Gender politics of eating a roast chicken!!

[ColdOopNorth]

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to ask and it seems rather trivial but.... I come from a traditional Northern family and I am in my 50's. I have always , from early childhood, believed that it is 'normal' when carving a roast bird to give the men the legs and the women get the breast! This was 'the rule' growing up, my husband took this as normal too and I never ever questioned why until my non-British friends came for lunch and thought it was the most weird, bizarre thing ever and are still talking about it weeks after. Is this a thing for anyone else and any idea why? I suspect it is to do with men being allowed to pick up the leg and gnaw on it whilst us 'ladies' are far too refined - just goes to show how deeply ingrained some of these stereotypes are eh

Chivalry is a form of misdirection. And on one short sentence historical romance is dead; Shakespeare irrelevent and King Arthur a Once, Never to Return King

Never heard of this - everyone chooses what they like.

Can anyone explain what a penis portion is? Is it just giving a man a larger helping of food because they have a bigger appetite or they need more?

In our house it was men got served first. Then children. Women got what was left.

@Thingybob

Can anyone explain what a penis portion is? Is it just giving a man a larger helping of food because they have a bigger appetite or they need more?

In my family it was because men worked some truly hard jobs. All blue collar workers, mostly pits and docks. So they got home and had a hot wash and a big meal, the most calorie dense bits. Women at that time were home workers (not housewives), took in washing or mending. Washing was physical but not at the same level as pit work. And I am talking as late as the 1960s here, not the Victorian Era.

@CuriousaboutSamphire
I’m sure that was valid within your family circumstances. But on a more general level I’ve heard these explanations many times as a sort of blanket explanation for penis portions. it always strikes me that while men’s physical labour was always recognised, the calorific needs of women’s work gets ignored. Hauling water from wells while pregnant and carrying small children wasn’t light work either.

When I was growing organs in my first trimester pregnancies, I sometimes ate a second dinner. And similarly when my body was producing food to support a small human. But it’s rare to come across ingrained family meal rituals that acknowledge female calorific needs. Instead, traditionally, these things were women’s issues that were blanketed in silence.

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.

Have never known this either!

@Thingybob

Can anyone explain what a penis portion is? Is it just giving a man a larger helping of food because they have a bigger appetite or they need more?

In the college cafeteria, the male students were routinely dished up dinners about a third larger than the portions given to female students. We used to send the lads up twice.

Men get served first, asked what they want, then children, then the women get what's left.

@ColdOopNorth

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to ask and it seems rather trivial but.... I come from a traditional Northern family and I am in my 50's. I have always , from early childhood, believed that it is 'normal' when carving a roast bird to give the men the legs and the women get the breast! This was 'the rule' growing up, my husband took this as normal too and I never ever questioned why until my non-British friends came for lunch and thought it was the most weird, bizarre thing ever and are still talking about it weeks after. Is this a thing for anyone else and any idea why? I suspect it is to do with men being allowed to pick up the leg and gnaw on it whilst us 'ladies' are far too refined - just goes to show how deeply ingrained some of these stereotypes are eh

It’s more likely of working class origin and because the legs are dark meat and so have more fat which the men would need as they have more physically demanding work than the women.

Wait, why were you carving when there was a Man of the House there?

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

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!

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.

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!

I am sure to many this is bizarre and weird, however, my interest is knowing if it is or was widespread and what are the origins. I agree with @thelegohooverer we should ask why - I never even thought about it before a friend remarked how weird it was so this is so ingrained that I never even questioned 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.

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?

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.

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.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

and women thet the dry chest? If that's the case you are cooking it wrong. Try cooking it upside down, or pushing herbed butter under the skin.

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

@catsmother You asked for leg meat #Anarchy in the UK

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!

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

nope, I prefer the breast meat.

@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.