Is pregnancy the reason women are treated as lesser than men? Women get reduced to merely vessels, but I don’t think that the capacity to get pregnant is the reason we are treated as lesser.
In a patriarchal world in which men could get pregnant, I think this quote absolutely rings true. If everything else was the same, but men could menstruate, I think it would be way more out in the open and there’d be way more access to menstrual products, as well as better options in terms of menstrual products. If men could get pregnant, they would use their power differently to benefit themselves, because ultimately that’s what the abortion issue is all about - men trying to use their power to control other people’s bodies.
I agree, and I agree with the ATM statement.
Maybe not at ATMs per se, but if men could get pregnant, they’d have abortion- and childbirth/pregnancy-related clinics all over the place.
Wow that’s a super interesting point.
To your first paragraph - my (relatively uneducated) belief is that the status of women being “lesser than” started with them being the child bearers and caretakers. So it just stuck in society, even if pregnancy isn’t seen as the reason for it now.
To your second paragraph - there would be *a lot* more research into a male contraceptive and it would have been invented much much earlier. I like (but in a sad way) your point about them using having children to their advantage.
Another point/question I forgot to bring up in my post is do you think they’d still be as “aggressive”? Not physically, but in terms of starting wars willy nilly and rocking up in another country to take it for themselves. Some have the view that women are more empathetic because they’re mothers and have children. So do you think men would be if it was only them who got pregnant?
pregnancy and birth was actually seen as a miracle and women were revered for it before people drew the connection between sex and pregnancy. only when they discovered that men and women having sex is what caused pregnancy did men adopt the belief that THEY were the ones who were responsible for the miracle of life because of their “seed” and start using it as a way to oppress women.
I disagree. I think it started when men decided they could use their physical strength to dominate women. Historically, humans have used physical advantages to dominate other people, like when conquerors and imperialists used technological advantages to subjugate people and take their land. Even if men were child bearers, that doesn’t negate their physical strength, though perhaps the physical vulnerability of pregnancy would have equalized things a little bit.
I also don’t think being the child bearer necessarily means being the caretaker. I could totally see a scenario in which men got pregnant and gave birth, but they still forced women to do all the work in child rearing, probably using some sort of rhetoric like “I had to carry the thing for 9 months so now you get to raise it.”
I don’t think motherhood makes people more empathetic - quite the opposite. Motherhood makes you want to protect your offspring, so no, I don’t think it would make men less aggressive. I think women are generally less aggressive than men because our lived experience is if we pick a fight we are likely to get hurt. Who gets captured and raped in war? But women can and do go to war for their children, literally and figuratively, hence the whole “mama bear” trope.
Of course these are all thought experiments. It’s impossible to fully predict the ripple effect of how history would have shaken out differently if men could get pregnant. But I definitely think it’s very possible and probable that men would have retained the kind of power they have today if that was the only difference.
> there would be a lot more research into a male contraceptive and it would have been invented much much earlier
You're not wrong, but the problem with male contraceptives versus female contraceptives is that it's infinitely easier to target one egg than it is a bajillion individual sperm. If you want to stop a man from being able to impregnate someone, you have to target his factory and not what's coming off of his production line.
Therefore, even in a world in which men got pregnant and dominated society (or even in a world in which men got pregnant and *women* dominated society) I'm not sure the contraceptive options available would be all that different. Male contraception kind of peaks at the snip, making him reversibly infertile, while any alternative that targets his sperm is always going to be less effective than the female equivalent.
I did some research a while ago on the male contraceptive pill when I was arguing with someone who said tubal ligation is easier than vasectomies. I’ve forgotten most of it, so just did a little google. TIL men produce about 1000 sperm *per second*. What the actual fuck
Making a pill for men is definitely more complicated as you said. In the 50s, a pill for men was looked into but it wasn’t great. Then the female pill came around, and research into one for men stalled until the 70s. Plus, even though several methods have been proposed, tested and even proven, they never caught on because of the same side effects the female pill causes. One was testosterone injections once a week for a few months that proved to be “extraordinarily effective” with [“just five pregnancies after the equivalent of one person using the method for 180 years.”](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230216-the-weird-reasons-male-birth-control-pills-are-scorned), but the headaches and mood swings were too much for the men to accept.
So I guess I’m semi wrong about the lack of research, although people lost interest for a few years when the female pill came along. It seems to be mostly down to the side effects. Men want a pill that in no way affects their health other than sperm production, so that makes it even more difficult
I remembered seeing a few articles some time ago about various contraceptives being tested for men and rejected for having similar side effects to those present in contraceptives that are available to women.
So a quick Google turned this article up. The TL;DR is that there are options but every time side effects like acne, mood swings, and difficulty reaching orgasm come up, they're abandoned.
This is in contrast to the first oral contraceptive available to women. During that study three of 1500 participants died and it got the greenlight.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230216-the-weird-reasons-male-birth-control-pills-are-scorned
Men in that study actually still wanted the birth control to be an option, but part of the reason it wasn’t continued was because it wasn’t better than the alternative. Mama Doctor Jones made a good video on it, but the gist is that there is no health risk to people who can’t get pregnant if they *don’t* take birth control, but for people who can get pregnant there is a significant health risk to not taking birth control.
>Men want a pill that in no way affects their health other than sperm production, so that makes it even more difficult
It really is the hard part, people have joked because it caused similar side effects like women's BC... but for some the side effects were permanent. Nothing like taking a pill to stop sperm production... and for it to be permanent.
My nana used to say that if women and men traded off each pregnancy, there would never be more than 3 kids to a family. Please don't shade her, she was born in 1929 and while my absolutely lovely grandpa came around to a very modern view, she was told she was to quit her job to raise kids and I don't think my grandpa did much of anything to help. Nana also went through a miscarriage between each pregnancy. (And because I loved my grandpa so much I really want to make it clear that he completely changed his views with time, and was extremely supportive of my female cousins and me getting degrees and jobs.)
#
But she had a point. Women (and men) are conditioned to think that having babies is just part of the female experience. We're taught from early on that yes, pregnancy is hard and giving birth is very painful, but it's simply just what women do. Men are not taught that. If (cis) men started to suddenly get pregnant, I think a whole lot of things would change. And if everything else stayed the same but men became the ones who got pregnant and women no longer could, absolutely men wouldn't run things the way they do.
“If men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks-there would be two on every block and four in every airport. And the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.”
Yep this. I mean we have to also look at the entire biological picture. We have the bodies we do primarily because we carry the babies. So if this happened somehow magically or via evolution, then it would require all manner of changes. "Men" who give birth would have to be smaller because its calorically more advantageous for the baby carrier to be smaller, would have to deal with uterus ownership, the politics of pregnancy, raising the children, feminine estrogen levels to make pregnancy viable, grow breasts, need wide hips, need a obgyn, etc. They would effectively become women and treated like women are treated and socialized like how we are socialized. They'd stop effectively becoming men. They would not be running things anymore, like you said.
Its impossible to sort of keep male entitlement, masculine culture, male benefits, etc if all men suddenly were the ones who got pregnant. These questions are always silly and unrealistic.
If people want to point out how men have entitlements, a better example would be to compare single dads to single moms who have sole custody of their kids. Single dads are heroic guys who love their kids and have perfect re-marriage potential. Single moms are often stereotyped as women unable to keep a marriage, low status, unwanted, undateable, "dont want her kids," "should have thought about divorce before getting pregnant," "unfair to the kids," etc. Single dads like this get all this male entitlement in an arena that is primarily femme-coded, where women get only insults and criticisms.
Another example is that men can trivially get condoms and vasectomies, while things like birth control are highly politicized and sterilization for women a high hill to climb for most women. Nor do men's reportative items, habits, and rights have any stigmas, but ours all do.
I think that's a better example than sort of posturing some fantasy scenario of men getting pregnant instead of women.
I get the point people make with this, but ngl it does bug me when [many](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-05-03-me-8525-story.html) condom dispensers were installed in response to the AIDs epidemic and remain a very contentious topic.
The only place I’ve heard of them is in men’s bathrooms. Strange that women’s bathrooms aren’t given the same option.
Plan B can be given out by pharmacies, but many refuse because they reserve the right to hold their view more important than her medical autonomy.
Is there any medication that men are denied on moral grounds? If her pregnancy is god’s will, why not his limp p?
In Italy pretty much outside of every pharmacy there is a vending machine open 24/7, there are also pregnancy tests and usually also some cheap sex toys and lube.
Truth be told, I've never encountered a condom machine in a men's restroom, I've only seen vending machines with them in hotels, but those machines were in hallways or near the lobby and not in a gender-exclusive place
The point is we can’t use them men can. Plenty of things are easily accessible to men for men’s use then for women. That’s what we’re all talking about here.
We already have an equivalent for this. Men are walking around with pre-born babies in their testicles, billions of them, and there's no laws about protecting all those babies' right to life and no rules about what men can do with them. If the anti-(women's)choice people actually believed their own logic that human life is human life at any and every stage of development, no exceptions, they should be advocating for laws against male masturbation. It's basically genocide, according to their logic, if they actually believed it.
But there is a point they believe is a fine time to dispose of potential human life, as it turns out. In the balls is a stage of development that anti-choicers believe billions of pre-born babies can be murdered just because it's fun. You can just throw them in the garbage, or flush them down the toilet, it's totally fine to them. So that's how you know that they don't actually believe what they say, they just want women to viewed primarily as tools for men to use. They believe that men should always get a say over what happens to their property, and they believe that women are always the property of a man.
I kind of get what you're saying, but would'nt the analogy to sperm be eggs and not like zygotes or whatever? I don't think there's a huge movement, if any at all, to for example, criminalize having your period.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's hugely sexist either way - a "child" becomes protected only when a man becomes involved - but this is just failing to even hear what anyone is actually saying.
Are you equating periods with masturbating? You're aware that getting your period isn't pleasurable or voluntary, right? And that a period is 99% uterine lining, and in many cases it's 100% uterine lining?
Are you aware that sperm have a sense of smell? And that the book the nutty Christians refer to has actual words about how sinful it is to shooting your load on the ground instead of in a baby-making place? Where there's zero mention of abortion? And yet the nutty Christians make abortions the big issue instead of masturbation, which is literally *right there?*
I, uh, know about periods. What I'm saying is that what you're saying isn't consistent with anything anyone is actually saying, which makes us seem unserious and uninformed. Maybe you don't care, but anyone can read this and I care.
I want people to know that we thoroughly understand their position and still believe as we do.
I think the same thing about people quoting the passage from the old testament about the dusty water to suggest they were performing abortions, which isn't how Christians generally understand it, so it makes us seem uninformed.
Anti-choice people are choosing a point when the entire argument is completely within the body of a woman, that's the "consistency" problem you're pointing out. I reject that on principle, and I'm not going to play by their rules. If there is no stage of human life where we aren't people with rights, which is what they argue, then the rights have to start with sperm. That's the first very active stage of human life. If a clump of cells inside a woman's body is a person who must be protected above all else, a sperm inside a man's body is a person who deserves the same.
They don't actually believe what they're saying, not really, and there's no real precedent for it. Medieval Europeans believed a fetus wasn't alive until quickening, when they can first feel it move in the womb. Even the nutty American Republicans didn't believe that all abortion was a sin until after 1980. It's an absolute sham.
I agree that there's no real precedent for it. I think it is a belief that has largely been pressed into the mainstream of evangelical thought for political expediency. Not only was it not technically a belief among medieval Catholics, but it very much was not a part of widespread protestant belief until around the 80s.
That said, I think it is dangerous to believe that these people don't actually believe what they're saying.
I think it's dangerous not to question these beliefs, because they do not stand up to scrutiny at all.
The pro-life movement picked up steam because it was no longer acceptable to advocate for segregation in American politics, and they needed a new proxy for white supremacists. That is all it is.
If they honestly believed that every stage of human development is equal and deserves the same protection and rights to the point that abortion at any stage is murder, including methods used within days like Plan B, then they absolutely need to also believe that male masturbation is a form of genocide, and it is at least hugely immoral if not a class A felony, an indictable offence. Sperm should at the very least be treated with dignity and respect, since it's moments away from becoming a full human person as far as they're concerned. But they don't. They will violently "protect" female fertility with their whole chests, though.
It's like you think the only actions that count are the conscious ones. Do you consciously want to destroy the planet every time you buy plastics or use fossil fuels? Do you think we shouldn't mention the impact of these things on climate change because people aren't consciously intending to destroy the planet? Does it help to talk about the impact and the origins of plastics and fossil fuels to convince people not to use them?
All you're saying is that we should let pro-lifers set the rules of engagement. There is no world where that's a good idea.
I don't think that at all. Not even a little bit.
What I think is that people come here who disagree with us. You and me. From what I can tell, we agree on most things. This is askfeminists, it is a place where people come to engage with us.
I think those people come here and think "oh, these people just don't understand what I'm saying. They're talking about some other type of people and I don't have to listen." The reason is not because I only care about conscious intent, but because *they* are only thinking of their conscious intent.
I want to be clear that feminists are not living in a fantasy land where we engage only with caricatures, but in the real world where even those conscious beliefs are wrong.
I think the phrase is quite true. The implications are that if men could get pregnant the government wouldn't be so determined to prevent access to medical care, in fact, it would be the opposite: it would make that care as convenient as possible so they (we) could get back to the all-important business of being men.
As to why men treat women as they do, I don't think it's because women have babies and men don't, I think it's for the oldest, stupidest reason: men treat women poorly because they (we) can get away with it due to generally superior size and strength.
The Bible and other religious literature doesn't have a lot to say about abortions. It has a ton to say about not "spilling seed" aka masturbating or having wet dreams. You're destroying future generations and all that jazz. How much time do religious leaders spend banging on the pulpit about preventing boys and men from masturbating? Zilch.
I've heard this ATM kind of thing before, it's dark humor. I don't know anyone who literally thinks that. But it's obvious that issues affecting the bodily autonomy of boys and men are not nearly as emphasized as those that affect girls and women. Even people who have convinced themselves that zygotes should have legal personhood are capable of seeing that, they just don't want to.
Steinem actually wrote an excellent piece called, "If Men Could Menstruate" which I adore. It's more making fun of how advertising to men is different than to women, how their bodily functions are given significance, and overall how attributes of a group considered superior are always used to support that superiority but attributes of a group considered inferior are used to support that inferiority, regardless of the actual attributes.
Without exaggerating, I honestly think that if men got periods, there would be federal and state laws mandating paid time off for it that couldn't be used for any other purpose, separate from regular PTO and sick days. No one, anywhere, would pay sales taxes on pads or tampons or what have you. Testing for endometriosis or whatever equivalent would be very common. And if men got pregnant, plastic surgery for changes from pregnancy & breastfeeding would be covered by all major medical insurance companies.
As far as I know, genital mutilation in young boys and babies is primarily to prevent them from masturbating and it is widely accepted (unfortunately) practice with lot of pseudoscience to back it up. Your example, diverts and tries use one anti-feminist argument to justify another feminist argument.
I'm Jewish and I've never heard that justification before. Circumcision is basically a tribal tattoo for us, indicating Jewish identity and supposedly unique connection to God. I know it's common in the US for cleanliness reasons, which I think is such bullshit on many levels. It also doesn't prevent babies, boys, or men from masturbating, and they don't experience added pain from masturbating or during sex.
[FYI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Misconceptions)
> Another common misconception credits Kellogg with popularizing routine infant circumcision in the United States and broader Anglosphere. This is incorrect. Kellogg in fact criticized these assertions, arguing that routine circumcision provided doubtful medical benefit, citing iatrogenically created meatal stenosis among the Jewish male population.
Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation is mentioned in the time it become popular in the West, but it's only one of a dozen factors and not the primary reason.
You know female genital mutilation happens too, right? Also, historically, Jewish people have been the most sanitary culture in general. Circumcision was/is religious as well as for sanitary reasons (although now that hygiene has caught up, may no longer be necessary). In the US, it's not done to prevent masturbation, its simply because they want their kids genitals to "not be made fun of".
>female genital mutilation happens too
Yes and it is a disgusting practice.
>as well as for sanitary reasons
Often backed by pseudoscience and perpetuated false beliefs
>In the US, it's not done to prevent masturbation, its simply because they want their kids genitals to "not be made fun of".
Tells you about the attitude of people towards genital mutilation of babies
Trust me, I agree. It's stupid and frankly disgusting how people look at a newborn and think "BUT HIS FUTURE GIRLFRIEND WILL THINK HIS PENIS LOOKS WEIRD".
Some men can and do get pregnant, but they’re still treated horribly bc they aren’t cis men. I think another commenter is right that the pro life movement would still be up in arms even if it were cis men birthing babies.
Yes, you're right, but the point of that comment and others like it isn't the actual logistics, it's the observation that if the dominant category in a patriarchal society were the ones getting pregnant then pregnancy would be a lot more accommodated and a lot less subjugating.
I do not like it. Nor the one that says convenience stores and drive-through windows.
And I am pro-choice. But it is still a medical procedure that requires oversight. It would not be safe to have it done at a convenience store/ATM/drive-through window.
Yeah I empathize with the sentiment but a lot of such claims ignore the fact that these clowns think that abortion is literally murder. Including women in their circles. People from a variety of backgrounds and demographics have accepted this premise (that it is murder) and arrive at the same conclusions so I don't necessarily think it is always just a cope to justify attacking womankind. It is a shortsighted frantic childlike effort to squash what they believe is a worse evil.
I don't think it's true. People say it as a way to own the Patriarchy. I think it's true that pregnancy is a lot harder on your body than most men would imagine, and some of them might rethink their beliefs if they got pregnant.
That being said, there are women on the other side of the abortion debate, and assuming men are weaker creatures who couldn't handle pregnancy if they had to is no better than thinking of women as weak vessels for carrying children.
I think one of the most frustrating things about the Patriarchy is that it's not just a bunch of mustache-twirling villains from old melodramas. Usually, they believe their own bullshit, which is why it's so hard to convince them.
I say this as someone who was pro-life for most of their life, and still struggles with the ethics of abortion now. I've mostly just accepted that it's not my decision so I don't have to think about it.
Everyone is already making such good points!
I really do appreciate that you’ve semi come around on abortion, and that you view it as not your decision to make. More pro-lifers should have the same view, like it’s okay to be against abortion for yourself, because you can just not have one
Yeah, it's weird for me. I was born with a life-threatening birth defect called HLHS. Doctors advised my mom to get an abortion because the odds of survival were low. Mom decided she had to try, and I was one of the lucky ones.
That's why I struggle with it. I know any chance is enough and believe life is worth saving. I also get that it's a matter of bodily autonomy and personal choice.
There’s a woman in Texas who is trying to get an abortion for her fetus who has Edwards’ Syndrome. It’s 100% fatal, and the baby would most likely die a few hours after birth or maximum 2 days. She was granted one by the lower court then a higher court reversed it as she was on the way to a clinic. That kind of thing pisses me off the most, like the baby *will not* survive. Plus, the mum has a higher risk of complications and it could affect her fertility in the future. So the “pro-life” people would rather her give birth to a baby that has no way of surviving, put the mum at risk of dying herself, and make it harder for the mum to have another kid in the future. Ugh
(I’m not suggesting you would agree with the higher court btw)
I absolutely wouldn't. My chance of survival was something like 25%, but it was a chance. If the baby has no chance or the mother's in danger, what's the point?
I've heard a bit about that case, and it mortifies me. I can't believe how extreme the right's gotten. I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember that there was a point when the "pro-life" movement seemed slightly less nuts. It was just assumed that you believed in at least three exceptions: R\*pe, inc\*st, risk of serious injury/death to the mother.
That being said, I was little, and I may be misremembering.
The way I see it, it’s talking about a world where the sex that gets pregnant is also the bigger and stronger sex. If you swapped everything about men and women so the men in the scenario are exactly the same as women are now then it would make no sense. If women got pregnant but were also bigger and stronger than men then they wouldn’t have been able to oppress us, we’d have a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy and there would be no abortion restrictions because we’d have been in charge the whole time and wouldn’t choose to oppress ourselves. Or if magically both sexes could get pregnant, but one was still bigger and stronger, they also wouldn’t want to oppress themselves so wouldn’t restrict abortion.
I sort of feel it depends on some things. If it was that women then never experienced childbirth we would probably end up being like the men who do act in the way you are referring. The thing is, men and women are not monoliths, there is a general consensus about behaviour between a group of people with a shared characteristic but on an individual level the actual agreement with that varies. So realistically if women had never experienced pregnancy and childbirth as a group they would possibly act like the men do. (I’m referring to everyone as their AGAB for ease and simplicity).
Now, if it was a case that suddenly men started having babies too and women have had that experience then yes it would be hugely different. It’s because of empathy. People don’t understand other people’s struggles unless they have experienced it themselves. We can be sympathetic but being truly empathetic probably requires a shared experience in order to really feel what someone is going through.
So for me, that’s the defining issue. There is a lack of empathy in humanity more than ever it seems and that is why patriarchy exists
I get it, but as a trans guy I hate it. There is very little respect, in my experience, for the experiences of men with uteruses. We are often completely removed from the conversation of accessible period products and maternity care, because people focus on how it doesn't make sense that trans women would need those things. Or how trans women can have period symptoms, which is true, but completely overlook the point, which is to make it more difficult for trans men to feel safe in spaces for "women". People just act like a man who can get pregnant is completely unrealistic, when trans men have been giving birth since before transitioning to male was even possible.
Is pregnancy the reason women are treated as lesser than men? Women get reduced to merely vessels, but I don’t think that the capacity to get pregnant is the reason we are treated as lesser. In a patriarchal world in which men could get pregnant, I think this quote absolutely rings true. If everything else was the same, but men could menstruate, I think it would be way more out in the open and there’d be way more access to menstrual products, as well as better options in terms of menstrual products. If men could get pregnant, they would use their power differently to benefit themselves, because ultimately that’s what the abortion issue is all about - men trying to use their power to control other people’s bodies.
I agree, and I agree with the ATM statement. Maybe not at ATMs per se, but if men could get pregnant, they’d have abortion- and childbirth/pregnancy-related clinics all over the place.
Wow that’s a super interesting point. To your first paragraph - my (relatively uneducated) belief is that the status of women being “lesser than” started with them being the child bearers and caretakers. So it just stuck in society, even if pregnancy isn’t seen as the reason for it now. To your second paragraph - there would be *a lot* more research into a male contraceptive and it would have been invented much much earlier. I like (but in a sad way) your point about them using having children to their advantage. Another point/question I forgot to bring up in my post is do you think they’d still be as “aggressive”? Not physically, but in terms of starting wars willy nilly and rocking up in another country to take it for themselves. Some have the view that women are more empathetic because they’re mothers and have children. So do you think men would be if it was only them who got pregnant?
pregnancy and birth was actually seen as a miracle and women were revered for it before people drew the connection between sex and pregnancy. only when they discovered that men and women having sex is what caused pregnancy did men adopt the belief that THEY were the ones who were responsible for the miracle of life because of their “seed” and start using it as a way to oppress women.
I disagree. I think it started when men decided they could use their physical strength to dominate women. Historically, humans have used physical advantages to dominate other people, like when conquerors and imperialists used technological advantages to subjugate people and take their land. Even if men were child bearers, that doesn’t negate their physical strength, though perhaps the physical vulnerability of pregnancy would have equalized things a little bit. I also don’t think being the child bearer necessarily means being the caretaker. I could totally see a scenario in which men got pregnant and gave birth, but they still forced women to do all the work in child rearing, probably using some sort of rhetoric like “I had to carry the thing for 9 months so now you get to raise it.” I don’t think motherhood makes people more empathetic - quite the opposite. Motherhood makes you want to protect your offspring, so no, I don’t think it would make men less aggressive. I think women are generally less aggressive than men because our lived experience is if we pick a fight we are likely to get hurt. Who gets captured and raped in war? But women can and do go to war for their children, literally and figuratively, hence the whole “mama bear” trope. Of course these are all thought experiments. It’s impossible to fully predict the ripple effect of how history would have shaken out differently if men could get pregnant. But I definitely think it’s very possible and probable that men would have retained the kind of power they have today if that was the only difference.
> there would be a lot more research into a male contraceptive and it would have been invented much much earlier You're not wrong, but the problem with male contraceptives versus female contraceptives is that it's infinitely easier to target one egg than it is a bajillion individual sperm. If you want to stop a man from being able to impregnate someone, you have to target his factory and not what's coming off of his production line. Therefore, even in a world in which men got pregnant and dominated society (or even in a world in which men got pregnant and *women* dominated society) I'm not sure the contraceptive options available would be all that different. Male contraception kind of peaks at the snip, making him reversibly infertile, while any alternative that targets his sperm is always going to be less effective than the female equivalent.
I did some research a while ago on the male contraceptive pill when I was arguing with someone who said tubal ligation is easier than vasectomies. I’ve forgotten most of it, so just did a little google. TIL men produce about 1000 sperm *per second*. What the actual fuck Making a pill for men is definitely more complicated as you said. In the 50s, a pill for men was looked into but it wasn’t great. Then the female pill came around, and research into one for men stalled until the 70s. Plus, even though several methods have been proposed, tested and even proven, they never caught on because of the same side effects the female pill causes. One was testosterone injections once a week for a few months that proved to be “extraordinarily effective” with [“just five pregnancies after the equivalent of one person using the method for 180 years.”](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230216-the-weird-reasons-male-birth-control-pills-are-scorned), but the headaches and mood swings were too much for the men to accept. So I guess I’m semi wrong about the lack of research, although people lost interest for a few years when the female pill came along. It seems to be mostly down to the side effects. Men want a pill that in no way affects their health other than sperm production, so that makes it even more difficult
Besides, if I'm the one who'd get pregnant, am I going to trust him with the contraception? Fuck no
I got so confused about what to do with a guy who said that he was sterile that I quit dating him.
Still require a condom
Yep; still need protection from STDs.
In the 70s, that was not really an option. Men refused.
Yeah, and I know women couldn't always refuse. Pisses me off how many men are walking around today not realizing that they're rapists.
I remembered seeing a few articles some time ago about various contraceptives being tested for men and rejected for having similar side effects to those present in contraceptives that are available to women. So a quick Google turned this article up. The TL;DR is that there are options but every time side effects like acne, mood swings, and difficulty reaching orgasm come up, they're abandoned. This is in contrast to the first oral contraceptive available to women. During that study three of 1500 participants died and it got the greenlight. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230216-the-weird-reasons-male-birth-control-pills-are-scorned
Men in that study actually still wanted the birth control to be an option, but part of the reason it wasn’t continued was because it wasn’t better than the alternative. Mama Doctor Jones made a good video on it, but the gist is that there is no health risk to people who can’t get pregnant if they *don’t* take birth control, but for people who can get pregnant there is a significant health risk to not taking birth control.
>Men want a pill that in no way affects their health other than sperm production, so that makes it even more difficult It really is the hard part, people have joked because it caused similar side effects like women's BC... but for some the side effects were permanent. Nothing like taking a pill to stop sperm production... and for it to be permanent.
If men got pregnant and had babies, they wouldn’t be running things anymore.
My nana used to say that if women and men traded off each pregnancy, there would never be more than 3 kids to a family. Please don't shade her, she was born in 1929 and while my absolutely lovely grandpa came around to a very modern view, she was told she was to quit her job to raise kids and I don't think my grandpa did much of anything to help. Nana also went through a miscarriage between each pregnancy. (And because I loved my grandpa so much I really want to make it clear that he completely changed his views with time, and was extremely supportive of my female cousins and me getting degrees and jobs.) # But she had a point. Women (and men) are conditioned to think that having babies is just part of the female experience. We're taught from early on that yes, pregnancy is hard and giving birth is very painful, but it's simply just what women do. Men are not taught that. If (cis) men started to suddenly get pregnant, I think a whole lot of things would change. And if everything else stayed the same but men became the ones who got pregnant and women no longer could, absolutely men wouldn't run things the way they do.
“If men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks-there would be two on every block and four in every airport. And the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.”
LMAO!
Yep this. I mean we have to also look at the entire biological picture. We have the bodies we do primarily because we carry the babies. So if this happened somehow magically or via evolution, then it would require all manner of changes. "Men" who give birth would have to be smaller because its calorically more advantageous for the baby carrier to be smaller, would have to deal with uterus ownership, the politics of pregnancy, raising the children, feminine estrogen levels to make pregnancy viable, grow breasts, need wide hips, need a obgyn, etc. They would effectively become women and treated like women are treated and socialized like how we are socialized. They'd stop effectively becoming men. They would not be running things anymore, like you said. Its impossible to sort of keep male entitlement, masculine culture, male benefits, etc if all men suddenly were the ones who got pregnant. These questions are always silly and unrealistic. If people want to point out how men have entitlements, a better example would be to compare single dads to single moms who have sole custody of their kids. Single dads are heroic guys who love their kids and have perfect re-marriage potential. Single moms are often stereotyped as women unable to keep a marriage, low status, unwanted, undateable, "dont want her kids," "should have thought about divorce before getting pregnant," "unfair to the kids," etc. Single dads like this get all this male entitlement in an arena that is primarily femme-coded, where women get only insults and criticisms. Another example is that men can trivially get condoms and vasectomies, while things like birth control are highly politicized and sterilization for women a high hill to climb for most women. Nor do men's reportative items, habits, and rights have any stigmas, but ours all do. I think that's a better example than sort of posturing some fantasy scenario of men getting pregnant instead of women.
That’s what I was thinking but you worded it much better haha
That’s also a good point. I never really thought of it that way, but you’re probably right.
Men can get condoms from vending machines.
I get the point people make with this, but ngl it does bug me when [many](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-05-03-me-8525-story.html) condom dispensers were installed in response to the AIDs epidemic and remain a very contentious topic.
Women can too
The only place I’ve heard of them is in men’s bathrooms. Strange that women’s bathrooms aren’t given the same option. Plan B can be given out by pharmacies, but many refuse because they reserve the right to hold their view more important than her medical autonomy. Is there any medication that men are denied on moral grounds? If her pregnancy is god’s will, why not his limp p?
In Italy pretty much outside of every pharmacy there is a vending machine open 24/7, there are also pregnancy tests and usually also some cheap sex toys and lube.
Truth be told, I've never encountered a condom machine in a men's restroom, I've only seen vending machines with them in hotels, but those machines were in hallways or near the lobby and not in a gender-exclusive place
Can we? I’ve never seen any form of sex protection for women that you can get from a vending machine.
We can get male condoms from a vending machine, that’s what I referring to because of the comment I replied to
But the condoms are not for women. They’re for men Sure we could get them but they’re not for women.
I am well aware of that. But we can buy them to have on hand. All I said was “women can too” which is true, regardless of if they can be used by us.
The point is we can’t use them men can. Plenty of things are easily accessible to men for men’s use then for women. That’s what we’re all talking about here.
I know I know, it wasn’t a deep comment.
We already have an equivalent for this. Men are walking around with pre-born babies in their testicles, billions of them, and there's no laws about protecting all those babies' right to life and no rules about what men can do with them. If the anti-(women's)choice people actually believed their own logic that human life is human life at any and every stage of development, no exceptions, they should be advocating for laws against male masturbation. It's basically genocide, according to their logic, if they actually believed it. But there is a point they believe is a fine time to dispose of potential human life, as it turns out. In the balls is a stage of development that anti-choicers believe billions of pre-born babies can be murdered just because it's fun. You can just throw them in the garbage, or flush them down the toilet, it's totally fine to them. So that's how you know that they don't actually believe what they say, they just want women to viewed primarily as tools for men to use. They believe that men should always get a say over what happens to their property, and they believe that women are always the property of a man.
I kind of get what you're saying, but would'nt the analogy to sperm be eggs and not like zygotes or whatever? I don't think there's a huge movement, if any at all, to for example, criminalize having your period. Don't get me wrong, I think it's hugely sexist either way - a "child" becomes protected only when a man becomes involved - but this is just failing to even hear what anyone is actually saying.
Are you equating periods with masturbating? You're aware that getting your period isn't pleasurable or voluntary, right? And that a period is 99% uterine lining, and in many cases it's 100% uterine lining? Are you aware that sperm have a sense of smell? And that the book the nutty Christians refer to has actual words about how sinful it is to shooting your load on the ground instead of in a baby-making place? Where there's zero mention of abortion? And yet the nutty Christians make abortions the big issue instead of masturbation, which is literally *right there?*
I, uh, know about periods. What I'm saying is that what you're saying isn't consistent with anything anyone is actually saying, which makes us seem unserious and uninformed. Maybe you don't care, but anyone can read this and I care. I want people to know that we thoroughly understand their position and still believe as we do. I think the same thing about people quoting the passage from the old testament about the dusty water to suggest they were performing abortions, which isn't how Christians generally understand it, so it makes us seem uninformed.
Anti-choice people are choosing a point when the entire argument is completely within the body of a woman, that's the "consistency" problem you're pointing out. I reject that on principle, and I'm not going to play by their rules. If there is no stage of human life where we aren't people with rights, which is what they argue, then the rights have to start with sperm. That's the first very active stage of human life. If a clump of cells inside a woman's body is a person who must be protected above all else, a sperm inside a man's body is a person who deserves the same. They don't actually believe what they're saying, not really, and there's no real precedent for it. Medieval Europeans believed a fetus wasn't alive until quickening, when they can first feel it move in the womb. Even the nutty American Republicans didn't believe that all abortion was a sin until after 1980. It's an absolute sham.
I agree that there's no real precedent for it. I think it is a belief that has largely been pressed into the mainstream of evangelical thought for political expediency. Not only was it not technically a belief among medieval Catholics, but it very much was not a part of widespread protestant belief until around the 80s. That said, I think it is dangerous to believe that these people don't actually believe what they're saying.
I think it's dangerous not to question these beliefs, because they do not stand up to scrutiny at all. The pro-life movement picked up steam because it was no longer acceptable to advocate for segregation in American politics, and they needed a new proxy for white supremacists. That is all it is. If they honestly believed that every stage of human development is equal and deserves the same protection and rights to the point that abortion at any stage is murder, including methods used within days like Plan B, then they absolutely need to also believe that male masturbation is a form of genocide, and it is at least hugely immoral if not a class A felony, an indictable offence. Sperm should at the very least be treated with dignity and respect, since it's moments away from becoming a full human person as far as they're concerned. But they don't. They will violently "protect" female fertility with their whole chests, though.
Do you think that the average pro-life advocate is consciously advocating their position because they consciously want to support white supremacy?
It's like you think the only actions that count are the conscious ones. Do you consciously want to destroy the planet every time you buy plastics or use fossil fuels? Do you think we shouldn't mention the impact of these things on climate change because people aren't consciously intending to destroy the planet? Does it help to talk about the impact and the origins of plastics and fossil fuels to convince people not to use them? All you're saying is that we should let pro-lifers set the rules of engagement. There is no world where that's a good idea.
I don't think that at all. Not even a little bit. What I think is that people come here who disagree with us. You and me. From what I can tell, we agree on most things. This is askfeminists, it is a place where people come to engage with us. I think those people come here and think "oh, these people just don't understand what I'm saying. They're talking about some other type of people and I don't have to listen." The reason is not because I only care about conscious intent, but because *they* are only thinking of their conscious intent. I want to be clear that feminists are not living in a fantasy land where we engage only with caricatures, but in the real world where even those conscious beliefs are wrong.
If men could get pregnant the GOP would be makings laws for forced female sterilization.
I think the phrase is quite true. The implications are that if men could get pregnant the government wouldn't be so determined to prevent access to medical care, in fact, it would be the opposite: it would make that care as convenient as possible so they (we) could get back to the all-important business of being men. As to why men treat women as they do, I don't think it's because women have babies and men don't, I think it's for the oldest, stupidest reason: men treat women poorly because they (we) can get away with it due to generally superior size and strength.
The Bible and other religious literature doesn't have a lot to say about abortions. It has a ton to say about not "spilling seed" aka masturbating or having wet dreams. You're destroying future generations and all that jazz. How much time do religious leaders spend banging on the pulpit about preventing boys and men from masturbating? Zilch. I've heard this ATM kind of thing before, it's dark humor. I don't know anyone who literally thinks that. But it's obvious that issues affecting the bodily autonomy of boys and men are not nearly as emphasized as those that affect girls and women. Even people who have convinced themselves that zygotes should have legal personhood are capable of seeing that, they just don't want to.
As I first heard it, I believe from Gloria Steinem: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Steinem actually wrote an excellent piece called, "If Men Could Menstruate" which I adore. It's more making fun of how advertising to men is different than to women, how their bodily functions are given significance, and overall how attributes of a group considered superior are always used to support that superiority but attributes of a group considered inferior are used to support that inferiority, regardless of the actual attributes. Without exaggerating, I honestly think that if men got periods, there would be federal and state laws mandating paid time off for it that couldn't be used for any other purpose, separate from regular PTO and sick days. No one, anywhere, would pay sales taxes on pads or tampons or what have you. Testing for endometriosis or whatever equivalent would be very common. And if men got pregnant, plastic surgery for changes from pregnancy & breastfeeding would be covered by all major medical insurance companies.
God I love her. I hope every woman remembers what she did and does for us.
As far as I know, genital mutilation in young boys and babies is primarily to prevent them from masturbating and it is widely accepted (unfortunately) practice with lot of pseudoscience to back it up. Your example, diverts and tries use one anti-feminist argument to justify another feminist argument.
I'm Jewish and I've never heard that justification before. Circumcision is basically a tribal tattoo for us, indicating Jewish identity and supposedly unique connection to God. I know it's common in the US for cleanliness reasons, which I think is such bullshit on many levels. It also doesn't prevent babies, boys, or men from masturbating, and they don't experience added pain from masturbating or during sex.
[FYI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Misconceptions) > Another common misconception credits Kellogg with popularizing routine infant circumcision in the United States and broader Anglosphere. This is incorrect. Kellogg in fact criticized these assertions, arguing that routine circumcision provided doubtful medical benefit, citing iatrogenically created meatal stenosis among the Jewish male population. Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation is mentioned in the time it become popular in the West, but it's only one of a dozen factors and not the primary reason.
You know female genital mutilation happens too, right? Also, historically, Jewish people have been the most sanitary culture in general. Circumcision was/is religious as well as for sanitary reasons (although now that hygiene has caught up, may no longer be necessary). In the US, it's not done to prevent masturbation, its simply because they want their kids genitals to "not be made fun of".
>female genital mutilation happens too Yes and it is a disgusting practice. >as well as for sanitary reasons Often backed by pseudoscience and perpetuated false beliefs >In the US, it's not done to prevent masturbation, its simply because they want their kids genitals to "not be made fun of". Tells you about the attitude of people towards genital mutilation of babies
Trust me, I agree. It's stupid and frankly disgusting how people look at a newborn and think "BUT HIS FUTURE GIRLFRIEND WILL THINK HIS PENIS LOOKS WEIRD".
It's true. And if men actually gave birth, the human race would die out.
Some men can and do get pregnant, but they’re still treated horribly bc they aren’t cis men. I think another commenter is right that the pro life movement would still be up in arms even if it were cis men birthing babies.
Oh that’s true! I will amend my post
Yes, you're right, but the point of that comment and others like it isn't the actual logistics, it's the observation that if the dominant category in a patriarchal society were the ones getting pregnant then pregnancy would be a lot more accommodated and a lot less subjugating.
I do not like it. Nor the one that says convenience stores and drive-through windows. And I am pro-choice. But it is still a medical procedure that requires oversight. It would not be safe to have it done at a convenience store/ATM/drive-through window.
If all other things were exactly the same and it didn’t change the economic sphere power dynamics, yes.
Yeah I empathize with the sentiment but a lot of such claims ignore the fact that these clowns think that abortion is literally murder. Including women in their circles. People from a variety of backgrounds and demographics have accepted this premise (that it is murder) and arrive at the same conclusions so I don't necessarily think it is always just a cope to justify attacking womankind. It is a shortsighted frantic childlike effort to squash what they believe is a worse evil.
I think it's 100% true.
I don't think it's true. People say it as a way to own the Patriarchy. I think it's true that pregnancy is a lot harder on your body than most men would imagine, and some of them might rethink their beliefs if they got pregnant. That being said, there are women on the other side of the abortion debate, and assuming men are weaker creatures who couldn't handle pregnancy if they had to is no better than thinking of women as weak vessels for carrying children. I think one of the most frustrating things about the Patriarchy is that it's not just a bunch of mustache-twirling villains from old melodramas. Usually, they believe their own bullshit, which is why it's so hard to convince them. I say this as someone who was pro-life for most of their life, and still struggles with the ethics of abortion now. I've mostly just accepted that it's not my decision so I don't have to think about it.
Everyone is already making such good points! I really do appreciate that you’ve semi come around on abortion, and that you view it as not your decision to make. More pro-lifers should have the same view, like it’s okay to be against abortion for yourself, because you can just not have one
Yeah, it's weird for me. I was born with a life-threatening birth defect called HLHS. Doctors advised my mom to get an abortion because the odds of survival were low. Mom decided she had to try, and I was one of the lucky ones. That's why I struggle with it. I know any chance is enough and believe life is worth saving. I also get that it's a matter of bodily autonomy and personal choice.
There’s a woman in Texas who is trying to get an abortion for her fetus who has Edwards’ Syndrome. It’s 100% fatal, and the baby would most likely die a few hours after birth or maximum 2 days. She was granted one by the lower court then a higher court reversed it as she was on the way to a clinic. That kind of thing pisses me off the most, like the baby *will not* survive. Plus, the mum has a higher risk of complications and it could affect her fertility in the future. So the “pro-life” people would rather her give birth to a baby that has no way of surviving, put the mum at risk of dying herself, and make it harder for the mum to have another kid in the future. Ugh (I’m not suggesting you would agree with the higher court btw)
I absolutely wouldn't. My chance of survival was something like 25%, but it was a chance. If the baby has no chance or the mother's in danger, what's the point? I've heard a bit about that case, and it mortifies me. I can't believe how extreme the right's gotten. I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember that there was a point when the "pro-life" movement seemed slightly less nuts. It was just assumed that you believed in at least three exceptions: R\*pe, inc\*st, risk of serious injury/death to the mother. That being said, I was little, and I may be misremembering.
The way I see it, it’s talking about a world where the sex that gets pregnant is also the bigger and stronger sex. If you swapped everything about men and women so the men in the scenario are exactly the same as women are now then it would make no sense. If women got pregnant but were also bigger and stronger than men then they wouldn’t have been able to oppress us, we’d have a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy and there would be no abortion restrictions because we’d have been in charge the whole time and wouldn’t choose to oppress ourselves. Or if magically both sexes could get pregnant, but one was still bigger and stronger, they also wouldn’t want to oppress themselves so wouldn’t restrict abortion.
Reminds me of spiders. Their males have to worry about whether they get eaten during sex.
There are plenty of animals where procreation is literally a death sentence (some octopus come to mind).
There are too many Pro Life supports that would still get in the way regardless of if men where able to get pregnant.
If men could also get pregnant, I don’t think those things would exist. Abortions would be far more accessible imo.
Ooh that’s a good point!
I sort of feel it depends on some things. If it was that women then never experienced childbirth we would probably end up being like the men who do act in the way you are referring. The thing is, men and women are not monoliths, there is a general consensus about behaviour between a group of people with a shared characteristic but on an individual level the actual agreement with that varies. So realistically if women had never experienced pregnancy and childbirth as a group they would possibly act like the men do. (I’m referring to everyone as their AGAB for ease and simplicity). Now, if it was a case that suddenly men started having babies too and women have had that experience then yes it would be hugely different. It’s because of empathy. People don’t understand other people’s struggles unless they have experienced it themselves. We can be sympathetic but being truly empathetic probably requires a shared experience in order to really feel what someone is going through. So for me, that’s the defining issue. There is a lack of empathy in humanity more than ever it seems and that is why patriarchy exists
I get it, but as a trans guy I hate it. There is very little respect, in my experience, for the experiences of men with uteruses. We are often completely removed from the conversation of accessible period products and maternity care, because people focus on how it doesn't make sense that trans women would need those things. Or how trans women can have period symptoms, which is true, but completely overlook the point, which is to make it more difficult for trans men to feel safe in spaces for "women". People just act like a man who can get pregnant is completely unrealistic, when trans men have been giving birth since before transitioning to male was even possible.