Men vs Women when it comes to biological children

submitted by TalkToTheVoid from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A woman is asking her male partner for some sperm, while a man is demanding his female partner go through a difficult and dangerous process. Men can’t birth.

In this hypothetical couple, would the female partner really just be "asking her male partner for some sperm"? Nah, she'd much more likely be wanting and expecting him to be her major support during her pregnancy, labor and birth, as well as the fourth trimester - and to be her partner in parenting from the day the child is born.

Far from being a matter of simply asking her male partner to contribute some sperm, the woman in this couple - and the man too - would have to be aware that agreeing to have a baby together would tie the two of them together in a demanding, utterly exhausting, often thankless, decades-long joint venture that will alter both their lives - and will bind them existentially in the most profound ways that even a breakup, separation and/or divorce can't put asunder.

What's more, unless this woman is living in a country like Saudi Arabia, she would probably expect her male partner to behave as a father to their child, meaning doing his fair share of child-rearing, such as changing nappies, bathing, feeding, playing, rocking, staying up nights with colic, and providing all sorts of other care throughout the kid's life. This would most likely profoundly change and restrict the everyday behaviors of the male partner in myriad ways.

In most jurisdictions, agreeing to become a father would also place significant legal and financial obligations on the male partner for the next 18-21 years or more.

But my overall impression is that in the hypothetical couple and situtation you've created, neither the woman nor the man seems ready to raise children. In fact, they way they view each other suggests that they'd both be poor parents.

IMO, a woman who sees the male partner she's in a serious, committed relationship with merely as a sperm donor isn't operating on a much higher moral plane than a man who sees his female partner whom he supposedly cares for as just a vessel for "his offspring" and a vehicle for his "whims." Both partners sound shallow and like rather narcissistic users, in fact.

Regardless of how a child comes into their lives, chances are that this couple will see their child not as a full human being, but as a means to their own selfish ends. Coz that's how they see each other.

Also, these hypothetical people sound like they have no clue what raising children entails. Which is made clear by the fact that they've agreed

they want to be parents.

The question they should be discussing with each other is: do we want to be in situation where we are responsible 24/7/365 for the care, health, education and wellbeing of another much smaller, more vulnerable, less skilled and competent, and initially entirely helpless human being for the next 18-21 or more years of our lives, or perhaps until the day we die?

[–]TalkToTheVoid[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No offence, but a lot of this seems irrelevant.

First, the scenario consists of people who've agreed they want to be parents and are contending with the how of it. And the "asking for sperm" is relevant only in that context. That is literally all the man is required to do in creating a child.

Second, the woman would likely be seeking support from her partner, but that would be the case if they were adopting too. Couples undertake difficult endeavours and support each other. I don't know why that is relevant here.

Third, I've said nothing about the 18-20 years of parenting of how bright or stupid the people involved are, or how ready they are to have and raise children. All of that seems entirely irrelevant to the question I asked.

I do agree with you that a woman who views her male partner as simply a sperm donor isn't that much better than a man who views his female partner as simply a gestation vessel. I do think there's a difference though, even if minor. Because a woman might want to experience pregnancy. What's a man longing for? To watch a woman be pregnant?

Also, don't you think that in much of human society, outside of Saudi Arabia even, most of the work of child rearing and raising continues to fall on women? Even in the western world.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How in a discussion about people "who've agreed to be parents" is what being a parent actually entails and the long-term or lifelong commitment it involves "irrelevant"?

The 18-21+ years of hard work and sacrifice following childbirth that being a parent actually entails is "entirely irrelevant" to a couple's decision to "be parents" and to "creating a child." Really? Well, that sure explains why there are so many screwed-up people about! LOL

You and the hypothetical couple you're discussing seem to think that being a parent is merely an identity, or just a short-term deal akin to a fashion choice, not a series of activities that will change and shape the lives of both parents in innumerable ways.

If you only wanted to discuss couples who've "agreed to they want to be parents" and only care about the how of "creating a child," not about what these decisions and actions mean over the long-haul, that's what you should've said!

People who are solely focused on "creating a child" like your hypothetical couple - and you - seem to have no clue about what a child actually is and how long human childhood lasts, nor about all the love, care, education, resources, time and energy that parents need to provide a child with if that child is to grow and thrive. They/you seem to be thinking exclusively of babies - and confusing babies with plastic baby dolls.

Also, if this hypothetical couple of yours equates becoming and being parents with creating/having/acquiring a child - which now you've revealed really means making/getting a baby - then adoption is not gonna be a reasonable option for them. Coz not too many babies are available for adoption.

Similarly, children aren't babies for very long. When people "agree they want to be parents" it always seem they have a pie-in-the-sky fantasy of a cute cherubic babbling 100% healthy baby in mind. Not what it's like to have a toddler throwing tantrums, a tween screaming "I never wanted to be born! I hate you," a teen who constantly gives you side-eye and feels embarrassed by your existence, or a child with disabling health conditions, special needs and/or severe developmental disabilities that mean the parents will be taking care and supporting said child until the day the parents die.

Also, don't you think that in much of human society, outside of Saudi Arabia even, most of the work of child rearing and raising continues to fall on women? Even in the western world.

Yes and no. In the West, a lot of the work of child rearing and raising has been traditionally put on female people, but not necessarily on the mothers of said children. Historically, families with any surplus money relied on a number of females other than mothers to provide child care and rearing - wet nurses, "hired girls," governesses, babysitters, au pairs, child minders, the nuns in convent schools who taught and raised huge swathes of the population. In the 1960s, I personally worked as a babysitter and "mother's helper" for a number of families other than my own starting when I was 11, as did most of my female friends.

Also, in large families like the one I grew up in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, much/most of the work of child rearing (and household chores) was put on the older children - both boys and girls, though yes more heavily on the girls. I personally had a younger sister and brother whom I was expected to "be a mother to" from the time I was eight - & in the long run it turned out it was a good thing (sort of) that had I been put in that role, coz our real mother ended up dying pretty young...

Also, it used to be that a lot of kids of the world were left largely on their own to fend for - and raise - themselves. And that's just not true of orphaned kids in Victorian England like Oliver Twist. When I was growing up in the era of "free range parenting" in the 50s & 60s, kids spent most of our time outside school unsupervised by adults.

Growing up when I did in the US (born 1954), many of the middle-class mothers I knew were so burdened by - and resentful of - numerous unwanted pregnancies and being relegated to the role of "housewife" that once they gave birth and got their kids through the toilet-training stage, they pretty much checked out and devoted their time and energies to interests other than raising their children. Many of these women were utterly miserable, so their interests ended up being drugs and alcohol, and many became deeply depressed and even psychotic.

By contrast, because the men/husbands in these relationships had opportunities to fulfill their potential as full human beings, many of them were happier and had much more energy and interest in interacting with their kids and doing the hands-on work of raising them. In my own childhood, it was my father - and several of his good friends - who put the most effort and energy into raising me. They all adored and doted on me, and taught me everything they knew...

When I had children myself, I did so with a man who would've loved to have been able to be pregnant and to breastfeed. His personality was/is much more "maternal" than mine. He couldn't breastfeed, but night after night he'd patiently and lovingly cradle in his arms and "walk" our colicky firstborn from 1 am to 4 am, when all I could think of was throwing the child out the window or leaving him on somebody else's doorstep. I don't think either one of us can claim to be the better or more involved parent...

Lest you say this is just anecdotal, I know of many couples like this. Also, men who aren't even parents can and do step up to raise children of their relatives who fall on hard times or into mental illness, as veteran feminist Vivian Gornick's 1987 memoir "Fierce Attachments" shows. Life's not always so black & white.

[–]jelliknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While I sort of agree with the OP about you drifting away from the central topic, this is still a great comment.

They/you seem to be thinking exclusively of babies - and confusing babies with plastic baby dolls.

This is a really good point and something I seem to see a lot among progressive women. The idea of adopting a kid or using a surrogate instead of getting pregnant has an undertone of "Why make your own when you can buy a pre-made one off the shelf?" I didn't realize it until you pointed it out. I think generally a lot of that cohort and the childfree crowd have missed the central spiritual meaning of having children and along with our culture reduce it to its aesthetic and consumable components.

And your comment about men being often better/more involved because they are more free and fulfilled is great. I felt that in my own parents too. My mother was suffering under the weight of expectations about being a "good" mother and it led to her being frustrated and distant, while dad was free to just be a person, himself, and show up authentically. Ironically, it leads to him being the more balanced and involved parent, which just adds to her feelings of inadequacy. I've worked on my 'mother wound' and committed to making sure i am always a person first, and a parent second.

And thanks for your positive comments about your husband. We only ever see the crappy stories and it trains women to accept that. I have a wonderful husband too and we're just starting our family.