(no subject)

[stellar_muddle]

After watching a very good documentary on SBS (The Choice, and after an interesting conversation on the way between Adelaide and Canberra), a question arose...

How different would society be if 50% of conceptions resulted in the male becoming pregnant (assuming the correct biology for this to be possible)?

How would it change your actions/reactions?

Comments

[queneva.livejournal.com]

To clarify the question a little, because it affects the answers:

Would assuming the correct biology for males to become pregnant half the time mean there was no differentiation between the sexes -- all hermaphrodites -- or were you thinking of retaining some sort of distinction between sexes? If you were assuming there'd be some distinction retained, what would it be? (What do 'male' and 'female' mean in this society? And I'm not even talking about socally-constructed gender, yet, just sex.)

Would "which partner gets pregnant" be random, or would it be affected by the sexual acts or sexual roles? (Maybe only the initiator of sex gets the necessary hormone boost, or only the person on top in a particular position can get pregnant.) Do the people having sex know that?

[stellar-muddle.livejournal.com]

Started thinking about this when looking at the consequences of pregnacy and the fact that human males get off biologically scott free wrt sex (appart from STDs etc). Wanted to know what would happen if suddenly the risks/public responsibility were shared 50/50. How would the expectations/reactions with respect to contraception and abortion change?

In the context of framing the question that way, this probably requires omnipotent interventionist, to make the least biological difference - maybe men have pouches like seahorses when it is their turn. Looking at your clarifications though, this is lazy in terms of thinking about the hormonal balances and sex distinction which you would end up with in a species that had evolved that way. For instance, I am not certain how sexually distinct seahorses are in their biology and behaviour.

With respect to the influences as to which becomes pregnant, initial thoughts were for complete randomness - random assignment of no chance of escape from the biological consequences. It becomes a quite different idea and changes a lot of concepts if a concious decision has to be made as to who becomes pregnant - would be interesting if you could alternate so say you had the first and your partner the second. Whether it would change any of the current gender "equality" gaps (if any are a result from time taken off in pregnancy and in child rearing) is another matter...

Does it change the issue if it is pregnancy and breast feeding of the child?

[queneva.livejournal.com]

A society that developed this way would probably be quite different to one where this was a later change overlaid on a society where previously only one sex could get pregnant.

I'm feeling like throwing some ideas around here rather than making a cogent case...

Have you read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness"? It features an alien race of people who are gender neutral except for a few days each month when they go on heat (kemmer) and turn -- at random -- into either what humans would call 'female' or 'male'. They also have a strong and compelling sex drive during kemmer, so anyone could get pregnant. Much to think about.

There's a theory which -- in broad brush strokes -- posits that the only essential differences between males and females are that females can sustain pregnancies and males can rape. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion of the finer points here -- although there are finer points -- but have a think about how societies might develop with and without those characteristics.

And I'll mention the trolls of Glorantha here, too, which transmit the mother's birth pangs to the father, wherever he may be. :-)

Men can breastfeed. Induced lactation isn't something to embark on lightly, but they're mammals and have the necessary equipment. More often, I've known women to express milk and have their partners take care of some of the feeds with breastmilk in a bottle. It's not equal, but it's a little less "you're the only one who can do this, so you have to be on call all the time". And, while breastfeeding is preferable, even if you _can_ do it you do have a choice about whether you _will_ do it. Otherwise we're nationalising women's bodies for lactation in the same way some people would nationalise women's bodies for pregnancy/incubation. (Strongly encourage. Support. Make it easy. But don't compel.)

I've known lesbian couples who've taken turns having children. It seemed to work out fine.

How much of the gender gap would close if bearing and raising children was paid work, even if it was done within a relationship? How much of the issue is about being able to have babies and still engage in the world of ideas and events while not running yourself ragged and/or feeling you didn't do either of them well?