If all things were the same, but it was men who fell pregnant and gave birth, abortion clinics would be so standard they’d be on every corner, like McDonald’s. In fact, it’d be a sign of status to go to one.

Male 1: “I’m just off to the abortion clinic real quick.”

Male 2: “Oh nice, King. You’ve been busy.”

Male 1 leaves.

Male 3: “He’s so cool.”

  • nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    3 天前

    In year 2000 poll, percentage of pro-choice people was 49% among both men and women. In 2006 it was 51% for both. Since 1995 and until 2020, the difference never exceeded 8%, peaking at 20% in 2025 correlating with political polarisation, with year 2010 men responding more pro-choice than women respondents by 5% (47% vs. 42%)‡.

    Partisan divide was always more influential than the gender one, with pro-choice stance being 47% less popular among republican women than among democratic women; 42% gap for R/D men in 2020–2021 poll‡. If cisgender men could give birth, it wouldn’t have more influence on their abortion stance than overall political beliefs.

    ‡ Gender Gaps on Abortion Reach Historic Highs | Gallup, June 2025

  • Pudutr0n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    4 天前

    Did you know grey hyenas have a matriarchal society? Females are more aggressive, dominant and hold different social status to males. They aren’t less horrible than patriarchal hyenas.

    The problem isn’t the males or the females. It’s that they’re hyenas.

    • ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      4 天前

      And they give birth through a pseudo penis that is torn apart.

      I don’t think it brings anything useful to the conversation, but it is an interesting fact.

    • iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 天前

      You’re way behind. That’s why laws approved are no longer named after what they really do. Who decides that a specific law harms a specific population? The same people approving them… So… Yeah.

      • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 天前

        What? No. Laws are never named after what they do, they’re named HR#### or something. Acts are nicknamed, like Obamacare or the PATRIOT act, but they’ve always been political and not descriptive.

        And the people who write the laws are not the same people who “approve” them, in theory.

    • tiny_hedgehog@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      4 天前

      I don’t see hyenas oppressing one another through systems of well orchestrated indoctrination. They may just nibble each other once in a while.

      • Count042@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 天前

        If men gave birth, then nothing else would be the same.

        The systems of oppression that exist were created for a reason. Evil reasons, but reasons none the less. It’s not random.

        There is a reason hunter/gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian, and agricultural societies tend to be less egalitarian, and it isn’t because farming turns people evil and misogynistic.

        Furthermore, abortion was largely accepted until increased birthrates were required for the needs of empire. Despite the arguments being religious in nature against abortion, the original drivers for outlawing it were non-religous.

  • binux@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 天前

    This would be such an extreme warping of reality that it’s essentially impossible to make any assumptions about what it would entail like this. You know the joke about a time traveller moving a rock? Yeah, that times a million.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 天前

      You’re joking but maybe that’s exactly the reason why men always had it easier in history. They didn’t have to spend 9 months × child suffering + menstrual cycle every month

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 天前

        Of course there have been a few periods in history where men died in droves from wars.

        Not that war usually works at well for anyone

    • Bristlecone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 天前

      I was thinking this for a second, but the factor that makes this true is the near monopoly on violence that men have. So, theoretically as long as they still corner of the market on violence I think this would hold true in that theoretical society

  • Scrogu@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 天前

    If males gave birth then it would be females that competed for access to us and became physically stronger than males. The only thing that would change is the name of the physically and politically powerful gender.

    It wouldn’t make society better. Hyenas have bigger stronger dominant females and they have no utopia. Seahorse males give birth, they are the more maternal, females cheat on them.

    Only fundamental difference between male and female is size and motility of sex cells. Only reason animals like us vary in size and strength is due to difference in offspring investment strategies.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 天前

      if both sexes were hermaphroditic, then there would be less conflict as in other animals whom posesses both sexes gonads.

  • Magiilaro@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 天前

    If all things were the same, but it was men who fell pregnant and gave birth, well then all things but the one would be the same. Because it clearly says that all things, besides the one, would be the same.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 天前

    No, there wouldn’t be.

    The policy would be the same, because the issue of abortion makes the two ruling parties way too much money to make it worth legalizing or banning completely. Hell, when the leak of the Roe repeal occurred, Democrats raked in $80,000,000 alone. A cool $80,000,000 and all they had to do was pretend to care about abortion by making a tweet or something.

    OP is incorrect.

  • Krudler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 天前

    If men bore the children then women would have to do the sexual pursuing. The human race would quickly die out.

    • polariscap@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 天前

      I wonder if maybe women would have more time and energy to do the actual pursuing then, instead of being sidelined, oppressed, saddled with the labor of care work which is necessary for the continuation of the human race. Are you saying birthing men wouldn’t take on that care work?

  • Zephorah@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 天前

    It’s not that simple and I say that as a woman. It’s about ownership of the idea that having kids is a “right” even if no one likes you enough to want to carry your genes forward, putting health and body at risk to make it so. In addition to the lifelong commitment childbearing requires.

    The fact that you have to take some degree of ownership of another human being to treat childbirth this way is obscene, but here we are. Roe fell.

    It’s more about entitlement. I can’t conceive of doing the same in reverse positions.

    • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 天前

      Not to mention that it’s also about agency. Abortion restrictions or criminalisation is a matter of exerting control over people with a uterus.