'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

As I said poverty, social problems, fatherlessness etc doesn't always have negative consequences on children but the data shows the probability is effected & while I get stereotypes have consequences so does pretending that data doesn't exist to change outcomes.

Perhaps its educating people that group differences don't apply to individuals that's missing here.

So I remember reading one of the OECD’s child well-being studies which looked at outcomes. In countries with decent welfare states and childcare provision as part of that, children of single mothers do as well as children of couples.
Where there is not a decent welfare state and childcare provision, children with single fathers do better than children of single mothers, this is partly because men earn more at a population level and partly because men usually have a network of women doing childcare for them. Societally women are expected to be the default childcare, so often single mothers have given up work or gone part-time. Therefore there is less money. And a good third of non-resident fathers don’t pay maintenance.
It’s an economic issue. Men at a population level earn more. Plus I guess also social, men still are seen as heroic for bringing up children on their own, women are stigmatised.
So I think statements about the outcomes being bad need to be contextualised. Otherwise it’s just more tedious single mother bashing.
As to whether men are the secondary sex, no, of course they are not - look where the money and power in the world is concentrated.

[edited to add: I posted this having read the first page, and I realised the conversation has moved on to more single mother bashing. Tedious].

AI Overview

In Sweden, "fatherless" or single-mother homes are generally not viewed or constructed as a social crisis in the same way they are in countries like the US or UK, due to a robust welfare state and cultural normalization of diverse family structures
However, research indicates that children in single-parent homes in Sweden—most of whom live with their mothers—face increased risks of psychiatric issues, addiction, and socioeconomic disadvantages compared to children with both parents present.
Taylor & Francis Online +2

It's exactly a fear of 'single mother bashing' AKA stating facts about single parent homes that prevents single mothers from receiving the services they need.

Tip: With 'friends' like you, single mothers don't need enemies.

As a parody of certain "evolutionary psychology" used to argue for male superiority it works quite well. But it's no more scientifically robust than those views are.

In a related thought, is there any evidence about males and females with other people’s offspring? I know males in some species kill the offspring of other males, given the opportunity.
Are females more likely to adopt orphaned offspring? I know sheep need to be tricked into it, and I know some animals do it independently.

My gut instinct is that females are more likely to raise orphans, and men more likely to actively harm them. But my gut instinct is singularly ill informed. I know women in the UK have been found guilty of keeping house slaves for example, which undermines the argument for women’s altruism.

This is actually a myth. Embryos start off in an undifferentiated state in the earliest stage of development.

Therefore, the claim that “all fetuses begin as female” can only be true if undifferentiated gonads and undifferentiated genitalia are equivalent to being female. But being female involves a specific path of development: the gonads differentiating into ovaries, and the Mullerian duct differentiating into the oviducts, uterus, and vagina for mammals. Female development does not mean undifferentiated. For us all to begin as female on a physical level, we would have to develop ovaries and female genitalia first. Then to make a male, ovaries would transform into testes. And the female genitalia would transform into male genitalia. But this is not what happens. Instead, our reproductive system begins in a bipotential state, and then we differentiate along either the male or female pathway.

https://theparadoxinstitute.org/videos/do-we-all-begin-female

As explained by PP 'undifferentiated' doesn’t mean 'female'. That's the same thinking that led to boys born with malformed or underdeveloped genitalia being labelled as girls. Lack of penis =/= woman.

The instant an egg is fertilised it has a sex. Until very recently it was thought that the embryo remained undifferentiated for a significant period of time before the mullarian/wolfian pathway development started - although it was still possible to tell very early blastocysts apart genetically, hence the ability to perform sex-selective IVF. Recently they've discovered that although it is quite a few weeks before the visible differences appear, there is in fact differentiation in cell signalling and gene expression within hours of fertilisation.

I'm not sure it's helpful to encourage the primary abusers to describe themselves as secondary. There is enough "poor menz" narrative as it is.

The AI summaries of studies posted above on single parent families are comparing single mother families with 2-parent families. Not single mother families with single father families.

They don't, therefore, give you robust information about the effect of absent fathers. Many or even all of the problems described could be related the lower and more precarious income of single- rather than dual-earner households (and on average a single mother will probably be earning less than a single father, exacerbating this effect for single-mother households). And to whatever it was that led to one parent leaving. Whether death or relationship breakup, there's often trauma and disruption involved that could be the cause of the psychiatric issues, addiction etc mentioned.

I also liked the article although I read it as being deliberately tongue-in-cheek. It's been making me giggle all day and I said Goodbye Drone to my husband at lunchtime 🤣

I also read parts to my academic 15yo son who looked cross and then asked 'if it's about social roles, isn't the nurturing mother role also a social construct? You'd just have women being bad instead" (love him so much)

I do think there's points worth considering. Why is the opinion of other men so important to men, when the people they're usually trying to attract sexually are women?

'Why is the opinion of other men so important to men, when the people they're usually trying to attract sexually are women?'

Yes. Power and status among peers should not be underestimated. That goes for women, too.

I don't think she's saying that in our current time and society men are the secondary sex. Clearly they are not. She is saying that men being "in charge" is against the natural order of things and that we would all be much happier if men assumed (resumed?) their natural role as the secondary sex.

Carrying on from my previous post, I responded to my dear son by saying that leadership is one case where I would simply like equality. Equal numbers of men and women bringing their issues and solutions to the table - both equally valued and respected. Working together is often the best solution.

I think the idea that women should be in charge is very alluring but possibly in a 'power corrupts' kind of way.

Haven't had time to re-read thread but I think only one post implied single mother households have a negative impact on children.

And others then posted that there has been a lot of research saying that isn't true, but more likely to be the outcome of poverty and as can happen these families being forced to move to areas away from family and friendship networks and children having their education disrupted. For instance children of service families who often move, are as likely to have lower education outcomes, even though they are from 2 parent households.

Communism too has not led to female eutopia's. All comunist societies have been dominated by male dictators and led to repressive and totalitarian societies led by men.
Women have had equality in politics only in democratic systems and they are only capitalist.

Well yes, because they're communist regimes under a patriarchal system. I didn't mean that communism = matriarchy and good for women. Just that I think matriarchy and capitalism are antithetical.

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.

I think you’re a bit confused, the demographic lounging around and doing frivolous stuff are the ones in power while the ones doing the grunt work are the ones not in charge. You’ve described a patriarchy.

If we were to compare this to class you might understand the concept better:
Aristocracy- out of the way doing frivolous stuff like hunting
Peasants- farming crops and all the rest

The peaceful, nonviolence, non-agression of Bonobos has been debunked.