Feminism- experiences of man-whispering and the refusal to do so...

[Athos]

You don't have any, do you Athos...because I will guarantee you wouldn't be so blase about patrimony if you had...although I will also agree wholeheartedly that blood is not thicker than water and a parent is simply one who parents (my, dragging up all the old saws today, Camps)
In my limited experience, the men who are actively engaged with child-rearing (including the huge acceptance and even sacrifice involved in raising dependents), tend to develop a less selfish and self-centred capacity. Often seen as a disadvantage (by owners of capital) for men to become so...'feminised'...but for women, well, it is always an improvement, sharing the emotional load of offspring. Obviously, this is purely anecdotal (but have seen a lot of relationships reach a crisis at precisely the point where a new life is added to the mix...and certainly, when my feminism was formed in the 70s, there was a LOT of time spend in consideration of female biology - how it impacted in the wider world...with childcare being a wedge issue (who did it...and why.)

The biological difference resulting in childbirth and the subsequent years of effort in raising the new generation) has always been a fulcrum upon which economic, social, cultural attitudes and behaviour must (uneasily) balance. Adding birth control, including abortion, into the mix really seems to raise some very atavistic fears in some men...particularly those who view women (and their childbearing capacity) as capital.

Yes, I do have kids. Yet, I still think a big part of why I care whether or not I'm their biological father is social conditioning i.e. the superstructure to capitalism's base.

 

[Athos]

Yes, I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere about how Neolithic women were equally involved as the men, and sometimes more so. I didn’t have the confidence to say so earlier (because I’m a crap feminist really) so thanks for making me remember what I read somewhere sometime!

Neolithic is before the period I'd which I'm talking; it was more hand to mouth - I'm talking about the tools extant when capital began to be be accumulated.

 

[polly]

Mothers didn't have it pass on; the first capital was in the form of tools, which, largely as a result of physical differences, were in the hands of men.

The first tools pre-date humans. Tools for hunting and gathering would have been central to everyone's survival. According to a leading archaeologist I know everyone would have been making tools on a more or less daily basis. It's highly unlikely that women (female proto humans) did not make or have access to tools. I don't understand your post above (suspect hand of autocorrect) but when were you referring to?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There have been some really interesting recent studies that show that the Yamnaya rode throughout Europe and elsewhere and seeding their DNA throughout the entire population, also committing genocide as they went. I wonder if that had some kind of trigger effect in the whole of humanity. This was about 5000 years ago. Not saying it was all peaches and cream before that, but it looks like it was a huge event that caused permanent change.

Here’s the New Scientist link (which is behind a paywall) but lots of other publications reported these findings too.

Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA

The other theory that I have read of is a climate change model. About 5,000-7,000 years ago in the middle east, the people had cut so many trees that the climate changed from temperate and wet to dry and hot. It completely changed the landscape and the cultures that inhabited the area. These cultures adopted more vengeful models of deities to explain this change. Worship of vengeful gods has certainly had an effect on the history of the last 5,000 years.

 

[Athos]

The first tools pre-date humans. Tools for hunting and gathering would have been central to everyone's survival. According to a leading archaeologist I know everyone would have been making tools on a more or less daily basis. It's highly unlikely that women (female proto humans) did not make or have access to tools. I don't understand your post above (suspect hand of autocorrect) but when were you referring to?

Sorry, yes, autocorrect; I've edited.

I'm not denying that women used tools; I'm suggesting that tools which began to represent capita (and could be handed down) were principally in the hands of men.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

When you work in repairs you tend not to listen too much to the customer because they often get it wrong, you still have to carry out the diagnostic checks or you might miss something. The gender of the customer isn't important, if anything it's usually the men who think they're the expert and already know what the problem is.

I think you've misinterpreted my post and the point I was making. It wasn't about the mechanic. It was about my preprogrammed, simpering management of him that was the point. It was so ingrained that I couldn't stop doing it, even though I knew it was a programmed response. If I had daugthers I'd probably be teaching them the same shite with the rationalization that they'd need it to live in this world.

Are you familiar with the phrase "keep sweet"?

 

[polly]

Sorry, yes, autocorrect; I've edited.

I'm not denying that women used tools; I'm suggesting that tools which began to represent capita (and could be handed down) were principally in the hands of men.

Ah ok - apols. Do you have anything I can read on that? I can't find anything online on this at all. I don't doubt you but I am interested.

eta my source says: "There probably was trade and ownership of tools but who the hell knows who was in charge of that?? When there is no available evidence people tend to automatically put their own modern constructs onto history. You can't just take modern concepts and place them onto societies that were totally different from ours, not just in terms of population densities and networks but also in terms of behaviours".

She was quite ranty - I edited Perhaps you are talking about later than her period though? (I don't know 100% when that is and can't ask at this late stage, but ends in -lithic)

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yes, I do have kids. Yet, I still think a big part of why I care whether or not I'm their biological father is social conditioning i.e. the superstructure to capitalism's base.

Im struggling to follow you here. Are you saying that if it turned out that your children were not your own, the only reason it would bother you is because of capitalism?

 

[Manter]

Same reason it is important for a child to know who their father is. Love.

But step fathers, adoptive fathers, mum’s best friend, single parent families with no ‘dad’ figure etc etc can be just as valuable and important. Love comes in many guises. I’m not sure why DNA is such an obsession. (For some)

 

[Manter]

Yes, I do have kids. Yet, I still think a big part of why I care whether or not I'm their biological father is social conditioning i.e. the superstructure to capitalism's base.

I think it’s an interesting point you raise. It’s like the ‘family name’ thing too. My FIL nearly died when I suggested my child could have my surname rather than his dad’s....

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's a weird argument tbh. It suggests that men having a sense of emotional attachment to their own children is 'unnatural' and purely social conditioning.

You know what the other side of this is...women as naturally 'born mothers', genetically carers and nurturers, inherently suited to x, y, z roles.

If I sniff the air hard enough I can smell the same logic wrt sex based expectations and gender roles that I am pretty sure created The Patriarchy in the first place.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

But step fathers, adoptive fathers, mum’s best friend, single parent families with no ‘dad’ figure etc etc can be just as valuable and important. Love comes in many guises. I’m not sure why DNA is such an obsession. (For some)

It's not about an obsession with DNA. I believe there is a natural instinct to love those who are more closely related biologically. Probably to do with pheromones or something.

Of course, this doesn't mean an adoptive parent can't love their child, or that all biological parents are loving ones, but a general trend exists in nature for that to be the case.

 

[Winot]

It's not about an obsession with DNA. I believe there is a natural instinct to love those who are more closely related biologically. Probably to do with pheromones or something.

How would you test that?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

How would you test that?

Don't know. It's really an evolutionary argument I suppose. It makes sense from the standpoint of evolution that something like this would be the case.

 

[campanula]

Of course, this doesn't mean an adoptive parent can't love their child, or that all biological parents are loving ones, but a general trend exists in nature for that to be the case.

It's not about an obsession with DNA. I believe there is a natural instinct to love those who are more closely related biologically. Probably to do with pheromones or something.

I would be very interested to see sources for that (speaking as coming from a LONG line of bastards...including generating several of my own)...I will fairly confidently state that things like love, attraction, caring and nurture are not really just predicated on biological attachment ...but from the sheer bloody day in, day out, association - the ability to put someone or something else's needs before your own...and since we can see even interspecies adoptions, never mind cross human ones, this DNA dynastic priority is just another bit of useful mythmaking. Although we are wandering far OT here (apols)

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I would be very interested to see sources for that (speaking as coming from a LONG line of bastards...including generating several of my own)...I will fairly confidently state that things like love, attraction, caring and nurture are not really just predicated on biological attachment ...but from the sheer bloody day in, day out, association - the ability to put someone or something else's needs before your own...and since we can see even interspecies adoptions, never mind cross human ones, this DNA dynastic priority is just another bit of useful mythmaking. Although we are wandering far OT here (apols)

Like I said, the general trend does not invalidate the exceptions.

 

[campanula]

I think it’s an interesting point you raise. It’s like the ‘family name’ thing too. My FIL nearly died when I suggested my child could have my surname rather than his dad’s....

I wonder how much of that mad dynasty stuff is based on much more than law (property, inheritance) rather than more nebulous things such as the family name?
confession - all of my children have different surnames (and fathers) but the names were mainly chosen for...(ahem) aesthetics. I don't care for my surname...but my daughter's father's was far worse...whereas both my boys had much nicer surnames than mine - and there was that little incident back in the 70s when I had a 'marriage of convenience 'meaning I can (and did) pull the odd Polish surname out of the bag...but hey - getting even further away.
stepping away now because I am really losing the thread.

 

[Manter]

It's a weird argument tbh. It suggests that men having a sense of emotional attachment to their own children is 'unnatural' and purely social conditioning.

You know what the other side of this is...women as naturally 'born mothers', genetically carers and nurturers, inherently suited to x, y, z roles.

If I sniff the air hard enough I can smell the same logic wrt sex based expectations and gender roles that I am pretty sure created The Patriarchy in the first place.

I’m not suggesting attachment to your children is unnatural. Far from it. But it’s interesting how concepts of motherhood and fatherhood and love and parenting evolve and are partly socially constructed.

The thing someone posted on the sofa this week is a case in point-An Alternative History of Mothering - BBC Sounds as it makes a case that mothering is constructed. Why couldn’t fatherhood be, too? And in a patrilineal society where a man passes money, land, his name, his ‘legacy’ to a child with his DNA that must be even more the case.

I’m not a social scientist, sociologist or social historian mind.

 

[no-no]

I think you've misinterpreted my post and the point I was making. It wasn't about the mechanic. It was about my preprogrammed, simpering management of him that was the point. It was so ingrained that I couldn't stop doing it, even though I knew it was a programmed response. If I had daugthers I'd probably be teaching them the same shite with the rationalization that they'd need it to live in this world.

Are you familiar with the phrase "keep sweet"?

I see what you mean, but we all do that don't we? I don't see how this is an example of some kind of female conditioning. The previous examples where women are smoothing things over in order to keep violent and potentially violent men calm I get....but not telling a mechanic how to do his job? that's just being respectful.

You tell the guy you've got the code but he's the mechanic, he still has to confirm it, make sure there's nothing else wrong. when you start telling people how to do their own jobs....isn't that exactly what mansplaining is? or being condescending in common parlance.

 

[no-no]

I work in repairs and can confirm that this is absolute bollocks.

I phrased it badly, of course i listen to the customer but when a customer comes in and tells you they know exactly whats wrong you tend to take it with a pinch of salt.

You still have to confirm the fault yourself rather than just go on their word and start swapping parts. There's nothing wrong with that, the fault they'vve found might be a symptom of something else. it's good practice check it out yourself.

 

[dylanredefined]

It's not about an obsession with DNA. I believe there is a natural instinct to love those who are more closely related biologically. Probably to do with pheromones or something.

Of course, this doesn't mean an adoptive parent can't love their child, or that all biological parents are loving ones, but a general trend exists in nature for that to be the case.

There is a world of difference between raising someone else child by choice ,rather than raising someone else cos your partner cheated.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

There is a world of difference between raising someone else child by choice ,rather than raising someone else cos your partner cheated.

No argument there

 

[Treacle Toes]

I’m not suggesting attachment to your children is unnatural. Far from it. But it’s interesting how concepts of motherhood and fatherhood and love and parenting evolve and are partly socially constructed.

The thing someone posted on the sofa this week is a case in point-An Alternative History of Mothering - BBC Sounds as it makes a case that mothering is constructed. Why couldn’t fatherhood be, too? And in a patrilineal society where a man passes money, land, his name, his ‘legacy’ to a child with his DNA that must be even more the case.

I’m not a social scientist, sociologist or social historian mind.

The comment/argument hasn't mentioned women though and my point is by simply stating that men's 'real' connection to their children is merely 'socially constructed' nicely sets women up as the opposite of what that BBC sounds thing is saying.

By default it leaves them holding the baby and responsible by nature/design.

 

[Manter]

I see what you mean, but we all do that don't we? I don't see how this is an example of some kind of female conditioning. The previous examples where women are smoothing things over in order to keep violent and potentially violent men calm I get....but not telling a mechanic how to do his job? that's just being respectful.

You tell the guy you've got the code but he's the mechanic, he still has to confirm it, make sure there's nothing else wrong. when you start telling people how to do their own jobs....isn't that exactly what mansplaining is? or being condescending in common parlance.

<<sigh>>

It’s one example to illustrate a systematic issue with women being belittled, reduced, disbelieved and patronised, especially about stuff that is considered ‘male’, such a technical stuff.

And how we smooth egos and try and explain rather like I am doing now rather than saying fuck off you bad faith motherfucker, pretending to not understand and make false equivalencies to protect your patriarchal playground.

 

[Manter]

The comment/argument hasn't mentioned women though and my point is by simply stating that men's 'real' connection to their children is merely 'socially constructed' nicely sets women up as the opposite of what that BBC sounds things is saying.

I don’t think it’s merely or only socially constructed. (And I don’t think talking about men necessarily sets women up as the opposite in a Mars/Venus way). I do wonder about an element of it though, (for both men and women, and it’s difficult to draw a precise line) given that we know how land and goods and inheritance has worked in the British culture since, what, the renaissance? (Precise dates of adoption of primogeniture unclear in my head, books on medieval property buried in a box, cba to dig them out).

I just find the idea that there is this deep overwhelming biological bond that a father feels for his actual biological offspring that supersedes all else, this is where love is essentially found to be unhelpfully....simplistic, judgemental, non-nuanced? Not sure of the right word....

 

[no-no]

<<sigh>>

It’s one example to illustrate a systematic issue with women being belittled, reduced, disbelieved and patronised, especially about stuff that is considered ‘male’, such a technical stuff.

And how we smooth egos and try and explain rather like I am doing now rather than saying fuck off you bad faith motherfucker, pretending to not understand and make false equivalencies to protect your patriarchal playground.

How can it be an example of something women do to placate men if men do exactly the same thing to placate women. Isn't it just people placating each other? In this example it wasn't even placation, it was just not telling someone with far more experience how to do their job.

The connection between this sort of everyday social lubrication and domestic violence is tenuous.

You could just talk to me rather than assuming my intentions and getting sweary.

Patriarchal playground ffs

 

[Treacle Toes]

I just find the idea that there is this deep overwhelming biological bond that a father feels for his actual biological offspring that supersedes all else, this is where love is essentially found to be unhelpfully....simplistic, judgemental, non-nuanced? Not sure of the right word....

Has anyone argued that? I must have missed it. ...and we'll have to agree to disagree on the other point because I do think theorising and defining a man's relationship to offspring as merely 'functional and constructed' is very much behind a lot of the elements of patriarchy that similarly position women as 'naturally' more nuturing and we all know what very damaging expectations and power dynamics come from that.

My own experience suggests to me that our sense of connectedness and emotional attachment feels like and has been both.

 

[Manter]

How can it be an example of something women do to placate men if men do exactly the same thing to placate women. Isn't it just people placating each other? In this example it wasn't even placation, it was just not telling someone with far more experience how to do their job.

The connection between this sort of everyday social lubrication and domestic violence is tenuous.

You could just talk to me rather than assuming my intentions and getting sweary.

Patriarchal playground ffs

You have basically said that women placating men if they think they are going to get punched is valid and everything else in this thread is the product of their imaginations because sometimes everyone is horrible.

That’s disingenuous bullshit- I don’t even really think you believe it. You are just belittling women’s shared, lived and expressed experience. Fuck off with that shit, then come back so you can fuck off again.

 

[no-no]

I just find the idea that there is this deep overwhelming biological bond that a father feels for his actual biological offspring that supersedes all else, this is where love is essentially found to be unhelpfully....simplistic, judgemental, non-nuanced? Not sure of the right word....

I found out one of mine wasn't mine.....the worst day of my life, the betrayal, shame (toxic masculinity there I guess)....at no point back then or in the years since did I love my child any less.

Biology doesn't make a father, love makes a father. As a consequence I can't watch the bit where yondu dies in Guardians of the Galaxy without crying like a big baby.

 

[Manter]

Has anyone argued that? I must have missed it. ...and we'll have to agree to disagree on the other point because I do think theorising and defining a man's relationship to offspring as merely 'functional and constructed' is very much behind a lot of the elements of patriarchy that similarly position women as 'naturally' more nuturing and we all know what very damaging expectations and power dynamics come from that.
My own experience suggests to me that our sense of connectedness and emotional attachment feels like and has been both.

ItWillNeverWork has said a man must know his children because of love.

Whereas love can come in lots of ways and guises and I think a genetic father may not be the sole or even an important part of that. Same as it happens for mother, grandparents, siblings etc etc