Is there a deeper picture that we are afraid to talk about?

[speakout]

I have deep feminist views.But trying to understand the taboo surrounding sex differences.
I have been mulling over this issue in the past few weeks. My 17 yo DD is going through University application atm, hoping to do child nursing, but considering adult nursing too. So in the past month she has been attending interviews at different Universities for her courses. Often all day events, lots of group stuff, role play etc, usually involving 60 or so potential students at a time.
So in the past month over 4 Universities and meeting 200 fellow potential students she has met 4 males.
In her last interview for child nursing ( just been offered a place :)) there were zero males in a bunch of 70 potential students.
Can someone please help me understand this.

QuentinSummers
Actually scientists have demonstrated through modelling that the strategy that will result in most offspring for a human man is to have sex with just one woman throughout her cycle (contraception not withstanding)

This is really really interesting(as is the whole thread) thank you.

Wrt waking up with babies i think it's responsibility driven I always woke because it was me that fed the babies but DH was up last night with my eldest vomitting as they share a room.

Just as I think most people ignore an alarm that is set for someone else.

I have always wondered if being pregnant means mothers have a head start on their connection with a baby - especially when there were no scans the father would only be aware through the changes in the woman until kicks could be felt at late stage. So say 7 months of loving & experiencing this new person before the father starts?

Anecdotally men seem far less emotionally affected by earlier stage miscarriage which would tie up with that too.

QuentinSummers

I do see that monogamy is an evolutionary stable strategy and a great way to ensure your children reach a childbearing age.

But the investment/risk is still greater for the woman surely. It is easier to have another a baby if something goes wrong in the child/making rearing process for a man. If I die in childbirth, he can just find a new wife, if I am badly injured in childbirth and don't want to do it again, he can leave me and find someone else to do it. If we get fed up with each other aged 38 having had 2 lovely children, he can much more easily find a new wife 5 years younger and have more children. I really cant do that. If I miscarry/stillbirth its my body that has to recover before its in position to be pregnant again. I know several men that have managed to have two pregnant women on the go! Not nice men but there you go.

Surely the "sex with one woman throughout her cycle" being superior wouldn't be true in a situation (as was the case through most of human history) where women are breast feeding for several years after giving birth, given the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding?

Remember eating about nursery staff were convinced that gender typical behaviours were inate. A test was then carried out. The staff were asked to specifically record the behaviours they saw in a group of children they had never met.

All the "girls" were describe as caring, keen to play with dolls etc. The "boys" were rough and tumble etc.

The staff did not realise that the "girls" were boys in girls clothes and vice versa.

Eating = hearing. Radio programme

What about desire to have a child? The desire for some women is so overwhelming, reference the TTC threads. I don’t know any man who has felt that. As a woman neither have I but amongst my friends I’m an exception. I fell pregnant by accident, it would never have happened by design and I knew from the moment I found out that I would only have one. The longing for motherhood some women express seems too deep for it to be a learned desire.

Surely the best way for a man to have many children is to have many wives and have sex with all of them throughout their cycles.

Women don't have this option, having many husbands still leaves you with the one baby and one cycle.

Would be great if all the husbands helped with the household though.

Many husbands = higher income, more resources, civilised society.

Many wives (+many children) = poverty, death, uneducated society.

true.

But then, say women were expected to have many husbands for the sake of "civilised society". What would happen to all those unmarried women... unless there was some sort of husband-sharing?

Perhaps the unmarrieds would have to be reduced to some sort of underclass if not killed off...

Say, it was only the upper classes of society that had the one woman many husbands rule ... the upper class would be open to many men and few women.

Oh well. Glad we generally settle on one man one woman coupling in society.

But could a man admit that they really want a child in the same way? Do we not expect or allow men to express such emotions? Isn't it clear at least that gay men can admit they really, really want a child? And to what extent would a woman's desire for a child be strengthened by her "inability" to do so...a feeling that she has failed a s woman? The desire to procrate is probably pretty hard wired into both sexes.

It really irritates me when people have DC of each sex and then attribute differences between their DC to their sex!

What would happen to all those unmarried women

Not every woman, or every man wants or can have children.

One man for one woman to continue the species sounds just about right, and fair I'd say.

Midge “But could a man admit that they really want a child in the same way?“

Very good point, thank you

I really need to read the whole thread but I'm just about to take an afternoon nap Love Sundays!

I realise I'm not contributing anything to the theory and we are only one data point but both myself and my DH were raised in families with strong working mothers.

We have a relationship that doesn't really follow any gender norms at all.

I'm the one that puts myself under more pressure to provide financially and I earn 5 x his salary so I'm the main breadwinner. I would say that he is more emotional and nurturing than I am.

Chores are shared...but I tend to deal more with the finances and logistics of running a household. He does more laundry and looks after me more (makes me breakfast, dinners, etc).

He is much more broody for children than I am. I already know that being a SAHP wouldn't suit me, DH wants to stay at home until they're at school.

So certainly for us...care giving appears to be more social based than biology based. DH is definitely more of a natural care giver than I am.

...also I don't seem to have any of the 'inflictions' that come from being socialised by a non-feminist parent.

I'm not a people pleaser, I don't care what people think about me, I have a fairly good level of self confidence, I never question my right to speak up or be heard. I've always been 100% comfortable asking for and sometimes downright demanding pay raises.

I do still get treated differently by other people because I'm a woman but...inside I'm pretty much what people who believe in gender would consider a 'man'.

Except I like kittens and dresses

I wish I could edit my first post

'By strong working mothers' I'm not implying that women who don't work now are somehow 'less than' just that choosing to work FT 40 years ago was a fairly feminist act and they are both strongly feminist and had the same day to day roles in the family as the men.

creatures that’s really interesting. I was raised with my sister to be what I guess would now be considered relatively gender neutral. My first earliest remembered toys were a mix of dolls pram/dinky cars/meccanno/girls world. I loved them all. My parents encouraged high grades in what interested us and absolute independence. We’ve both had kids but only minimal mat leave as neither of us loved it. My son’s father’s shifts meant he spent more time with him as a baby than I did and he loved it, the park, swimming, playgroups. I went through the motions with that. I do attribute my boredom with it at least in part to my upbringing.

Surely the "sex with one woman throughout her cycle" being superior wouldn't be true in a situation (as was the case through most of human history) where women are breast feeding for several years after giving birth, given the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding?
Breastfeeding is not a reliable contraceptive.

I think also they have suggested historically that a single parent family couldn't survive, whether that was a widow or widower and children. And that there were an awful lot of marriages solely driven by that, which included older women marrying younger men as well as vice versa.

I'm no historical expert but I think the minimisation of the work required to raise and feed a family plus organise a household means it seems like men have less investment but the reality is for most of history it's taken both parents for the family to survive.

I have had a boy and girl child.
I have noticed differences in them from an early age.

I had two girls.
I noticed differences in them from an early age.

Breastfeeding does not need to be a reliable contraceptive to have the effect I suggested. All that is required is that fertility be significantly diminished.

I agree with your point that a mother-only family is likely to be more vulnerable, and that the paternal contribution to child-rearing would likely be a significant factor, and a push toward the evolution of long-term pair bonding.

However, it's also necessary to factor in the prevalence of "cheating" (adultery) to the picture, and the reproductive advantage that can give a male, but not a female) - .

So I still don't think it's as straightforward as "focus on one woman all through her cycle". And what if she doesn't want to have lots of sex during all her cycles?

OP, on Google look up the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox.

However, it's also necessary to factor in the prevalence of "cheating" (adultery) to the picture, and the reproductive advantage that can give a male, but not a female
Well females cheat too. And one of the reasons it is advantageous for males to be monogamous in humans is so they can minimise the risk that they will end up raising another man's child.

I don't agree cheating doesn't provide a reproductive advantage to a female. What if her mate is infertile? What if the man she's paired with is a good provider but doesn't have the most successful genes? In both those cases she's motivated to cheat.

Studies of other "monogamous" animals, particularly birds, shows that the offspring don't always come from the male partner.

In my opinion the argument there is an evolutionary reason for men to cheat is reductive and inherently sexist. Animal sexual behaviour is complicated (and fascinating), there s no reason to assume him and would be any different.

But could a man admit that they really want a child in the same way?

In my experience, yes, my DP was very up front about wanting kids (we were both approaching our 30s when we got together - and he didn't want to risk us being incompatible around something so important). Other boyfriends have similarly expressed their feelings either way.

It's him that's broody for a 3rd - I may be falling into the trap of thinking that men think like me, but I don't see men being unable to be open about this.