Gender politics of eating a roast chicken!!

As for penis portions, my dad was a 30cm taller than my mum, and probably 35kg heavier, so wouldn't have seemed weird if he ate more. I think there are 2 very distinct versions.

One based on reality, physiology
The other based on patriarchal privilege

The first makes sense, in some ways
The second needs to be entirely dismantled

In my house, growing up, adults got breast and children got leg meat. I think this was mainly because my mum loved breast meat, but my grandparents did it too.

We did this in our house, but I assumed it was just our family. My dad liked the leg meat so he had it, mum wasn't keen on the dark meat.
I'm not sure it's a "thing" though.
As for penis portions, my dad was a 30cm taller than my mum, and probably 35kg heavier, so wouldn't have seemed weird if he ate more.

In my parents house being given leg meat was an insult because none of us liked it.

My mother could only get use out of it in casseroles/soups.

I'd be chuffed if someone removed the legs, gave them to the men and let me scoff the breast meat!

In my 50s . Northern working class etc etc. I've heard of this but we ignored it while I was growing up and still do now. If someone likes a particular part they get that part but everyone gets breast meat in this order: kids, guest (if there are any), the cook (which growing up and now could e either parent), the non- cook.

I have NEVER heard of this - whoever asks for a leg gets it - assuming there are only 2 of them. I never want it!

NOT having Penis portions in my house growing up led to me becoming overweight. So I disagree that they are always a bad thing.

I'm mid 50s.

If we had chicken then everyone got what they asked for but as PP said chicken was a luxury food, my parents had it for Christmas the first year they were married.

Now my grandmothers - a different attitude. If my grandma was at our house and there was a roast she would bring it to the table whole and with a carving knife and fork for my dad, which he hated, he's left handed but brought up to eat like a right hander so carving - not easy, my mum would take over.

If she was staying with us then she would always stay up until my dad was home. My dad was in sales so used to work evenings (anyone remember the days you had someone come out to sell you central heating or double glassing) and often wanted to just some in, have a cup of tea (or a beer) and go to bed not chat to his mother in law. Her husband died before whe was 40 so most of her life she lived alone.

My Nana was different, well we had a lot of family Xmases at our house as it was the biggest and my brother and I were the only children.

But when asked what she wanted from the huge turkey would say, 'Oh I'll just have some brown meat' because that was the polite thing to do, my mum knew she preferred breast so would insist on her having some white meat at all.

Oh and we started off in Yorkshire so we also did the Yorkshire pudding as a starter before a roast.

I am from a Northern family of coal miners and steel workers. I have never heard of this.

@sqirrelfriends..... to be absolutely fair, I can't accuse my MIL of being stingy with food generally. No one would ever starve at hers as the table is always groaning. I've learnt however that certain types of food are regarded by her as 'treat' like and invariably therefore the men get first dibs on it for absolutely no good reason except she must see them as more deserving and important. As with the turkey legs, but also crackling from a pork joint or the skin off a rice pudding. She's even been known to pounce if she spots you picking the 'wrong' Quality Street ... "Ooh, could you maybe have something else as the green triangles are Martin's favourite".

It drives me up the wall but to actually leave a woman hungry, especially one who's breastfeeding, is downright nasty as well as being sexist.

OP, that's familiar to me from my Northern working class background. From how it seemed to me the breast was considered the best part (yes, this has changed but was definitely a thing a few decades back) and much easier to handle and the men were considered to be able to handle the trickier less desirable portions.

@catsmother that's utterly unacceptable and a massive bugbear of mine. MIL doesn't do turkey but if she did, I would imagine she would have a similar outlook.

I once asked DH for some of his food (huge second portion) and MIL was massively offended even though she only gave me a tiny first portion and no seconds, while I was breastfeeding a sick baby no less.

It doesnt matter how you cook it, the thighs will always be more tender and tasty.

nope, I prefer the breast meat.

It doesnt matter how you cook it, the thighs will always be more tender and tasty. Part of that is down to personal preference! I like breast meat for some things and thigh/leg meat for others. But the breast is always moist, tender and tasty - just different from the leg meat!

This apportioning of chicken never happened in my (wholly British) family, so I was somewhat agog when I first had Christmas dinner with my partner's family and the same 'rule' was applied to a huge bloody turkey!

Yep, the 'special' men folk would each get a whole turkey leg. Obviously a turkey only has two legs and there were usually three or four men in attendance so they'd take it on turns from one year to the next, but they'd never be offered to a woman.

None of these men worked in any remotely physical role that'd 'justify' the practice for calorific reasons or any of that crap.

The first occasion I thought was odd and a bit rude to be honest.... giving guests no choice in the matter when surely as host you'd want everyone to feel equally welcome and we'll fed.... but the second time I got thoroughly pissed off, especially since I'd more than pulled my weight preparing the meal. My partner was bestowed with this ginormous hunk of meat (which could easily feed four or five very nicely) that year and I apparently made a faux pas by asking for some of it, explaining I preferred the flavour and texture of dark meat.

The way his mother reacted you'd have thought I was suggesting he should have nothing to eat at all. She was utterly unable to comprehend the idea that a man's treat and preferential treatment should be questioned in even the smallest way. Bloody ridiculous.

The leg is the best bit- why should it always go to the man.

In our household the cook gets first dibs on what part they want.

I would have said this was the norm, but no idea why. I would choose the leg if given a choice, but would feel guilty if there were men there. Bizarre, isn't it?

I am from NE and it was the same as you op!!. Men got a leg - big perk... White meat for the rest of us.

we carve the bird.
So carve the breast into slices, everyone gets at leats one slice.
Carve the leg and everyone gets some leg meat.

the goal is that everyone gets both.

In our family breast was considered the best part!

it always strikes me that while men’s physical labour was always recognised, the calorific needs of women’s work gets ignored.

It doesn’t get ignored. The fact is that women need fewer calories than men even when both sexes do nothing all day long. Even a man and a woman working equally hard= man still needs more calories. Because they have higher muscle mass. It’s basic physics. Even pregnant, a woman only needs an extra 150-200 calories a day which is half a chocolate bar or one yogurt pot, it’s not much. The “eating for two” is a damaging myth that leads to many women struggling with unhealthy weight gain post pregnancy.

It absolutely makes sense to give men higher calorie portions in certain circumstances, but it should be challenged when it’s no longer based on necessity and has just become a ritual. I should have made that more clear in my post... merely calling it outdated wasn't strong enough

And I don't think it existed earlier, in land based living, strip farming etc. Mainly because men, women and children worked much the same, early industrialisation too!

But then I am only referring to needs based eating, working class families. I hadn't taken into account middle and upper class patriarchy. My error!

But surely an average man does have higher calorific needs than an average woman...? And a larger woman higher than a smaller woman etc?