Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Food hierarchy

110 replies

Ava6 · 23/11/2017 01:17

Just when I thought I had learnt it all about the true nature of our males, here comes something that truly makes me lose it:

I had always assumed that the sky high mortality of mothers& babies in times past was due to lack of medicine, sanitation + too many kids for mums to look after them properly. Turns out that an even bigger factor was malnutrition due 2 men & boys hogging the food for themselves, leaving pregnant & breastfeeding women + growing girls 2 feed on their leftovers. Fetuses became too weak on such low nutrition, which would explain the staggering no. of stillbirths. This was probably the reason girls started growing so rapidly after WW II in the developed world: for the 1st time in history there was enough food to feed the females of the family sufficiently after the males took their fill.

For some reason this gutpunches me even more than all the other misogynistic evil men have perpetrated. I mean - can you really socialise someone to be this psychopathically selfish through conditioning alone??? (in terms of the male nature vs nature debate)

OP posts:
deydododatdodontdeydo · 23/11/2017 09:03

Would be interested to see if child mortality rates for girls was higher than boys.
The hogging of food certainly would be believable.
I'm not sure such statistics exist though.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 23/11/2017 08:58

So no source for this?

makeourfuture · 23/11/2017 06:21

I read a book about the wider social and economic effects of Waterloo. These armies would come through and strip everything in their paths. Every scrap of food and anything wooden for fuel: roofs, doors, furniture.

There was a lag after these battles, of disease and starvation. Women and children. For quite a long time sometimes.

Wars, disasters and famine - along with this general calorie deficit mentioned above - are very much feminist issues

Ava6 · 23/11/2017 05:42

I sincerely wonder what propelled working class women to marry at all save for social expectation. If they ended up half- starved anyway and many still had to do work outside the home on top of domestic work - what was the point?

I have no hard historical evidence (just various anecdotal + secondary). The modern facts r easily found through any international development or charity organisation: the majority of malnourished children in the world today r girls. They die at twice the rate of boys in India under 5 because food and healthcare r preferentially allocated to boys.

OP posts:
TitaniasCloset · 23/11/2017 05:10

I know penis portions were a thing for my mum growing up. The men were always given more because they did hard outdoor work.

TerfyWerfy · 23/11/2017 04:53

I read something similar in Edward Shorter's A History of Women's Bodies. It's a pop history book and not a scholarly article but he references everything (albeit research from pre-1980, so I have no idea if it's still relevant?)

I do think it's possible the majority of these men were purely this psychopathic as you put it through socialisation alone. Although women worked outside the home men were the main and most reliable source of income so they felt justified in hogging all the food. Also look at the value placed on women as a whole - in places were dowries were widespread, if a man lost his wife it could only be a good thing as he could remarry and receive another dowry. If he lost his cow it would be a disaster as he would lose his source of income and have to pay out for a new one. (Another little tidbit from Shorter. Seriously I love this book, it's what turned me on to feminism 10 years ago. It might not be wholly relevant now but it shows in an accessible and neutral way how and why the female sex has been oppressed because of our biology since the dawn of civilisation.)

IndianaMoleWoman · 23/11/2017 03:52

If this is true it’s very interesting, and would maybe explain some of the underlining psychology that persists today around society deeming thinner women to be more attractive (thin woman = won’t scoff too much of man’s food = plenty of food for man = more attractive).

Do you have links to any sources/articles?

ICanTuckMyBoobsInMyPockets · 23/11/2017 03:38

This sounds interesting, and makes sense, but I’d need to see your data.

TitaniasCloset · 23/11/2017 02:45

This is interesting. Are you sure about this?

Chrys2017 · 23/11/2017 01:22

Source?

Swipe left for the next trending thread