Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From the Dad of 3 BFed girls
By which you mean bottle fed or breastfed?
-
Brilliant.
-
Off the top of my head, "I don't know"
There is an element of that, yes. And the document that Steven linked to had sensible suggestions on the kind of advocacy that is required, as well as some of the difficulties that it faces. It doesn't help that several in-the-news men's advocates are in fact deranged anti-feminist and anti-women types, à-la dad4justice. But hey, not all of them are. And ultimately isn't it up to men to organise? Women sure didn't get much help when they started on their journey, nor did they live in a culture that encouraged them to speak up.
-
Excellent. Let's find a different way to disagree now.
-
But it's tied to social constructs to such an intimate degree, wouldn't you say? Because I can guarantee you that the female in the example I've just given would be expected to have a special unique maternal bond to the child, be a Mummy in other words, whereas the male will be sometimes resented, sometimes put down, sometimes treated as if he was being the ultimate hero for doing what female Mums have been doing for millennia.
-
I mentioned parenting because it seems to embody gender roles on which biology has a very significant impact.
I thought you were supposed to be working? :-)
when it comes to gender roles, men and women are exactly the same, apart from women being able to gestate, give birth and breastfeed.
A male/female couple have a child through a surrogate lending her uterus to the cause. The childminding arrangement is that the male stays at home and is the primary caregiver, while the female stays in her job. Who's the mummy and who's the daddy of this child?
ETA: Yeah, I don't think Isabel was being judgmental either.
-
Now don't get technical on us.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.