'Men are the secondary sex'

I know this is anecdotal. But at secondary school (really haven’t had much contact with men besides my husband from age 19!), the nicest boy was one of the few children on free school meals. Lived in an over crowded council flat. His mum and sisters shared the bedroom and he slept in living room. His dad was abusive and it was just him, his mum and his younger sisters. We were good friends and I remember asking him why he stood up for girls he didn’t even really know, just comments like ‘that’s not cool’ ’leave her alone’ etc, when the boys (usually head boy and crew!) would tell him to fuck off and call him names etc for the trouble. He said it was how his mum raised him, his dad was an absolute asshole and really abusive. She used to have him open doors for girls etc as a young child, told him it was his duty to protect girls, not harm them, was quite determined he would end up nothing like his father. We’ve lost touch over the years, but always stayed with me as I’ve never encountered another boy/ man like him.

So he didn’t get all his violent mysogonistic genes from his dad. Or if he did - it was nurtured out of him. Despite being a poor child raised by a single mum.

I hear you. But perhaps you missed this comment I also made:

"If it were just about poverty & societal issues there would be no substantial difference in the rates of consequences between two parent families & fatherless homes but there is.

But of course that's not to say all fatherless homes are problematic just like poverty & social problems don't effect every family equally."

I haven't read all the comments, I'm surprised to see these references, but from personal experience, I don't recognise this narrative. I am a single mother, I have been on my own with my boys for 9 years, and they are incredible; funny, intelligent, and considerate, also kids who make mistakes and are figuring out who they are. We have never been in any kind of trouble beyond talking in class. I know other single mothers, and all of us are home owners, except one. I appreciate there may be a higher prevalence of certain outcomes, but please don't use a sweeping brush to paint all of us, because it's just not true. I have thrived since being on my own, I went back to uni and got a Masters, I work in a flexible profession.

What I will say though is the housing impact, we are restricted on where and what we can buy due to one income, that is just the reality. This means I am applying for an out of catchment place for my youngest to attend the same HS as his brother and all his friends, and if he doesn't receive a place, I am prepared to buy a two bedroom flat in the area and sleep in the living room.

No they don't. I know it's a fashionable claim to make but it is biologically incorrect.

I read this a couple of nights ago, then yesterday read the awful news about the male nursery worker found guilty of raping toddlers, which i thought exemplified the piece in terms of the young and vulnerable requiring protection from males.

All human fetuses begin life as female. The SRY gene turns on in the 3rd month if the fetus is XY and begins creating testosterone and male characteristics.

AI generated:

Key points on outcomes for children in single-mother households in the UK:

• Poverty is a Major Factor: Half of all children in lone-parent families in the UK are in relative poverty, which heavily impacts outcomes. Financial hardship, not just the absence of a second parent, is the primary driver of worse educational and social outcomes.
• Wellbeing and Stability: Research from Gingerbread and the University of Sheffield (www.gingerbread.org.uk/our-work/news-and-views/wellbeing-children-not-negatively-affected-single-parent-family/ ) indicates that children in single-parent households do not have lower wellbeing scores compared to two-parent households, particularly when the parent provides a stable and loving environment.
• Outcome Disparities: Some studies show children in single-parent homes might experience lower educational attainment or increased behavioral risks, particularly in teenage years.
• Impact of Income and Resources: Children in single-mother households often have access to fewer economic and social resources, which can impact developmental and emotional outcomes.

While structural challenges exist, the evidence highlights that a positive, stable environment is the most important factor for a child's wellbeing, often rendering the single-parent structure less influential on long-term outcomes than previously assumed.

One well known problem for single mothers is that those reliant on housing benefit often end up in unsuitable housing, ie a single room for mother and child/ren. And / or are offered housing miles from family and friend networks, and the child/ren uprooted from a school they know and their friendships.

There's loads of research on this, so wont go on, as the thread is about would a woman focused society be better than this partiarchal one where women still are "left holding the baby" and the father is not doing any of the parenting. But appreciate the women concerned may well not want the father there given the astronomical figures of domestic abuse.

Oo against the general consensus I really loved that article. It made a lot of sense to me and a lot of the points made mirrored my own observations that men are inherently selfish and will naturally prioritise themselves over their children.

The point a pp made about children from fatherless homes being disadvantaged is irrelevant imo as we live in a patriarchy. And also the article is not saying that men should disappear or that we would do better without them. They still have an important role to play - just not a leadership role.

I agree that it's ultimately all pie in the sky waffle. Matriarchy and capitalism are, imo, fundamentally incompatible and capitalism definitely isn't going anywhere.

The Victorians didn't mention bonobos because they had no idea they existed. They weren't discovered until the late 1920s. And there was very little serious study of primate behaviours in the wild for another 40 years. Everyone misread or ignored vast swathes of primate behaviour not because of Victorian sensibilities but because captive animals - particularly in the conditions they used to be kept in - behave deeply unnaturally.

Lawks, are we not yet past such specious myth-making?
If I was in the market for unevidenced post-hoc reaching, I'd go back to reading Queer Theory.

In terms of things like the propensity for incarceration, addiction, domestic violence & utility for society? Most probably.

Yes, but the same Victorians who misread the activities and power structure of chimps and gorillas also simply refused to mention our closer relatives, Benobos, who are more clearly managed by the ruling females, but, inconveniently for Victorian sensibilities, the management involves constant minor or major sexual touches for calming of quarrels, reconciling, strengthening social bonds, placating potentially angry males, and, guess what, for pleasure!

Isn't it striking that the chimps and gorillas still are the only close relatives of interest to (mainly male) observers and explorers, who still concentrate on the false notion of the male ruler plus harem (with the noble exception of Jane Goodall, and even she would not, presumably, have gained funding or thanks for studying the inconvenient Benobos).

Am I right in saying that fatherless homes are much more of a problem
when raising boys compared to girls?

If it were just about poverty & societal issues there would be no substantial difference in the rates of consequences between two parent families & fatherless homes but there is.

But of course that's not to say all fatherless homes are problematic just like poverty & social problems don't effect every family equally.

Oh, but I would add actually that it's also a bit of a Victorian fantasy to say that groups with social structures like chimpanzees and gorillas are dominated or controlled by the males. It is the females who choose which male to join/follow and they will leave to find a better candidate if the male isn't doing a good job. So the males don't win or control their "harem", it's more of an auditioning and selection process by the females.

The whole "alpha male" concept was also based on a single flawed and discredited study of captive wolves in an artificial environment and social group, who obviously do not behave the same as wild wolves.

The DNA evidence we have of hominin groups c400k years ago was that the males were related and the females weren't - i.e. the females left their family group and joined a new one when they reached maturity, like chimpanzees and gorillas who are in the same family tree as us. And like the ancient Greeks. So a fairly continuous thread from the deep past to recent past.

Also, we can tell from bones how well developed which muscles were and extrapolate from that how those hominins were spending their time (we have evidence of their technology, diet and lifestyle and therefore the muscles worked in various tasks). There isn't any noticeable difference between male and female so one could conclude that they were performing similar tasks. This was in groups who were ranging rather than settled permanently in one place. Settled living came with agriculture so very recently.

I won't waste my time reading it but the excerpts quoted sound like silly recitations of Victorian fantasies.

Agreed, it is so outdated to say that.

I think in the past when there was more overt shaming of women, many children who had only their mother at home were treated badly and made to feel inferior. (As usual no one said why isn't the father taking responsibility.)

And a positive change as shown by the number of sucessful people, including men, who are more than proud to say they owe where they have got to because of the great start their mother (as the only parent taking responsiblity) had given them.

Obviously they are.
Female is the type of the species, we are humans, they are a variant for breeding purposes - like a butterfly

In case anyone is interested, earlier threads:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/2150848-How-advanced-would-a-matriarchy-be

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919268-how-the-patriarchy-ruined-friday-13th-for-women-what-else-have-they-stolen

I think that one's very hard to separate from the resulting poverty and societal issues.

I think my two sons are doing fine in their fatherless home, so I do have some investment in this to be fair. But they have no behavioural issues, doing very well at school, are happy and well adjusted etc.

it is noticeable that nobody likes to mention our closest fellow apes are Benobos, who live in matriarchal groups

How strange, I have only just heard about them (via a radio play and them being abused for medical experiments - not sure if this is true in real life).

Re-reminder to myself to find out more about them!

There are a couple of things in Jewish tradition which appeal:The pragmatism of having Jewishness traced by the female line ( It's a wise man who knows his own father, but mothers are usually easily identified) Another pragmatism is the workaround for the rule on women covering their hair: "OK, my hair IS covered.... With a wig!"
And, it's a big deal to get to mother's house on Fridays, where she, not some male priestly figure, is in charge of formal religious duties, (though even the children have a part.)

But if humans are to be compared with our animal relatives, it is noticeable that nobody likes to mention our closest fellow apes are Benobos, who live in matriarchal groups. Each group is controlled by pretty much non stop sexual contacts, so everyone stays fairly happy and the males are too contented to want to fight.

I was being light hearted.

As many of the "was there ever a matriarchy" earlier threads did tend to emphasise that women were the constany underlying support for the community, ie saying women would survive without men, but men wouldn't survive without women.

I don't buy this 'men only did frivolous stuff' argument at all. Hunting was crucially important, not only for food, but for furs/bones/leather. Men would have played key roles in building and maintaining shelter, protecting the tribe from attack (animal/other humans). Both sexes have their strengths and these combined were vital for survival.

There have been other threads on whether at one time most societies were matriarchal, and men just did frivilous things like hunt which kept them out of the way, while women did the organising and crop, vegitable cultivation which was the main source of food.

And that it was only when men realised their part in the reproductive process, that they should be the "owners" of the child and to ensure that children were theirs, women should be monogomous. (No obligation on men of course.)

This meant create a "family" rather than a tribe. And with that ownership of land, inheritance etc., etc.. And the Marxist would say the start of capitalism, competition rather than cooperation and communitality.