feed my children.
No, it's a biological reality of sex that you cannot breastfeed your children. Gender is in fact socially constructed, which is why it varies so much between different societies, although the basic biological constraints of sex dictate some boundaries and constants.
I can sort of breast-feed my children these days, with milk expressed by my partner, because there is a technology that enables me to do it but also because gender roles as they are defined in my society allow me to take on that particular nurturing activity.
-
You wouldn't want to be queer in large parts of Africa.
The current anti-homosexual crackdown is drawing worldwide attention, but 38 out of 53 African countries had already criminalised consensual gay sex. And in many cases, sodomy laws had remained on the books from the colonial era.
-
Case in point, yes. I made the mistake of reading that article first thing this morning. Christ.
-
No, it's a biological reality of sex that you cannot breastfeed your children. Gender is in fact socially constructed, which is why it varies so much between different societies, although the basic biological constraints of sex dictate some boundaries and constants.
Yes, they do, although "dictat[ing] some boundaries and constants" is an awful way of talking about the unique and beautiful relationship between mother and child.
I'm not trying to make an absolutist argument, I'm responding to one. JT had sexuality and gender roles as "total social construct". I'm saying that biology has quite a bit to do with it too.
-
It's a biological reality of gender that I cannot breast-feed my children.
In the whole creation thing you just supply the glue dude. The ladies do all the rest. That's why they're so crazy, all that creating.
Jeez, these threads are heated.
As far as I understand your orientation is allocated by nature and potentially challenged through nuture, sometimes disasterously.
It's all in the nuture innit?
Also surely the first next measurable step in gender equality in a civic sense would be to have a 50/50 male / female parliament.
-
I'm not trying to make an absolutist argument, I'm responding to one. JT had sexuality and gender roles as "total social construct".
And I'm saying that in this thread we (myself included) have been using sex, sexuality and gender as if they were interchangeable. They are not, and I think different understandings of what they mean may be the reason why there has been some talking at cross purposes. The social sciences treat "gender" (but most emphatically not "sexuality") by definition as the socially constructed portion of what it means to be male as opposed to female, so in that respect JT was right, although it remains hardly unproblematic, since as you note how do you even abstract gender from sex in the first place? But it's a thinking tool, and not without its usefulness.
-
The unique and beautiful relationship between this mother and her child went off to a rocky start, with breastfeeding really really hurting for three weeks until we got it sorted out. Many many women need to circumvent this biological process for various reasons and either express and bottlefeed milk, supplement with a bottle, use formula exclusively and so on. This technology blurs the importance of the distinction between men and women, more so than rare lactating men. Being able to breastfeed is nice and convenient but it's not a crucial gender-defining thing. I get the same sort of satisfaction and bonding giving baby a bottle of what I call expresso as feeding her au naturel. Time and caring are more important than the delivery mechanism.
-
the unique and beautiful relationship between mother and child
Russell, you might as well come out of the closet: you're actually a hippy, aren't you?
ETA:
Time and caring are more important than the delivery mechanism.
I'm not sure of the statistics, but many mid-twentieth-century babies were exclusively formula-fed (because of SCIENCE! and PROGRESS!). I haven't felt particularly deprived of my mother's love for not being breast-fed.
-
Gio - thank you, that pretty much covered it.
-
The social sciences treats "gender" (but most emphatically not "sexuality") by definition as the socially constructed portion of what it means to be male as opposed to female, so in that respect JT was right,
If a little tautological, sure: the two of you seem to be saying that the part of identity you specifically define as socially-constructed is, er, socially constructed.
Why "emphatically not sexuality" though? Why is that not a "total social construct"?
-
Being able to breastfeed is nice and convenient but it's not a crucial gender-defining thing.
Gestation and giving birth then? They both seem immensely powerful experiences inextricably tied to gender.
-
I haven't felt particularly deprived of my mother's love for not being breast-fed.
I don't want to get into the whole breast is best argument. There are advantages for the babies to breastfeeding, but that's mainly in the content of the milk more than how they drink it. Once it's been produced, the sex of the person delivering it to the baby aren't all that relevant. And it's that delivery that's the lovely special bit.
-
As far as I understand your orientation is allocated by nature and potentially challenged through nuture, sometimes disasterously.
It's all in the nuture innit?
Several generations of male homosexuals were told that: it was all about their dominant mothers. And mothers of autistic children were informed it was their fault for being cold and distant.
For all that some people wanted to make the latter true, it wasn't, and we know that now. The science seems to be heading that way on homosexuality too, for all that Julie Bindel mocks it and tell us it's a social construct. Fact is, people are born different.
-
Lots of women don't or can't have children. I'm pretty sure I was a woman before I had my baby. Perhaps a more universal experience is uncertainty over whether you may or may not have your body and life taken over by having a child. That covers both women who want to have kids but can't, and those who don't want to have them just yet, and those who are happily having them.
-
Why "emphatically not sexuality" though? Why is that not a "total social construct"?
Because it isn't? I think we've established that nobody here thinks that propositions such as "we can all be lesbians if we try hard enough" have any basis in reality. And neither do feminists. If anything there the holdouts are the teocons who maintain that sexuality is entirely a matter of choice and nurture. But perhaps I haven't quite understood your question.
-
immensely powerful experiences
OK, I am probably extra sensitive to this right now, but can a sister just get this baby safely out of her without having to live up to some nebulous ideal of How The Ladies Will All Feel while doing so? It's a bit... woo. :)
I'm pretty sure I was a woman before I had my baby.
Word up.
-
If a little tautological, sure: the two of you seem to be saying that the part of identity you specifally define as socially-constructed is, er, socially constructed.
It's not just JT and I, to be fair, it's sociology for a good chunk of the last century and up to this day. Hardly a radical notion really, easily demonstrable with real life examples.
-
Because it isn't?
So you disagree with JT on that, then? JT, do you still agree with yourself one that one?
But on the 'One in a Billion' thread you did say this:
Still, it is radical thinkers like Rich who taught us that heterosexuality is also and not insignificantly a social-political construct. And hey, if it wasn't, how would you explain why it's so prevalent in some society and not so much in others?
To which I said this:
In which societies is heterosexuality not prevalent?
Now granted, you corrected yourself, but that's also what JT did when challenged after making a sweeping statement. It's obvious that social conditions will govern the expression of sexuality, but I don't think they affect the "prevalence" of heterosexuality, which I'm regarding as a science word.
-
Lots of women don't or can't have children. I'm pretty sure I was a woman before I had my baby.
Aw, c'mon: don't push me down that one, because that's so not what i think.
Anyway, best do some work, so I'll gracefully surrender: when it comes to gender roles, men and women are exactly the same, apart from women being able to gestate, give birth and breastfeed.
;-)
-
OK, I am probably extra sensitive to this right now, but can a sister just get this baby safely out of her without having to live up to some nebulous ideal of How The Ladies Will All Feel while doing so? It's a bit... woo. :)
It's __extremely__woo seeing them come out, I'll tell you that. Indeed, it's an excellent arrangement -- all the woo and none of the pain.
-
I don't want to get into the whole breast is best argument. There are advantages for the babies to breastfeeding, but that's mainly in the content of the milk more than how they drink it.
Actually that's not entirely true. While breastmilk in a bottle is an awesome source of nutrition for a baby there is a bunch of stuff that occurs when a baby feeds directly at the breast that isn't actually replicable any other way. The way a baby suckles a breast is very different to how it suckles a bottle and this can impact on how the facial muscles develop. Storing and heating human milk reduces the anti-infective properties of the milk and there's a whole complex hormonal interplay that happens between a mother and her nursing baby that just doesn't occur between a mother and her pump. Not to mention the way the milk's composition changes during the course of a feed.
None of that is to comment on the quality of a non-breastfeeding mother's parenting (and pumping requires a huge amount of dedication) but there are very good reasons why medical/birth/lactation professionals should be working hard to help women breastfeed rather than considering their work done if a baby is getting breastmilk in a bottle. </soapbox>
-
can a sister just get this baby safely out of her without having to live up to some nebulous ideal of How The Ladies Will All Feel while doing so? It's a bit... woo. :)
Hehe - I thought of it like long-haul air travel. Exciting, tiring, boring in parts, uncomfortable and stressful in others, a bit of danger, potential for dramas at the end with passports and luggage and so on, and not nearly as important as the destination. Powerful, I suppose, so long as you don't define powerful as psychically expanding or suchlike.
-
So you disagree with JT on that, then?
Correct, that's why I made the point about the meaning of gender as opposed to sexuality.
-
Isabel, well, yes, pumping is a PITA, and there are extra things to worry about like sterilisation and so on. But that's kind of why I didn't want to get into that - it becomes a question of whether it's as good as it can be rather than is it good enough, and sidetracks things a lot.
-
Powerful, I suppose, so long as you don't define powerful as psychically expanding or suchlike.
I was under the impression that it's not the psyche that expands :-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.