'Men are the secondary sex'

[ArabellaScott]

https://designmom.substack.com/p/males-are-the-secondary-sex

I'd call this a bit of a thought experiment.

Author describes the 'drone behaviour' of men, and considers a shift in how we see men and women's roles.

I've not looked deeply into the assertions she makes, some of them seem a bit wild, but thought it may be of interest.

I read 'Descent of Woman' and thought it was a bit meh.

One of my favourite books is 'The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image' by Anne Baring et al.

Quite a heavy book but worth a read.

Very common arrangement. Particularly in settled groups. Fully nomadic societies tend to have a more equal division of labour, because if anyone slacks off they don't eat that day, but as soon as there's the possibility of storing a food buffer the men start to sit back.

Sounds good, ta, will check it out!

The thing about Descent of Woman, I think, is the context. At that time the field was very much Man and How He Has Evolved, as though men kept the human race going by sheer force of a manly gaze.

Gosh, that really is full of nonsense. It is gushing and peculiar too.

Thanks for the comments, going by them it's not worth reading the link, but in response to 'Men are the secondary sex', I agree, it's the teeny tiny Y chromosome, it gives them teeny tiny minds.

Was it Frued who said women were jealous of not having a male appendage and that's where all our issues came from.
It could be argued that patriarchy stems from men realising how their bodies are secondary for carrying on society and because they can't cope with this they effectively throw a wobbler when they aren't in charge.

Is anyone else having problems loading anything from Substack on their phone? I used to be able to, then suddenly nothing on that platform will load. It started a while back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.