Food hierarchy

Thanks for that link Didactylos. Was really wanting to read it but is very expensive on Amazon.

having the ability to sacrifice food and resources for others for long periods might have conveyed some sort of protection or value in the family or community.

Isn"t it true that women, in extreme marathons and things, outlast men?

Bit off topic, but I have often wondered if there was some kind of evolutionary element/advantage to anorexia nervosa - having the ability to sacrifice food and resources for others for long periods might have conveyed some sort of protection or value in the family or community. Therefore restricting eating at times of stress might get reinforced.

Yes Tinkle. We forget sometimes how wonderful education is! And I don't think a moe powerful tool exists for achievinf equality.

If we are comparing family histories...

My grandad, born 1904 in the Welsh coal mining valleys. Somewhere in the middle of 12 kids. Whole family very bright, loved reading, education, politics. The oldest kids all went down the pit as a matter of course at 14, no real alternative, the money they earned kept the family afloat. There was a definite culture when I was growing up of bigger portions (though not necessarily the choicest bits) for the men.

By the time my Grandfather was a young man, there were a lot of adults working and contributing to the household; people lived at home then until they got married. So the family was relatively wealthy and the three youngest children got to stay on at school, do exams and go to college. Two became schoolteachers and one a hospital matron. The three were all girls.

My grandad was actually a tad bitter about how all this worked out because the girls were by no means the brightest in the family but were merely fortunate to be the youngest.

So basically, in my working class family, ultimately the girls got the lion's share of the resources. This may have been influenced by the fact that my family were extremely left wing, I don't know. It's a different perspective though.

It's not a coincidence that as soon as women had the choice to have fewer children and the choice to go out to work that they did so, straight away.

To be clear, my grandfather was a draughtsman - he worked all day at a desk, while my grandmother was pregnant for a total of nearly 7 years and washed, cooked and cleaned for a family of 11.

I agree with Fizzy that it's absolutely bonkers to say that men needed more calories because they're the only ones who could make money when it was the men themselves who prevented women from making any fucking money. Women didn't choose to be pregnant for years on end or spend their entire lives washing laundry - they did that because they weren't allowed to do anything else.

Fizzy, I was only talking about the instances when the men did need more calories and it made sense for them to eat more because there was no other way for anyone in the family to making a living

Yes, because women weren't allowed to - however this wasn't just in cities, where women were prevented from doing anything but living in poverty, this is also in the country, where women would have been growing and gathering food, and rearing the livestock - ie. also labouring from dawn till dusk - why would they get the lion's share of the best quality food, when their calorific needs would only be 25% more? How is that logical? How is that not abusive?

Nobody wants to work in a bolivian mine or collect plastic bottles from a bangladeshi landfill just to survive another day... free education and social mobility are modern ''luxuries''

Yes, and those children scouring the landfill for plastic bottles to feed themselves and their families, if their families are prioritising feeding the menfolk - who are working no harder than the women and children, that is also abusive.

Preventing women from working, so that you can justify feeding the men in preference, is a strange form of logic.

Fizzy, I was only talking about the instances when the men did need more calories and it made sense for them to eat more because there was no other way for anyone in the family to making a living. People in the West had very little choice in life till not so long ago and this still goes on to this day in most parts of the world. Nobody wants to work in a bolivian mine or collect plastic bottles from a bangladeshi landfill just to survive another day... free education and social mobility are modern ''luxuries''.

wasnt this pretty clearly documented in historical sources
eg Round about a pound a week
this is a classic survey of poverty and infant mortality in the London East end from 1913- and strongly details that the mans portion (eg feeding the 'worker' and wage earner by increased portions, better food eg meat, and 'relish' like an extra source of protein with his lunch) was common practice, while women and childrens diets were much more limited due to this

Im utterly impressed that the whole book is available free access here archive.org/details/roundaboutpoundw00reevrich

It's just pure logic in a day without welfare and women being able to work for any real money : if the men can't work, the whole family starves

It was sexist and abusive back then too. You say yourself - if women can't work for any real money (note they were still working - taking in washing, sewing, growing food, looking after livestock), so they have to sacrifice their food to the man so he can - how is that anything but abusive?

I will also mention, that women produce over 50% of the world's food www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e16.htm - so actually, even the logic that they needed the man's labour to eat may be flawed. Although in a lot of history, without that man, they wouldn't be allowed to have the property to live on, so yeah, more sexist, financial abuse.

Yes Fizzy Wa,

I am wondering, because I saw this on a BBC documentary, in addition to the very real and hard job of say washing clothes by hand, which apparently is tough - the documentary pointed to the fact that there was a great deal of "piece work" that went on.

Wikipedia on this piece work:

In the mid-19th century, the practice of distributing garment assembly among lower-skilled and lower-paid workers came to be known in Britain as the sweating system and arose at about the same time that a practical (foot-powered) sewing machine, was developed. Factories that collected sweating system workers at a single location, working at individual machines, and being paid piece rates became pejoratively known as sweatshops.

Oh, and the men in my friend's family weren't doing backbreaking physical work. One was retired, one drove a cab, one worked in a shop, all lived in a small house in the suburbs, no lumberjacking required. Still got fed first, and with better meat.

Fizzy, I agree that the vast majority of people had shit lives for most of our history, gender only made a difference what kind of flavour the shit was.

And as Clint said before shooting Gene Hackman, ''deserve's got nothing to do with it''. It's just pure logic in a day without welfare and women being able to work for any real money : if the men can't work, the whole family starves. Families still doing this today in the western world is obv a completely different matter, that's sexist and abusive.

When i was a kid, my best friend had an extended household. The women cooked. The men (her dad and her uncle, then later on her big brother too) were fed first, meat and two veg, with chops or suchlike as the meat. Then when they'd had enough the women (nan, mum, her and her sister) were fed, but with mince instead of chops.

I can remember my dad just cooking once, when my mum was visiting my sick nana. He made a mixed grill - chops, bacon, sausages, kidneys, etc etc - but we kids only got a couple of sausages as we "wouldn't appreciate" the rest of it and he ate the rest. (This was more than 40 years ago and I am still resentful!) He then, very pleased with himself, went on a rant about my mother's (excellent) cooking, and wondered why she didn't cook like he just had, all the time. (He'd just spent a large part of a week's worth of grocery money on meat for just himself for one day.) He then left us to clean up.

Oh gad, here come the poor menz brigade. 😒 We're not talking about the calories needed by men, compared to women. We're talking about women suffering and in some cases dying, due to lack of nutrition.

That's right and these are just base numbers. If we're talking about men's jobs before workers' rights and technology, then the number shoots up. And even today there are plenty of jobs that almost no woman does because they can't , anything from oil drilling to military grunts. Not to mention that women are far more likely to sustain injuries because of having more ''delicate'' bodies (bones, tendons, ligaments etc). Same reason we separate sports and why trans athletes in women's sports is ridic.

Logging 140 lbs for 2 days in the desert at 50 degrees.... does he deserve a big breakfast ? I reckon he does.

I know families like that in this day and age. MIL's friend buys a steak for the husband and her and the kids get egg and chips or a bit of mince. Maybe sausages sometimes. They have plenty of money and the wife works but it's just the done thing. The good stuff is for the man of the house.

My local butcher is like this too. I went in and as I had lamb for myself (DH and kids won't eat it) I said, "Ooh can I get three sirloins for hubby and kids please" he was aghast that I would buy steaks for the children (two steaks between DC 11, 8 & 5) He tried to sell me burgers, sausages and anything else but the good meat. He was appalled that I would waste steaks on children and they didn't need anything like that! (My little monsters are big eaters and have always eaten the same as us big folk, just in smaller portions)
Bloody busybody talking shite. If he weren't the only butcher I'd shop elsewhere.

I grew up in eastern europe and I remember miners having a very low life expectancy (around 50 yo), terrible work conditions and lives in general. And this wasn't back in WW1, this was barely 20 years ago. Smashing coal with a huge pick axe for 10hrs/day... yea I imagine they'd need more calories than a 120 lbs woman. These men literally worked themselves to death so they could feed and house their families, I think they deserved a big breakfast

Yes, life was hard, yes, men on average need higher amounts of calories, yes, death was close.

Now, tell me, how many women died in childbirth? Literally reproducing themselves to death to produce those families? Have you ever handwashed clothes for a family? Fetched and boiled the water to do that, made the bread, carried the children, produced the milk to feed those children.

Life was hard for everyone. I think the women deserved a good breakfast too - especially since they were the ones that got up to cook the bloody thing.

A man and a woman, doing the same amount of physical activity, the man will require more calories, as cdvegan says, 2500 to 2000.
Just as a heavier man will need more than a lighter man, these are average values of course, and plenty of women will need more than plenty of men based on body mass alone.