I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.
What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
I agree with @Apollodorus, it is difficult to have a fruitful discussion if you don't give us definitions to work with. "Patriarchy" and "matriarchy" mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 03, 2021 at 03:26#5886010 likes
Every time I log on to this site, yet another thread of interest to me catches my eye...
Not to usurp the OP, but I think the useful definitions would be "authority/leadership/rule by men" (an expansion of the more etymological "fatherly authority/leadership/rule") for patriarchy, and so "authority/leadership/rule by women" for matriarchy. Athena will have to confirm this, but the juxtaposition of these two terms naturally leads one to that conclusion.
I have actually thought some about this in the past. I will hold off commenting on advantages and disadvantages for the moment, since it grows late and my pillow seems to beckon, but I have a couple of thoughts about the origin of, and reasons for the ubiquity of patriarchy in the human experience. My general belief is that patriarchy is a type of evolutionary artefact held over from our pre-human mammalian ancestors. If one adopts the sociobiological perspective on this, he will note that every species of social mammal, from wolves, to lions, to our closer simian cousins, displays the trait of male dominance. This is, perhaps, natural in a world, the world of the animal, wherein such social establishments as the rule of law cannot be concieved, and so "might makes right", as brute force trumps all other virtues. It is unfortunate, though I think telling of the nature and composition of the human mind, that the differing aspects of the human psyche seem not to have developed apace. The Superego, which has concieved of the need for law at the service of justice in general and social justice in particular, has outpaced the Id, which remains rooted in the more primal motives of the pre-sapiens hominid. Thusly, the patriarchal urge has remained with us despite the social edifice we have created.
Okay...good night, all.
StreetlightSeptember 03, 2021 at 04:08#5886030 likes
Reply to Athena It's hard to say what the negatives of a matriarchy would be that are specific to matriarchies, and not just any hierarchical society.
Ruthless competitions like war and capitalism are sometimes seen to have their origins in patriarchy, with the implication being that a non-patriarchal (though not necessarily matriarchal) society would not have these things. This looks to be an empirical question though, and given the paucity of actual matriarchal societies that have existed, there doesn't seem to be a solid reason to believe that matriarchal societies would be free of these things. Women can be just as capable and willing to crush and kill each other as men are, though men have had a better opportunity of doing so, given their physical biology.
Noble DustSeptember 03, 2021 at 04:35#5886110 likes
Ruthless competitions like war and capitalism are sometimes seen to have their origins in patriarchy, with the implication being that a non-patriarchal (though not necessarily matriarchal) society would not have these things.
Perhaps the converse is true. It is just as concievable that patriarchy has it's origin in the particularly pretechnological competitive milieu of prehistory as the other way around. For primitive sapiens and his hominid forerunners, physical/bodily strength was generally the primary determinant for survival. In such an environment, patriarchy seems nearly inevitable.
The salient question. I would speculate that it can on a small scale, but maybe not on the "macro" scale. It is in our human nature, as a result of the history of natural selection upon the evolutionary development of the human brain, for we humans to be wilful creatures. Like it or not, what Augustine termed the "libido dominandi" (but I myself term the "libido dominari" for purely semantic reasons), the desire/lust to dominate, is as natural to us as any other basic human instinct. As an aside, I note my opinion that this thing, this innate human trait, is what Nietzsche called the "will to power", but that man's conception thereof was skewed by the thinking difficulties latent within his mind. I much prefer Augustine's terminology for this, in any case.
This instinctual drive is now, as a result of innumerable millennia of natural selection and in common with all other social mammals, an inexorable component of the common human psyche. It can be mastered, but only under favorable conditions, and even then the basic instinct to dominate and impose our will upon others of our kind and upon nature in general will constantly seek to re-assert itself. Human beings tend naturally to recoil from, and to oppose any exertion of the will by any other person, which fact seems to be rooted in the instant aspects of human nature. Such exertions tend to be opposed in like manner, by means of an exertion of the will, an expression of the libido dominari. It must be understood, therefore, that individual mastery of the libido dominari is only tenable within an environment where in the individual can feel assured that no exertion of will or any presumption of dominance will be exerted against his person by any other individual person. This is key; any percieved threat or presumption of dominance will utterly subvert the effort. Unfortunately, the characteristics which are generative of heirarchy within large, complex societies render such a situation impossible.
This type of nature is by no means unique to humans, but rather is evidenced in all social mammals, all those mammals which naturally tend to live in groups. Every mammalian social group in the world, whether a pride of lions, a pack of wolves, or a troupe of baboons, displays the characteristic of heirarchy, and indeed, displays a near obsession with "social status". Once the needs of survival have been met, the social position within the group is the primary concern of every wolf, lion, baboon, chimpanzee, etc., among both males and females. At the top, you have the "alpha male" and the "alpha female". Since the males of mammalian species are physically bigger and stronger, it is the males who have the higher general position, with the "alpha male" at the top of the pecking order. The obsession of every social mammal is, to be as close I the order to "alpha" as he/she can. It is mammalian nature.
Because the avoidance of heirarchy seems to involve a violation of basic mammalian/human nature, I think it possible under only certain circumstances. Large scale societies such as modern nation states, are heirachical by their very nature. I think I remember reading that social anthropologists have estimated that, historically, heirarchy has arisen naturally when a human social group grows to over 250 individuals, almost as a rule of nature. Benoit Dubreuil has written extensively on this topic, and Christopher Boehm renders an excellent treatment among primates in his book "Heirarchy in the Forest". This natural development of heirarchy occurs because of the needs for administration in the group, along with the need for authority to hold members of the group accountable for expressions of the innate "libido dominari". We have discovered ways of administering social groups in a more equitable manner, using democratic principles, but those princies must be altered...adulterated to deal with anything over a small, localized group such as a commune, for instance. In order for social groups to be administered democratically, everyone must participate and have their say directly, and not by proxy, and everyone's desire must receive recognition in some way...no person can be ignored. This is simply not feasible on the macro scale. The best that we can do on the scale of the nation state, is to have "representative democracy", which automatically involves the introduction of heirarchy and the dilution of individual influence into the model.
In addition to the foregoing, the introduction of money as a store of value and the inevitable subsequent facilitation of the amassing of wealth in a society naturally subvert the egalitarian motive, for what is a massing of wealth other than the implicit open statement to all that, "I am of greater value than you"? This post, however, is already too long, so I'll let that consideration lie for the moment. In summary, the type of purely democratic group administration which has the ability to defeat the extant natural human wilfulness and the innate lust/desire to dominate others seems only possible in very small, local social groups, such as are exemplified by the true commune or perhaps the tribal village, the very type of groups which, in general, cannot maintain independent existence in today's politically and technologically complex modern world.
It is just as concievable that patriarchy has it's origin in the particularly pretechnological competitive milieu of prehistory as the other way around. For primitive sapiens and his hominid forerunners, physical/bodily strength was generally the primary determinant for survival. In such an environment, patriarchy seems nearly inevitable.
But we already know that, generally speaking, prehistoric groups of H&Gs were much more egalitarian than any of the agricultural states. Slavery and war came with civilization.
So... why do we not have examples of matriarchies to work with?
What's that about, then?
Good question, I think it could be that women simply haven't had the opportunity to, given that men have monopolized power structures.
Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators, warlords and gang leaders. The only thing keeping them from doing any of these things are the conditioning they receive during childhood, and the social pressures that limit their options.
The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 03, 2021 at 16:30#5887940 likes
But we already know that, generally speaking, prehistoric groups of H&Gs were much more egalitarian than any of the agricultural states. Slavery and war came with civilization.
Perhaps egalitarian, as many of the social structures which enable social stratification, and in such small groups the administrative problems demanding heirarchical structures, were not present, but certainly uncontestedly patriarchal, male dominated, nonetheless. I hardly think that Cro-Magnon man, for instance, gave much consideration to equality of the sexes.
180 ProofSeptember 03, 2021 at 16:35#5887970 likes
Most children throughout history have spent their formative years under the tutelage of their mothers. The rapid cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development of children occurs in their cauldron. All systems are, in this sense, matriarchal.
Reply to NOS4A2 It's true that the women who raise the next generation are usually complicit with the patriarchal status quo. No wonder why motherhood is so vilified by radfems.
but certainly uncontestedly patriarchal nonetheless.
And why was that? As you said, the communities were so small that stratification wasn't possible. What was it that made H&G groups patriarchal? The only reason left as I can tell is the physical nature of men, who are generally stronger and so better equipped to bash a woman's skull if she questioned his authority.
180 ProofSeptember 03, 2021 at 17:04#5888170 likes
My working definitions:
Patri-archy, n. – exclusive sovereignty of males which benefits ancestors (monuments) at the expense of descendents.
Matri-archy, n. – an inclusive community guided by elder females which invests ancestral surplusses in descendents.
Ideally I prefer (left libertarian) An-archy, or a decentralizing extension of matri-archy.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 03, 2021 at 17:29#5888380 likes
Ideally I prefer ... An-archy, or a decentralizing extension of matri-archy.
I, as well, embrace the ideal of anarchy (though not modern anarchism, which to my mind arises from the same inspirational motus as fascism, as evidenced by similar motus operandi), and though I begrudgingly admit the necessity for it, am philosophically opposed to the concept of the nation-state. Even so, embracing my inner monkey (so to speak, remembering that all that differentiates me from a chimp is 0.1% of my genetic code), I could not support matriarchy, as being contrary to all we see in nature, and you must admit, your offered definition of matriarchy is somewhat assumptive. On the other hand, I view patriarchy as natural, but not ideal by any means. Patriarchy could never claim to possess moral standing, yet could stand on it's claim of being natural in a pre-ethical world. In a world in which we humans have come to pursue ideals, patriarchy seems to have lost that standing, as well.
The only reason left as I can tell is the physical nature of men, who are generally stronger and so better equipped to bash a woman's skull if she questioned his authority.
You have, in brutal fashion, answered your own question. A complicated heirarchy is not necessary for there to be male dominance. There are different levels of complexity at which patriarchy can be expressed, from the simple masculine dominance of the hunter-gatherer group to the utter male orientation and social dominance of the Roman Patrician gentes (plural of "gens", the Roman lineage) and the ancient Vedic gotra (plural of "gotram", the collateral Sanskrit concept and a fundamental concept underlying the caste system). The simple fact is that these more sophisticated forms of patriarchy were based upon the more simple (and I must argue, natural, as it is seen in every mammalian social group) male-dominance of the hunter-gatherer group. By the Classical period of history, patriarchy was taken for granted as a "given". We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.
dimosthenis9September 03, 2021 at 17:59#5888420 likes
I would consider the thread closed after this response.
180 ProofSeptember 03, 2021 at 18:01#5888440 likes
Reply to Michael Zwingli In principle I'm nonpartisan as well. I also think that matriarchy is more eusocial than antisocial, which makes it more consistent with our "monkey brains" than Patriarchy, that is, more adaptive for long-term survival. Bonobos (our Great Ape cousins), elephants, orcas & lions, for example, tend toward matriarchal groupings; thereby matriarchy might be a strong mammalian trait which we h. sapiens probably share to some degree. I suspect the last dozen or so millennia do not comprise 'the representative era' of our species compared with the two hundred or so millennia of modern humans which had come before; at any rate, we have evident capacities for socially cultivating habits and practices which mitigate our more atavistic and aggressive instincts, so we're not reduced to, or pre-determined by, our "nature". Anatomy, someone has said, is opportunity rather than "destiny".
dimosthenis9September 03, 2021 at 18:03#5888470 likes
The problem is the -archy part of both.
— StreetlightX
I would consider the thread closed after this response.
Only, "-archy" only exists within the world because it is inherent within us, proceeding from the aforesaid "libido dominari". We cannot escape it or write off it's power and attraction for us so easily.
dimosthenis9September 03, 2021 at 18:09#5888500 likes
You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke:
180 ProofSeptember 03, 2021 at 18:18#5888550 likes
Reply to TheMadFool Yeah, but there's a world of difference between 24/7 solitary confinement and working on the prison farm (or so I've been told).
TheMadFoolSeptember 03, 2021 at 18:21#5888570 likes
What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
I'll just speak about patriarchy. It's a word that has a particular political meaning in our society. From the web:
Patriarchy - A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
This is a quote from a paper I found on the web:
Patriarchy is the prime obstacle to women’s advancement and development. Despite differences in levels of domination the broad principles remain the same, i.e. men are in control.
This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with.
ApollodorusSeptember 03, 2021 at 19:04#5888740 likes
Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators,
Not only that, but in a dictatorship power would be held by one dictator, so I don't think it would make much difference. Would a female Hitler or Stalin be better than a male one?
But I agree that patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women. Of course women can be soldiers, etc. But the question is whether they can be soldiers and raise children at the same time.
Taking the dictionary definition of “patriarchy” as “male-dominated social system, with descent through the male line” and “matriarchy” as “female-dominated social system, with descent through the female line”, it looks like all successful societies have been male-dominated or "patriarchal".
It seems to be the case that societies that are competitive, assertive, and aggressive, tend to be more successful than others. Currently, those where women play a greater role in making policy, as in Western countries, seem to be on the retreat, and those where men are in control, as in China and Islamic states, are on the rise.
In any case, as we have no examples of successful societies run on the matriarchal model, the benefits or otherwise of a matriarchal system can only be hypothetical.
Most children throughout history have spent their formative years under the tutelage of their mothers. The rapid cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development of children occurs in their cauldron. All systems are, in this sense, matriarchal.
I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.
Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have.
ApollodorusSeptember 03, 2021 at 19:47#5889000 likes
This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with.
The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.
I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.
In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.
And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.
This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with.
Hum another very interesting reply and also far from what I expected. You might notice how much the function of government has changed since women have filled the seats of government. I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care. I never thought, in the US, we would say the government needs to assume that much responsibility for our children. For sure it is a change in what we think the government should do for us and it follows "liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women. I have a 1940 Oregon Family Law book and it says only when a woman has fulfilled her family responsibilities can she work outside of the home.
women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.
I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men.
In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.
Most discrimination against women is not men "going out of their way." The problem is that the institutions are set up to do it as a standard way of doing business.
The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.
I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.
In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.
And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.
We used to educate for independent thinking and for civic and industrial leadership. I have this crazy notion that democracy in American meant not relying on the government, you know as Tocqueville said in 1830 when wrote the book "Democracy in America". I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.
I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care.
I'm sixty-nine years old. When I was a kid, my mother stayed home and my father worked as an engineer. My wife was a nurse and I was an engineer. With me working full time and her working half-time, we had just about the same way of life as my mother and father did. I'm not complaining, I feel very fortunate, but today, you need two people working just to maintain the standard of living that our parents had.
"liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women.
I've worked with and for a lot of women in my engineering career. It is such a drag to just work with men. That's not an insult to them. A mixed work place is so much more human. The women I worked with were mostly professionals - engineers and scientists. Very few of them would have liked to be full-time homemakers. At the same time, most of them, and many of the men, would have liked more flexibility to fit their work in with their home life. That's true, even though I worked for companies that were supportive and flexible with their workers.
James RileySeptember 03, 2021 at 20:12#5889110 likes
What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
I don't know, but as for me, it's time to turn over the reigns. There are some fucked up women (Palin, Taylor-Green, Boebert, et al) but they are outnumbered and don't have what it takes to deal with smart and wise women.
I feel the same way about the younger generation. And minorities. Woman, the 20-30-40 somethings, and the black and brown crowd can't possibly be any worse than the suit and tie crowd.
Fork that bronc and ride, ladies, kids, the oppressed.
Please rise above vindictive vengeance, though. Not all of us were out to fuck you.
I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.
As I said in my previous post, I can only go based on the attitudes of the women I worked with and my female wife, neighbors, and friends.
Jack CumminsSeptember 03, 2021 at 20:16#5889140 likes
Reply to Athena
One thing which I wonder about in relation to your question is how it connects with issues surrounding the development and history of religion. Certainly, within Christianity there was the suppression of women within the Church and the role of a priesthood of men, even though that has begun to change. I believe that in many religions male supremacy has been linked to beliefs in a divine order. However, there is some archaeological and anthropological findings about gods, so one question may be about whether there was at any point a belief in goddesses, possibly prior to gods. This may be suppressed, alongside paganism, which emphasises the idea of sacred 'feminine' power and fertility rites.
The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.
I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men.
The feminist may well say that. However, depending on the area or Western country you live in, institutions are not always controlled by men. There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians (including presidents or vice-presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors).
And the point is that in any system only the very top of the hierarchy are not subordinate to anyone. Children are subordinate to parents, pupils to teachers, employees to bosses ....
ApollodorusSeptember 03, 2021 at 21:37#5889390 likes
I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.
Good point. I think there isn't much point having family values if no one wants to raise a family.
Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what?
Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what?
That's a pretty slick, sick comment.
ApollodorusSeptember 03, 2021 at 22:04#5889520 likes
So, you think the state shouldn't make itself useful and do something for the people? Some people have abortions because they feel they have no choice. Why shouldn't the state help out? Western governments have trillions of $$$ for Afghanistan and other places but nothing for their own people. How is that right?
No one was talking about Texas. I was talking about the whole western world and about women who might make different choices if useless governments helped them instead of pumping trillions into Afghanistan and arming the Taliban to suppress women. I think that is crazy and sick. But each with their own opinion.
I raised the topic because @Athena mentioned women having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family, which obviously does not liberate women.
The only alternative to that is to have no children, including involuntary abortions.
On the other hand, if useless and fraudulent governments helped women instead of pouring trillions into Afghanistan and arming Taliban criminals to suppress women, then things might be a bit better for everyone ....
Highlights
•We found no evidence of emerging negative emotions over 5 years post-abortion.
•High proportions of women felt abortion was the right decision across all 5 years.
•Relief was the most commonly felt emotion at all times over 5 years post-abortion.
•Initial differences in emotions by abortion decision difficulty converged over time.
•Decision difficulty and perceived stigma predicted decision rightness at 3–5 years.
This was the comment that started this pointless discussion: Quoting Apollodorus
Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what?
You suggested money used for abortions be used for adoptions or raising kids by the state; not to support mothers.
As I said, a glib comment.
ApollodorusSeptember 04, 2021 at 01:06#5890200 likes
You suggested money used for abortions be used for adoptions or raising kids by the state; not to support mothers.
I don't think so. By "raised by the state" I meant raised at the state's expense, i.e. either by paying the mother or paying carers.
Money paid for abortions would not be sufficient to pay for the children to be raised. This is precisely why I am saying that the state should make itself useful and help its own citizens when in need instead of squandering trillions on other projects.
.and the part played by the Taliban remains unexplained.
Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need.
What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2021 at 03:36#5890540 likes
Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have.
I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.
180 ProofSeptember 04, 2021 at 04:21#5890610 likes
I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.
And economic dependency on a husband as the sole bread-winner in a household (in the current neoliberal, anti-wage earner / pro-investor economy no less) has been "liberating" for the vast majority of women? "Traditional family values", as far as I can recall from e.g. social histories, hadn't liberated most women in industrial societies in the last couple of centuries, or abolished slavery, or struggled to overturn legal segregation, or attain universal sufferage & access to safe family planning (adequate healthcare that lowers both the infant & maternal mortality rates). Maybe I missing something, Athena. Which "tradition" are you referring to when you say "traditional family values"?
You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke:
That question is not relevant to the importance of the homemaker.
I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.
How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
ApollodorusSeptember 04, 2021 at 11:51#5891450 likes
I think the main problem is that we have no example of matriarchal society to make an informed judgement with regard to possible benefits of matriarchy.
Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive?
Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need.
That is a different subject but it is related to this one. Perhaps we can move closer to the subject by asking how do men organize and how do women organize? I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different. The link will partially answer the question about the difference between male and female organizations.
We might what to consider, in these different societies is a noticeable difference in ideas about the creator/god? Can we be clear that Judaism, Christianity, Islam are basically the same father in heaven worshiping religion. The big difference between patriarchy and matriarchy is the decent of property and ownership is related to power, right?
American Indian Women - Teachinghistory.orghttps://teachinghistory.org › ask-a-historian
In many North American societies, clan membership and material goods descended through women. For example, the Five (later Six) Nations of the Iroquois ...
Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive?
Oh my goodness, you asked a very, very important question!
There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting!
In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling.
Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?
Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.
Again, your comments are frenetic.
Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. Admittedly there may be some problems with that, but it does not become the government's problem. Finally, a discussion worth having, huh? It might suck to be a homemaker but that does not have to be so and when the kids are in school the homemaker can work outside of the home. The homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children. A homemaker has perhaps the most important job because the health of the whole community really depends on her.
If the mother is paid by the state to stay home and raise children, then why would the state need to pay a basic income to carers?
Either way, the state pays for the child being raised. Which sounds better than paying and arming the Taliban.
Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 13:06#5891640 likes
I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different.
But if you use the Taliban as being representative of male organizational stategy, are you not skewing the comparison? After all, the fact of patriarchy is only one of the two major influences on that group, the other, of course, being (I would argue extreme) theocratic zealotry.
How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
1h
I think the answer to that, is that we as a species have displayed the ability to move beyond the natural and into the ideal in a quest for justice and equity. Since we have demonstrated being able to concieve of such (admittedly abstract) things as equity, justice, and morality, as well as being capable of structuring society in pursuit of those ends, have we not assumed an ethical responsibility to renounce such preconcieved notions of "authority" and "rule" as are presented by both patriarchy and matriarchy? Is there not an "onus" upon us?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 13:37#5891700 likes
Once upon a time societies were organized by family order.
— Athena
Yes, that is the nature of an hereditarily aristocratic society.
I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different.
— Athena
But if you use the Taliban as being representative of male organizational stategy, are you not skewing the comparison? After all, the fact of patriarchy is only one of the two major influences on that group, the other, of course, being (I would argue extreme) theocratic zealotry.
How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
1h
— Athena
I think the answer to that, is that we as a species have displayed the ability to move beyond the natural and into the ideal in a quest for justice and equity. Since we have demonstrated being able to concieve of such (admittedly abstract) things as equity, justice, and morality, as well as being capable of structuring society in pursuit of those ends, have we not assumed an ethical responsibility to renounce such preconcieved notions of "authority" and "rule" as are presented by both patriarchy and matriarchy? Is there not an "onus" upon us?
You make my heart sing. :love: People in US political forums just do not understand what the discussion is about and I was so frustrated with them, I was ready to go blow my brains out. People in this forum are actually saying intelligent things and are moving the conversation forward.
Matriarchies are not the hierarchy of authority above the people that patriarchies are, and property descends through females, not males, giving them the power ownership. The focus of matriarchy is culture, not the western notion of god-given authority over others.
It is not my intention to say matriarchies are superior to patriarchies because I do not think matriarchies would have advanced technology. :flower: In a culturally-based society people will discover ways to survive and things like clay pots that carry water and they decorate them beautifully. That creativity is not exactly technology. Technology identifies why some dirt makes good pots and other dirt absolutely will not make a good pot. Technology answers the question "why". Mom may show you how to bake bread, but Dad is more likely to know why the bread rises or does not rise. That may not be the best example but there is an important difference between "how" and "why" and I think men are more apt to ponder "why" things are as they are. Of course, women can do that as well men can, but first, they need to be removed from their family responsibilities. Their domestic brain that operates on hormones, needs to be trained to think technologically.
This is not just a matter of how the brain is prepared, but it is also very visceral. I have never heard a man talk about how hard it is to go back to work when a child is born and of feeling pulled between the child and the job, and dealing with feelings of guilt. I think denying the hormonal difference between men and women is a mistake. Just as I think denying the hormonal difference of some gay people is a mistake and for darn sure, we know transgender people do hormonal therapy. When a man watches football his testosterone level increases but that does not happen when a baby cries. Women have a hormonal response to a baby crying that men do not have. I know, burn me at the cross because I am saying males and females are different and that difference includes how they organize as families or opposing football teams. However, I am not saying one is better than the other. It seems quite obvious to me, nature planned on us being different and working together.
Why are you saying the ideal means denying women the ability to stay home and care for the family?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 15:32#5891980 likes
Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.
Again, your comments are frenetic.
You're just being you usual gadfly self, nipping and biting without adding much. Whether or not I agree with him, what @Apollodorus is saying is pretty clear.
he homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children.
My son's life and career were disrupted by the pandemic, so he is going back to school to study for a new career. His girlfriend, on the other hand, is a very high-paid professional who works 70 hours a week. Since my son's schedule is much more flexible and open, he has taken over the "homemaker" job - cooking, cleaning, shopping, getting cars worked on and refrigerators repaired... She is so happy to have him in her life. He's made her life easier and better by making a home for her, for them. And that's without children. It doesn't hurt that he's a great cook.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2021 at 16:15#5892190 likes
How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 16:19#5892200 likes
Reply to T Clark Absolutely! thank you so much for that post. That is not the full extent of what a homemaker does because there are all the relationships to think about and one's position in the community, and what can be more important than raising the children well when there are children.
How much I wish I had someone to take care of everything when I thought it was my time to work outside of the home. I am quite sure my mother would have gotten into the movies as this was her goal when she moved me and my sister to Hollywood, California but child care plus having to support the family robbed her of that opportunity. A woman with children is not a liberated woman unless someone is will take on the family responsibilities.
I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?
Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons.
Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same?
When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role?
When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World?
Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?
Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below. Quoting Athena
What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?
Let me see if I can follow the logic train to emotionally loaded question town.
If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condeming a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.
The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.
Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents.
unenlightenedSeptember 04, 2021 at 19:04#5892770 likes
If you consult The Golden Bough, or better yet, The White Goddess, you will hear of an ancient normality of matrilineal descent - there is no question of who the mother is, when the question of who the father is is not even considered. In such matrilineal societies, there would typically be a King, who would reign for a year and then be sacrificed. An excellent system that should be brought back asap for all politicians.
At some point the king managed to survive and eventually managed transform the system to a patrilineal one. This involved of necessity, strict control of the female sexuality in order to ensure the patrilineal purity of the offspring.
And that is the essence of patriarchy - the control of female sexuality. I have to say that this is not even controversial in anthropology, and it is rather sad that by page 4 it has not even been mentioned.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2021 at 19:42#5892810 likes
Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons.
Im not sure your point here. It doesn't seem like any of that is controversial but neither does it seem relevant….I thought you were asking a question regarding which is better not for a history of either.
Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same?
No of course not, but male/female gender roles are not the same as leadership roles.
It seems like we have different ideas of what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. I take it to mean something like “when society is ruled or governed based on one gender”. I would call gender roles a sub category of society. If the society is modelled after one gender role or another then my criticism would be the same. Gender roles are not good metrics by which to build a society, rather they are components within a society.
When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role?
Im not sure who you imagine would disagree with this. Not me.
Im saying it is foolish to insist a society “act like men”, where we disagree perhaps is that I also think it is foolish to insist society act like the homemaker as well. As others have mentioned, it is the “insisting” part that is problematic in the two “archy”’s.
If your going to insist, insist on people being responsible, productive members of society which isnt the purview of gender but rather the individuals within the society.
When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World?
Again the relevance is lost on me. You’ll have to provide a better trail of logic for me to follow cuz Im not seeing the connecting tissue.
Like, is your main point “patriarchy bad”? Cuz yes, it is. So is a matriarchy. Men and women bring different tools, we should use all the tools at our disposal not one set or the other. Right?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 20:31#5892880 likes
I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
This is very true in the modern world, but in my opinion was less true in the distant past. If you lived in late fifth century BCE Athens, a polis which was under constant threat of being besiegad by a Spartan or Persian army, then one might prefer to have men in control (of course, when Cornelius Sulla marched his army on Athens during the Mithridatic War, it didn't matter who was in control there...the Greeks had never seen anything quite so brutal as a Roman legion, and at that time, Athens was going to bleed profusely regardless of who was in command of the city). In a world of brutality and unchecked agression, I might be inclined to argue that the naturally greater (testosterone induced) agression of men as compared with that of women, renders male leadership preferable, for the sake of survival and independence, if nothing else. There were exceptions to this. The Kartvelian Queen Tamar seems to have been quite an effective leader in the distant past (though a much more recent, and assumedly less brutal, past than the Archaic or Classical periods). Even so, that is an exception, and not the rule. The world is a much different place today than it once was; I might even say that the mass consciousness has been much improved. In the milder, more thoughtful, more technologically advanced climate of the present, women can lead a society just as effectively as men.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2021 at 20:44#5892890 likes
One could argue that the brutality of the time was the symptom of patriarchy just as easily. We wouldn't need to have the warriors in charge if the other tribes had less warriors to. To the less enlightened of the before times might made right. We’ve grown up. Sorta.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 04, 2021 at 20:53#5892900 likes
Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive.
ApollodorusSeptember 04, 2021 at 20:54#5892910 likes
Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting!
That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?
I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.
What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.
Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.
I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:
But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.
And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.
But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.
Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?
ValentinusSeptember 04, 2021 at 21:00#5892920 likes
Maybe I missing something, Athena. Which "tradition" are you referring to when you say "traditional family values"?
When I read those words, the first thing that came to my mind was Ralph Ellison wondering at how strange the life of a white supremacist must be after being raised by Black nannies.
The practice of alternate motherhood is bound up with visions of class and privilege.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2021 at 21:37#5892980 likes
Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive.
You're just being you usual gadfly self, nipping and biting without adding much. Whether or not I agree with him, what Apollodorus is saying is pretty clear.
Then, since you bothered to interject, you might bother to set out clearly @Apollodorus's argument.
why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days?
— @Noble Dust
The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.
— @darthbarracuda
...patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women.
— @Apollodorus
We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.
Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?
Otherwise it's just a free-for-all and we won't get very far IMO.
Also, I don't know how many participants here are female, but I think it may be useful to have a balanced representation from both sides.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 05, 2021 at 01:23#5893900 likes
We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.
— Michael Zwingli
What tools are you talking about here?
I refer to the various abstracted ideals: ethicality/morality, individual liberty, equity, justice, and the like, which provide us with a framework for the conception and achievement of an egalitarian society. However, the state of technology, the necessity of the nation state to foster and employ that technology in various ways (civil, medical, military, etc) means that we by needs have too complex societies for the fostering of the egalitarianism which demands full and equal participation in non-heirarchical social structures. This means that like it or not, heirarchy is going to be with us for the long run, forced on us all by pressures both external and internal.
Reply to Michael Zwingli Oh yeah definitely I agree, especially wrt the technological factor. Technology is no longer a tool, but an environment with an imperative of its own, requiring large bureaucratic organizations and programmed human behavior. Libertarian and egalitarian ideas are not dependent on technology to exist and are actually stifled by it.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 05, 2021 at 01:36#5893940 likes
. Technology is no longer a tool, but an environment with an imperative of its own, requiring large bureaucratic organizations and programmed human behavior.
Reply to Banno It is not exactly gender that should determine our roles, but the needs of the family and the community and things like democracy and liberty. Thank you so much for asking!
Michael ZwingliSeptember 05, 2021 at 14:23#5895200 likes
It is not exactly gender that should determine our roles, but the needs of the family and the community and things like democracy and liberty.
And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role.
James RileySeptember 05, 2021 at 14:53#5895310 likes
I've speculated that the wide-spread, highly accurate and realistic VR combined with sex dolls/robots (ala West World) would be a net positive to humanity and the Earth. For those who think it would result in a lack of social intercourse, civics, empathy and the rise of a dystopia, you might have a point. Those are minor bugs to be worked out.
Once sex is taken off the table, though, (i.e. men and women are "spent") I think they are more rational, empathetic, civic minded, kind and caring. Further, I don't think it would adversely impact the good things that could be the result of aggression. Other, lesser drives would still exist and aggression would still exist, but it would be tempered somewhat. I think men would start to view women more as fellow travelers in life, humans, animals, worthy of dignity and respect, as opposed to some*thing* to be had. Women, likewise, might better access some of their non-maternal energies. Playing fields would be leveled.
Hell, there might actually be a greater inclination toward real interhuman intimacy and loving sex.
I find the idea of the "comfort girls" for Japanese troops to be abhorrent. But I understand the thinking of the Generals and leaders. On the one hand, you want to maintain aggression in your fighters, but you also want to keep them happy during down time, with something to look forward to. But all the "red in tooth and claw" boardroom bullshit just creates a culture of greed, gain, screwing people over to create the best plumage to intimidate other males and get the girl. It's a contributor to our intra-specific political and other division, and the rape of the Earth.
I think many women just want to feel safe. They might feel like prey in a world of predators. Men likewise don't want to worry about submission to Beta status, or bound to maintaining Alfa status. They predator/prey relation is there, too.
If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business of progress.
I know some religious folks would zealously object. But they can be marginalized. After all, we all know they would be jumping in, feet first, if only behind closed doors. You be able to spot them, with that afterglow on their faces as they futilely tried to work up a rage. At least they wouldn't be molesting children and whatnot. Yet another benefit, I'd say. Rape would drop too, I'd imagine.
I don't necessarily believe anything I just said. I'm just throwing it out there in the spirit of the forum.
Reply to DingoJones Matriarchy and patriarchy are social orders that meet different needs under different circumstances and they go with notions of the creator. Is the creator or patron deity a male or female? Is there peace or is life threatened by invaders and a scarcity of food? We might note the US became a military-industrial complex before women were liberated. That is a change in the social order, with social, economic, and political ramifications.
I do not have the feeling that the patriarchy of Christian nations was a good thing, nor do I think it has changed in a good way, now that females are to be as males. That is why I opened the discussion.
That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?
I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.
What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.
Athena:Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.
I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:
But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.
And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.
But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.
Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?
No, all native Americans did not have the same social organization, and especially important, they did not rear their children the same.
The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. They had a beneficial effect on the development of democracy in American. Our literate forefathers had classical/liberal education based on Greek and Roman, but they had no experience with democracy so their understanding of it was incomplete. The Greeks are a better example than the Romans because the Greeks had different city-states but when we read of Rome it appears to be a huge civilization under one power. In the new land were people who were living the separate city/state reality and came to forming a federation and a notion of reasoning ruling just as the Greeks did.
Man, I am out of time- I will have to get back to you. It would be great to have two or me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 05, 2021 at 15:23#5895400 likes
If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business or progress.
Haha, yes, our naturally-selected characteristics do stand in the way of "progress", don't they? An additional benefit of your suggestion would be that our species might stop overpopulating. The polar bears would surely applaud...
Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive.
James RileySeptember 05, 2021 at 15:28#5895430 likes
Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive.
Yeah, you are probably right. On the other hand, I bet it would remove several contenders from the mix. :grin:
And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child-rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role.
I agree and disagree. It depends on the age of the child. Here is where we have made a huge mistake! The industrial revolution took men and women out of their homes, separating them from the children left at home.
The greatest success of our civilization was freeing the mothers to stay at home and be homemakers. That advanced our civilization. But the downside has been cutting men out of the children's lives. Men are as important to the development of children as mothers are. Until about age 3 the mother is the best person to care for a child, and then it is very important the father take an increasing role in preparing the child for life. Each parent has a different effect on the development of the individual personality and it is best for children if they have both parents working together to raise a child. Then grandparents play an important role and children who have grandparents in their lives are advantaged and statistically do better. By the way, next Sunday is Grandparents' Day.
And as for men feeling uncomfortable with a child, mothers do too, until they grow into the role. Female hormones help us a lot, especially if we breastfed the baby. And for hormonal reasons, we respond differently when a baby cries. But when the first baby is put in our arms and we are expected to do everything a mother does, a woman may wonder when the mother instinct is going to kick in and suddenly she knows how to be a mother. It does not work that way. Books and classes and calling another woman, are all part of becoming a mother. Here is where the socialization aspect comes in. As men and women, we try harder to do what we think society, or our peers, expects of us. But it is not all about socialization. Hormones play a very important part in how we react to children.
Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive.
I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic. If our size and a deep voice does not help us get our way, we need to figure out another way to get what we want. On the other hand, if everyone submits to us because of our size and a deep voice, we might gain the confidence to rule we might take charge because that seems to be what is expected of us. If a man cries, the response to him may be different than if a woman cries. But bottom line- if a male is ranging with testosterone, something is going to happen because he isn't going to be passive.
It would be great to have two of me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences.
Dinner is definitely the key word. You wouldn't need to be careful what you say. And, as Virginia Woolf said:
One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.
The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning.
I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated ....
I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated ....
Some tribes were/are matriarchies because we can be sure who the mother is, and the earth is our mother so it makes sense the women inherit the land and the man's role is to defend her.
Cherokee proverb:A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with source. A man's highest calling is to protect woman so she can walk the earth unharmed.
What do you think Afro-American culture is? I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. It will enable them to have their traditional life purpose and we all can benefit from their care of the land.
I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:
But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.
And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.
But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.
Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?
:lol: :rofl: :love: :lol: I need to catch my breath. I have not laughed this hard for a while. Your first line is hilarious!
What you said about our democracy is sobbering. It is not funny at all. I will not believe the US is sincere about democracy until it replaces autocratic industry with the democratic model and I think doing this is as urgent as counteracting the manmade part of global warming. I am struggling with the effort to be philosophical instead of political. Do you realize the timeline of the US is almost identical to the timeline of Athens? Thanks to the spread of Hellenism and it being picked up by Christians and others interested in government and philosophy, Athens lives on, but the city/state did not. The US used the Athenian model for education until 1958 when that was replaced by education for technology but get this, Athens also replaced its education with education for technological. Not technology as we think of it today, but more along the line of doing things by the rules versus being educated to figure out what the rules should are and should be. That is a change in authority and the citizens' relationship to authority.
Oh my god! you just caused my heart to stop! "What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. " An institution can not do for a child what a family can. I am talking about the complexity of our feelings, behaviors, and relationships. Owning our children as we own pets that wait for our return home, may come with a danger. Making the family meaningless may resolve some social problems, and create others. Please, avoid speaking the truth when it regards children because my heart can not take the stress. I am afraid we take our human goodness for granted. Which one of the paid caregivers will be with the child they raise for life, always ready to support that individual as they manage the trials of life? How much can they really care about the child and his/her future? Do we want teachers to believe they are the most fit to raise our children? If we institutional our children, what will happen to our liberty?
About patriarchy or matriarchy, both have good and bad points. Democracy is not either one. All the gods and goddesses play an important role in a democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods and I think this opens our human potential. I think family and property ownership are very important to democracy and our liberty. But we have to raise our awareness before we have enough knowledge to democracy. Right now our knowledge is so lacking we can not defend democracy anywhere, not even at home.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 06, 2021 at 17:22#5899350 likes
I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic.
All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter.
Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.
What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?
If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condemning a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.
The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.
Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents.
I am strongly in favor of your first sentence and it is concern about the negative effect that working outside of the home, can have on parenting and society at large, that motivates me to write. Further what you said about the demands of the competitive force on children is why I am opposed to leaving children in daycare centers for too long.
It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. I am not saying matriarchy is better, but that a patriarchy that is not balanced by the female force is a threat to the world and is not the democracy we defended. What we have become is an enemy to humanity. So much so, people argue we would be better off if computers were in control. That is very anti-human.
I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.
It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger.
I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below. Quoting Athena
I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.
I'm pleased to agree. We have professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.
Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant.
I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.
I'm pleased to agree. We have a professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.
Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant.
:grin: I was swept up in women's lib just like everyone else and had it not been for a recession ravaging my life and plans, I may still be cheering for women's liberation. But thanks to the recession lasting a very long time where I live, I got to experience jobs and employers from hell. With some satisfaction, I can say the really bad employers are no longer in town. The practice of exploiting cheap labor and going through employees very fast is self-destructive, especially when you need your employees as customers but you have pissed off so many of them you no longer have customers. Bad management of employees leads to them thinking of ways to sabotage the company. This can mean breaking things, stealing things, working very slow, telling everyone how awful the company is, and of course walking off the job.
Then you have the Deming model which is democratic industry. Everyone learns all the jobs and is prepared to advance. Everyone has a say in how things are done. Supervisors are trained to take responsibility and if someone goofs, the supervisor checks to be sure the employee understood the directions and then acts as a coach, supporting the employee in doing better. I would bet if we experienced the democratic model, many more families would be doing very well! I do not blame male hormones for bad male behavior, but the Autocratic Industry that has been terrible to all employees. Some ass hole demanding what he wants and thinking bullying and punishing people is the best way to get it and completely undermining families by not allowing family concerns to interfere with the job.
In the past, not enough dared raise their voice because when you live paycheck to paycheck you don't dare displease the employer. But as we gain security we might gain some power and demand industry use the democratic model and families get the consideration humanity requires. Then our democracy might have some meaning. While we are seeing changes, this follows women sitting in the seats of power because those in the seats of power before were not thinking about the women and children. Abigail Adams told her husband to think of the women when he worked on the constitution, but unfortunately, men were not ready to do that nor to be firm about ending slavery.
180 ProofSeptember 06, 2021 at 20:07#5899810 likes
Reply to James Riley :cool: :up: Might not work but I'm all for running that sexperiment.
I think men would start to view women more as fellow travelers in life, humans, animals, worthy of dignity and respect, as opposed to some*thing* to be had.
Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).
I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally.
OutlanderSeptember 06, 2021 at 21:11#5899940 likes
false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.
All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter.
Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?
Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).
I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally.
This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. We know in times of war women are stolen, raped, abused. And the behavior of Americans in the prison camp holding Muslim war prisoners was absolutely shocking and certainly should be considered a war crime. I also received a letter from a Black convict that was sexual and seething with hatred directed at White women. I don't think a date rape is equal to a rape motivated by intense anger and the intention to abuse and victimized someone. One of my women lib. alarms went off when the word "mother", flipped from meaning a wonderful, loving person to quite an offensive meaning. Do you all want to go down this path or should we move away from it? I think this path is risky but also has merit.
I am willing to go down this path because another thread I started is a question of if the Taliban can succeed in making Afghanistan a civilization that can be admired. It also has merit because the US mobilized for WWII with pin-up girls and personally I think the metal and leather uniforms of Romans are very sexy. It is well-known women find men in uniform attractive and war escalates our mating instinct. Hum, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I am by what seems a pretty strong connection between sex and war. And this subject is directly and strongly related to patriarchy taking over matriarchal societies.
false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.
To tie your post into the subject of this thread, what should the ruler achieve?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 07, 2021 at 20:06#5903160 likes
Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?
Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing.
ChristofferSeptember 07, 2021 at 20:11#5903190 likes
What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.
Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.
Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.
Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.
I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.
Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing.
I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.
Aristotle :“ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.” So wrote Aristotle, more than 2000 years ago, in his classic work The Art of Rhetoric.Feb 6, 2013
Do get mad: The upside of anger | New Scientist
I am working on trying to figure out when to be angry and how to express that in a way that gets the result I want. When raising my children, I realized I can be a real tyrant and that does not mean being a bad person, but a lack of a good balance of power. It is not easy being human and our best hope is working together.
Nietzsche had some strong thoughts opposing Christianity and slave mentality. I like pagan values and Greek arete. I am out of time, but perhaps you can say something about what reason has to do with being civilized? At some point in time, when city living meant living among strangers, we became self-reflective and experienced ourselves as separate from nature and everyone else. We filled our newly discovered loneliness with a God and imagined a different reality.
TheMadFoolSeptember 08, 2021 at 15:40#5907180 likes
[quote=From the above article]New research has found that of the more than 5,000 known species of mammals, just a handful are led by females.[/quote]
Some of the "...handful..." are hyenas, elephants, and bonobos.
Anyway, mother nature is the wisest of us all; 3 billion years of perfecting every single organism, solitary and social, must mean something, right? She, sorry girls, prefers patriarchy and we all know better than to mess with mother nature.
ApollodorusSeptember 08, 2021 at 16:59#5907390 likes
I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea.
Sounds good to me. However, I think another interesting question is why there has never been a Native American president? What is the cultural, social and political mechanism that prevents this?
Michael ZwingliSeptember 08, 2021 at 17:38#5907530 likes
I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.
Oh, absolutely. Anybody who considers questions of human sociology without including the facts of biology by giving primacy to the sociobiological aspect, is quite remiss, in my view. This is particular true because we humans are animals who have largely ceased to behave like other animals, a fact which tends to obscure the importance of the portion of our human mind which we share in common with other animals: the primal mind, the "Id". Even so, that primal aspect lies at the core of our mental complex, and recognition of it's power over us is necessary to understand how men can sometimes be so brutal, so savage. Truly, we have evolved, but we have by no means left "the beast within" by the side of the evolutionary way. Rather, said beast continues being tenuously repressed by the Super-ego, the higher man, and remains thinly covered with a veneer of civility.
ChristofferSeptember 08, 2021 at 18:49#5907650 likes
I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.
What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.
Michael ZwingliSeptember 08, 2021 at 20:40#5908300 likes
I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.
Well, you are not wrong about that, and it is a valid and important point that you make. It is true that these two are, indeed, concepts...particularly political and sociological concepts; in that way, they differ little from such as "democracy", "monarchy", "socialism", and "Bolshevism". None of these words describe natural phenomena. This recognition serves to demonstrate that such socio-political concepts as the forementioned, though they are not natural phenomena, yet have the power to exert a profound influence within human societies.
Save in the human realm, neither "patriarchy" nor "matriarchy" exist in nature per se, since the concepts of government and the body politic do not exist among the animals apart from ourselves. What does exist in nature almost universally among mammaliam species, is the phenomenon of male dominance, based upon physical power and the hormonal differences between male and female mammals. While patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, this phenomenon of male dominance among mammals is a biological fact.
Attendant to these considerations, it should be recognized that patriarchy in human societies naturally evolved and grew directly out of the male dominance experienced by our non-sapiens hominid ancestors. This is why virtually all human cultures throughout history have been patriarchal, and why that status mundi has been so seldom questioned until the modern era. Moreover, the argument in favor of patriarchy, among those who would so argue, is based largely in natural male dominance. I feel that in expressing our own opinions regarding these socio-political concepts, we should take into consideration that, because male dominance is natural, it is (both naturally and understandably) found difficult by some men to be subordinate to a woman, whether in the business or political environment; it engenders a vague resentment within them. Should we just tell these chaps to ignore millions of years of their own evolution, and to "get over themselves"? I would argue that such advice could only be given with blinders firmly in place...not to say that I have an answer for them, either. The difficult fact is, that our human cultural evolution has been so acceleratorily rapid that our physical evolution has been "left in the dust" by it. So, all that babble is by way of noting that, while it is true that both patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, it is equally true that the concept of patriarchy seems to have a basis in the natural world not shared by the other, and that such conceptualizations do have an effect upon real human societies.
What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.
What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.
The first data would be the hormonal difference between males and females. Next is zoology a study of animal behaviors and physical reasons for them. Then anthropology and cross-cultural studies. Also, archeology and geology can give us important information. Where the climate is mild and it is easy to grow food, commonly there are signs of matriarchy and then a switch to patriarchy. Where life is hard and the main source of food comes from hunting, and where raiding and wars became common, there is patriarchy. I have read nothing of a patriarchy becoming matriarchal however, this might be happening today. Why? Because as in the valleys where the climate was mild and food was abundant, we once again are experiencing the good life of physical and food security.
How many women went with the men to burn the Blacks out of town, or were in the cloaked mob to linch a Black person? Women supported this behavior and at times instigated it, but I think the behavior is lead by men and those who engaged in that behavior were men. But if they were Bonobo instead of humans or chimps, it would be the females maintaining social control.
Agent SmithDecember 15, 2021 at 12:27#6316380 likes
Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops.
Comments (145)
Good question. But I think it might help to have some definitions of what constitutes "patriarchy" and "matriarchy". And, if possible, some examples.
I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.
I agree with @Apollodorus, it is difficult to have a fruitful discussion if you don't give us definitions to work with. "Patriarchy" and "matriarchy" mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
Not to usurp the OP, but I think the useful definitions would be "authority/leadership/rule by men" (an expansion of the more etymological "fatherly authority/leadership/rule") for patriarchy, and so "authority/leadership/rule by women" for matriarchy. Athena will have to confirm this, but the juxtaposition of these two terms naturally leads one to that conclusion.
I have actually thought some about this in the past. I will hold off commenting on advantages and disadvantages for the moment, since it grows late and my pillow seems to beckon, but I have a couple of thoughts about the origin of, and reasons for the ubiquity of patriarchy in the human experience. My general belief is that patriarchy is a type of evolutionary artefact held over from our pre-human mammalian ancestors. If one adopts the sociobiological perspective on this, he will note that every species of social mammal, from wolves, to lions, to our closer simian cousins, displays the trait of male dominance. This is, perhaps, natural in a world, the world of the animal, wherein such social establishments as the rule of law cannot be concieved, and so "might makes right", as brute force trumps all other virtues. It is unfortunate, though I think telling of the nature and composition of the human mind, that the differing aspects of the human psyche seem not to have developed apace. The Superego, which has concieved of the need for law at the service of justice in general and social justice in particular, has outpaced the Id, which remains rooted in the more primal motives of the pre-sapiens hominid. Thusly, the patriarchal urge has remained with us despite the social edifice we have created.
Okay...good night, all.
Ruthless competitions like war and capitalism are sometimes seen to have their origins in patriarchy, with the implication being that a non-patriarchal (though not necessarily matriarchal) society would not have these things. This looks to be an empirical question though, and given the paucity of actual matriarchal societies that have existed, there doesn't seem to be a solid reason to believe that matriarchal societies would be free of these things. Women can be just as capable and willing to crush and kill each other as men are, though men have had a better opportunity of doing so, given their physical biology.
Can society exist without hierarchy?
What's that about, then?
Indeed; why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days?
Perhaps the converse is true. It is just as concievable that patriarchy has it's origin in the particularly pretechnological competitive milieu of prehistory as the other way around. For primitive sapiens and his hominid forerunners, physical/bodily strength was generally the primary determinant for survival. In such an environment, patriarchy seems nearly inevitable.
Quoting Noble Dust
The salient question. I would speculate that it can on a small scale, but maybe not on the "macro" scale. It is in our human nature, as a result of the history of natural selection upon the evolutionary development of the human brain, for we humans to be wilful creatures. Like it or not, what Augustine termed the "libido dominandi" (but I myself term the "libido dominari" for purely semantic reasons), the desire/lust to dominate, is as natural to us as any other basic human instinct. As an aside, I note my opinion that this thing, this innate human trait, is what Nietzsche called the "will to power", but that man's conception thereof was skewed by the thinking difficulties latent within his mind. I much prefer Augustine's terminology for this, in any case.
This instinctual drive is now, as a result of innumerable millennia of natural selection and in common with all other social mammals, an inexorable component of the common human psyche. It can be mastered, but only under favorable conditions, and even then the basic instinct to dominate and impose our will upon others of our kind and upon nature in general will constantly seek to re-assert itself. Human beings tend naturally to recoil from, and to oppose any exertion of the will by any other person, which fact seems to be rooted in the instant aspects of human nature. Such exertions tend to be opposed in like manner, by means of an exertion of the will, an expression of the libido dominari. It must be understood, therefore, that individual mastery of the libido dominari is only tenable within an environment where in the individual can feel assured that no exertion of will or any presumption of dominance will be exerted against his person by any other individual person. This is key; any percieved threat or presumption of dominance will utterly subvert the effort. Unfortunately, the characteristics which are generative of heirarchy within large, complex societies render such a situation impossible.
This type of nature is by no means unique to humans, but rather is evidenced in all social mammals, all those mammals which naturally tend to live in groups. Every mammalian social group in the world, whether a pride of lions, a pack of wolves, or a troupe of baboons, displays the characteristic of heirarchy, and indeed, displays a near obsession with "social status". Once the needs of survival have been met, the social position within the group is the primary concern of every wolf, lion, baboon, chimpanzee, etc., among both males and females. At the top, you have the "alpha male" and the "alpha female". Since the males of mammalian species are physically bigger and stronger, it is the males who have the higher general position, with the "alpha male" at the top of the pecking order. The obsession of every social mammal is, to be as close I the order to "alpha" as he/she can. It is mammalian nature.
Because the avoidance of heirarchy seems to involve a violation of basic mammalian/human nature, I think it possible under only certain circumstances. Large scale societies such as modern nation states, are heirachical by their very nature. I think I remember reading that social anthropologists have estimated that, historically, heirarchy has arisen naturally when a human social group grows to over 250 individuals, almost as a rule of nature. Benoit Dubreuil has written extensively on this topic, and Christopher Boehm renders an excellent treatment among primates in his book "Heirarchy in the Forest". This natural development of heirarchy occurs because of the needs for administration in the group, along with the need for authority to hold members of the group accountable for expressions of the innate "libido dominari". We have discovered ways of administering social groups in a more equitable manner, using democratic principles, but those princies must be altered...adulterated to deal with anything over a small, localized group such as a commune, for instance. In order for social groups to be administered democratically, everyone must participate and have their say directly, and not by proxy, and everyone's desire must receive recognition in some way...no person can be ignored. This is simply not feasible on the macro scale. The best that we can do on the scale of the nation state, is to have "representative democracy", which automatically involves the introduction of heirarchy and the dilution of individual influence into the model.
In addition to the foregoing, the introduction of money as a store of value and the inevitable subsequent facilitation of the amassing of wealth in a society naturally subvert the egalitarian motive, for what is a massing of wealth other than the implicit open statement to all that, "I am of greater value than you"? This post, however, is already too long, so I'll let that consideration lie for the moment. In summary, the type of purely democratic group administration which has the ability to defeat the extant natural human wilfulness and the innate lust/desire to dominate others seems only possible in very small, local social groups, such as are exemplified by the true commune or perhaps the tribal village, the very type of groups which, in general, cannot maintain independent existence in today's politically and technologically complex modern world.
But we already know that, generally speaking, prehistoric groups of H&Gs were much more egalitarian than any of the agricultural states. Slavery and war came with civilization.
Good question, I think it could be that women simply haven't had the opportunity to, given that men have monopolized power structures.
Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators, warlords and gang leaders. The only thing keeping them from doing any of these things are the conditioning they receive during childhood, and the social pressures that limit their options.
The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.
Perhaps egalitarian, as many of the social structures which enable social stratification, and in such small groups the administrative problems demanding heirarchical structures, were not present, but certainly uncontestedly patriarchal, male dominated, nonetheless. I hardly think that Cro-Magnon man, for instance, gave much consideration to equality of the sexes.
:fire: And temple whoreship too.
And why was that? As you said, the communities were so small that stratification wasn't possible. What was it that made H&G groups patriarchal? The only reason left as I can tell is the physical nature of men, who are generally stronger and so better equipped to bash a woman's skull if she questioned his authority.
Patri-archy, n. – exclusive sovereignty of males which benefits ancestors (monuments) at the expense of descendents.
Matri-archy, n. – an inclusive community guided by elder females which invests ancestral surplusses in descendents.
Ideally I prefer (left libertarian) An-archy, or a decentralizing extension of matri-archy.
I, as well, embrace the ideal of anarchy (though not modern anarchism, which to my mind arises from the same inspirational motus as fascism, as evidenced by similar motus operandi), and though I begrudgingly admit the necessity for it, am philosophically opposed to the concept of the nation-state. Even so, embracing my inner monkey (so to speak, remembering that all that differentiates me from a chimp is 0.1% of my genetic code), I could not support matriarchy, as being contrary to all we see in nature, and you must admit, your offered definition of matriarchy is somewhat assumptive. On the other hand, I view patriarchy as natural, but not ideal by any means. Patriarchy could never claim to possess moral standing, yet could stand on it's claim of being natural in a pre-ethical world. In a world in which we humans have come to pursue ideals, patriarchy seems to have lost that standing, as well.
Quoting 180 Proof
I am on that train, as well, though not a member of "the party".
You have, in brutal fashion, answered your own question. A complicated heirarchy is not necessary for there to be male dominance. There are different levels of complexity at which patriarchy can be expressed, from the simple masculine dominance of the hunter-gatherer group to the utter male orientation and social dominance of the Roman Patrician gentes (plural of "gens", the Roman lineage) and the ancient Vedic gotra (plural of "gotram", the collateral Sanskrit concept and a fundamental concept underlying the caste system). The simple fact is that these more sophisticated forms of patriarchy were based upon the more simple (and I must argue, natural, as it is seen in every mammalian social group) male-dominance of the hunter-gatherer group. By the Classical period of history, patriarchy was taken for granted as a "given". We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.
I would consider the thread closed after this response.
Cause it's still on the way. We will get there too some day. Not sure if we will be alive to witness it though.
Only, "-archy" only exists within the world because it is inherent within us, proceeding from the aforesaid "libido dominari". We cannot escape it or write off it's power and attraction for us so easily.
Not easily at all. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still the most important problem.
You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke:
Yeah, yeah!
I'll just speak about patriarchy. It's a word that has a particular political meaning in our society. From the web:
Patriarchy - A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
This is a quote from a paper I found on the web:
Patriarchy is the prime obstacle to women’s advancement and development. Despite differences in levels of domination the broad principles remain the same, i.e. men are in control.
This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with.
Not only that, but in a dictatorship power would be held by one dictator, so I don't think it would make much difference. Would a female Hitler or Stalin be better than a male one?
But I agree that patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women. Of course women can be soldiers, etc. But the question is whether they can be soldiers and raise children at the same time.
Taking the dictionary definition of “patriarchy” as “male-dominated social system, with descent through the male line” and “matriarchy” as “female-dominated social system, with descent through the female line”, it looks like all successful societies have been male-dominated or "patriarchal".
It seems to be the case that societies that are competitive, assertive, and aggressive, tend to be more successful than others. Currently, those where women play a greater role in making policy, as in Western countries, seem to be on the retreat, and those where men are in control, as in China and Islamic states, are on the rise.
In any case, as we have no examples of successful societies run on the matriarchal model, the benefits or otherwise of a matriarchal system can only be hypothetical.
Good, important, point.
Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have.
The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.
I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.
In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.
And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.
Hum another very interesting reply and also far from what I expected. You might notice how much the function of government has changed since women have filled the seats of government. I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care. I never thought, in the US, we would say the government needs to assume that much responsibility for our children. For sure it is a change in what we think the government should do for us and it follows "liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women. I have a 1940 Oregon Family Law book and it says only when a woman has fulfilled her family responsibilities can she work outside of the home.
I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men.
Quoting Apollodorus
Most discrimination against women is not men "going out of their way." The problem is that the institutions are set up to do it as a standard way of doing business.
We used to educate for independent thinking and for civic and industrial leadership. I have this crazy notion that democracy in American meant not relying on the government, you know as Tocqueville said in 1830 when wrote the book "Democracy in America". I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.
I'm not sure that the increase in women's role in politics has had the effect you're describing. I'm not even sure your description is accurate.
Quoting Athena
I'm sixty-nine years old. When I was a kid, my mother stayed home and my father worked as an engineer. My wife was a nurse and I was an engineer. With me working full time and her working half-time, we had just about the same way of life as my mother and father did. I'm not complaining, I feel very fortunate, but today, you need two people working just to maintain the standard of living that our parents had.
Quoting Athena
I've worked with and for a lot of women in my engineering career. It is such a drag to just work with men. That's not an insult to them. A mixed work place is so much more human. The women I worked with were mostly professionals - engineers and scientists. Very few of them would have liked to be full-time homemakers. At the same time, most of them, and many of the men, would have liked more flexibility to fit their work in with their home life. That's true, even though I worked for companies that were supportive and flexible with their workers.
I don't know, but as for me, it's time to turn over the reigns. There are some fucked up women (Palin, Taylor-Green, Boebert, et al) but they are outnumbered and don't have what it takes to deal with smart and wise women.
I feel the same way about the younger generation. And minorities. Woman, the 20-30-40 somethings, and the black and brown crowd can't possibly be any worse than the suit and tie crowd.
Fork that bronc and ride, ladies, kids, the oppressed.
Please rise above vindictive vengeance, though. Not all of us were out to fuck you.
As I said in my previous post, I can only go based on the attitudes of the women I worked with and my female wife, neighbors, and friends.
One thing which I wonder about in relation to your question is how it connects with issues surrounding the development and history of religion. Certainly, within Christianity there was the suppression of women within the Church and the role of a priesthood of men, even though that has begun to change. I believe that in many religions male supremacy has been linked to beliefs in a divine order. However, there is some archaeological and anthropological findings about gods, so one question may be about whether there was at any point a belief in goddesses, possibly prior to gods. This may be suppressed, alongside paganism, which emphasises the idea of sacred 'feminine' power and fertility rites.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Quoting Noble Dust
Quoting darthbarracuda
Quoting Apollodorus
...so male violence, then.
Another great unspoken.
The feminist may well say that. However, depending on the area or Western country you live in, institutions are not always controlled by men. There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians (including presidents or vice-presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors).
And the point is that in any system only the very top of the hierarchy are not subordinate to anyone. Children are subordinate to parents, pupils to teachers, employees to bosses ....
Good point. I think there isn't much point having family values if no one wants to raise a family.
Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what?
...the result of a hundred and fifty years of fighting for equality.
Quoting Apollodorus
That's a pretty slick, sick comment.
So, you think the state shouldn't make itself useful and do something for the people? Some people have abortions because they feel they have no choice. Why shouldn't the state help out? Western governments have trillions of $$$ for Afghanistan and other places but nothing for their own people. How is that right?
Oh, most assuredly, provide support for mums. And it should refrain from restricting women's choices concerning their own health.
Let's have abortion and childcare.
I think a woman who feels she has no choice, e.g. for economic reasons, does not have a choice. Helping her financially would give her a choice IMO.
No one was talking about Texas. I was talking about the whole western world and about women who might make different choices if useless governments helped them instead of pumping trillions into Afghanistan and arming the Taliban to suppress women. I think that is crazy and sick. But each with their own opinion.
I am. Now you are, too. It's pretty much spot on the topic of the OP, having just introduced a law aiming at limiting the rights of women.
You raised the topic of abortion. I'm following your lead. If it makes you uncomfortable, that might be a good thing.
I raised the topic because @Athena mentioned women having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family, which obviously does not liberate women.
The only alternative to that is to have no children, including involuntary abortions.
On the other hand, if useless and fraudulent governments helped women instead of pouring trillions into Afghanistan and arming Taliban criminals to suppress women, then things might be a bit better for everyone ....
...unless, say, there was a basic income payed to carers.
Your "...only..." shows an impressive lack of imagination.
Quoting Apollodorus
Miscarriage? No, you mean women who later regret having an abortion. See this:
Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma
The facts don't quite square with your claim.
According to the web, 87% of police officers are men. As of 2017, 66% of US Federal District Court judges were men...
Which amounts to the state raising the children ....
Quoting Apollodorus
In that case, I'm assuming that the remainder are women. 34% of Federal District Court judges is not negligible. How many are there under the Taliban?
I didn't say it was negligible, and saying we're better than the Taliban is damnation by very, very faint praise.
So if someone in the USA is arrested by a female police officer and tried by a female judge are they oppressed by women or by men?
Paying mothers to stay home is the state raising children. Well, no. The mother is the one raising the child.
There's something quite odd in the logic you are applying here... and again withQuoting Apollodorus
...as if our choice were Republicanism or Islamic fundamentalism... and again:
Quoting Apollodorus
...all over the place. Frenetic thinking.
Quoting Banno
If the mother is paid by the state to stay home and raise children, then why would the state need to pay a basic income to carers?
Either way, the state pays for the child being raised. Which sounds better than paying and arming the Taliban.
Paying a mother is paying a carer.
Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.
Again, your comments are frenetic.
Exactly. So the state pays .... :smile:
That was my original suggestion.
Quoting Apollodorus
You suggested money used for abortions be used for adoptions or raising kids by the state; not to support mothers.
As I said, a glib comment.
I don't think so. By "raised by the state" I meant raised at the state's expense, i.e. either by paying the mother or paying carers.
Money paid for abortions would not be sufficient to pay for the children to be raised. This is precisely why I am saying that the state should make itself useful and help its own citizens when in need instead of squandering trillions on other projects.
Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need.
I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.
And economic dependency on a husband as the sole bread-winner in a household (in the current neoliberal, anti-wage earner / pro-investor economy no less) has been "liberating" for the vast majority of women? "Traditional family values", as far as I can recall from e.g. social histories, hadn't liberated most women in industrial societies in the last couple of centuries, or abolished slavery, or struggled to overturn legal segregation, or attain universal sufferage & access to safe family planning (adequate healthcare that lowers both the infant & maternal mortality rates). Maybe I missing something, Athena. Which "tradition" are you referring to when you say "traditional family values"?
That question is not relevant to the importance of the homemaker.
How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
I think the main problem is that we have no example of matriarchal society to make an informed judgement with regard to possible benefits of matriarchy.
Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive?
Is it:
1. When they are run 50-50 by men and women?
2. When they are 75% run by women?
3. When they are 100% run by women?
That is a different subject but it is related to this one. Perhaps we can move closer to the subject by asking how do men organize and how do women organize? I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different. The link will partially answer the question about the difference between male and female organizations.
We might what to consider, in these different societies is a noticeable difference in ideas about the creator/god? Can we be clear that Judaism, Christianity, Islam are basically the same father in heaven worshiping religion. The big difference between patriarchy and matriarchy is the decent of property and ownership is related to power, right?
Quoting teaching history
Oh my goodness, you asked a very, very important question!
There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting!
Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?
Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. Admittedly there may be some problems with that, but it does not become the government's problem. Finally, a discussion worth having, huh? It might suck to be a homemaker but that does not have to be so and when the kids are in school the homemaker can work outside of the home. The homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children. A homemaker has perhaps the most important job because the health of the whole community really depends on her.
Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.
Yes, that is the nature of an hereditarily aristocratic society.
Quoting Athena
But if you use the Taliban as being representative of male organizational stategy, are you not skewing the comparison? After all, the fact of patriarchy is only one of the two major influences on that group, the other, of course, being (I would argue extreme) theocratic zealotry.
Quoting Athena
I think the answer to that, is that we as a species have displayed the ability to move beyond the natural and into the ideal in a quest for justice and equity. Since we have demonstrated being able to concieve of such (admittedly abstract) things as equity, justice, and morality, as well as being capable of structuring society in pursuit of those ends, have we not assumed an ethical responsibility to renounce such preconcieved notions of "authority" and "rule" as are presented by both patriarchy and matriarchy? Is there not an "onus" upon us?
Haha....unintentional, but I love it!
You make my heart sing. :love: People in US political forums just do not understand what the discussion is about and I was so frustrated with them, I was ready to go blow my brains out. People in this forum are actually saying intelligent things and are moving the conversation forward.
Matriarchies are not the hierarchy of authority above the people that patriarchies are, and property descends through females, not males, giving them the power ownership. The focus of matriarchy is culture, not the western notion of god-given authority over others.
It is not my intention to say matriarchies are superior to patriarchies because I do not think matriarchies would have advanced technology. :flower: In a culturally-based society people will discover ways to survive and things like clay pots that carry water and they decorate them beautifully. That creativity is not exactly technology. Technology identifies why some dirt makes good pots and other dirt absolutely will not make a good pot. Technology answers the question "why". Mom may show you how to bake bread, but Dad is more likely to know why the bread rises or does not rise. That may not be the best example but there is an important difference between "how" and "why" and I think men are more apt to ponder "why" things are as they are. Of course, women can do that as well men can, but first, they need to be removed from their family responsibilities. Their domestic brain that operates on hormones, needs to be trained to think technologically.
This is not just a matter of how the brain is prepared, but it is also very visceral. I have never heard a man talk about how hard it is to go back to work when a child is born and of feeling pulled between the child and the job, and dealing with feelings of guilt. I think denying the hormonal difference between men and women is a mistake. Just as I think denying the hormonal difference of some gay people is a mistake and for darn sure, we know transgender people do hormonal therapy. When a man watches football his testosterone level increases but that does not happen when a baby cries. Women have a hormonal response to a baby crying that men do not have. I know, burn me at the cross because I am saying males and females are different and that difference includes how they organize as families or opposing football teams. However, I am not saying one is better than the other. It seems quite obvious to me, nature planned on us being different and working together.
Why are you saying the ideal means denying women the ability to stay home and care for the family?
Yes, singing is a good sign...
But what songs should I be singing? You tease me. I am not sure of what you intend to communicate.
You're just being you usual gadfly self, nipping and biting without adding much. Whether or not I agree with him, what @Apollodorus is saying is pretty clear.
My son's life and career were disrupted by the pandemic, so he is going back to school to study for a new career. His girlfriend, on the other hand, is a very high-paid professional who works 70 hours a week. Since my son's schedule is much more flexible and open, he has taken over the "homemaker" job - cooking, cleaning, shopping, getting cars worked on and refrigerators repaired... She is so happy to have him in her life. He's made her life easier and better by making a home for her, for them. And that's without children. It doesn't hurt that he's a great cook.
I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?
Not at all, I simply mean that I am glad when my comments make somebody happy.
How much I wish I had someone to take care of everything when I thought it was my time to work outside of the home. I am quite sure my mother would have gotten into the movies as this was her goal when she moved me and my sister to Hollywood, California but child care plus having to support the family robbed her of that opportunity. A woman with children is not a liberated woman unless someone is will take on the family responsibilities.
Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons.
Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same?
When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role?
When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World?
Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.
Quoting Athena Let me see if I can follow the logic train to emotionally loaded question town.
If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condeming a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.
The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.
Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents.
At some point the king managed to survive and eventually managed transform the system to a patrilineal one. This involved of necessity, strict control of the female sexuality in order to ensure the patrilineal purity of the offspring.
And that is the essence of patriarchy - the control of female sexuality. I have to say that this is not even controversial in anthropology, and it is rather sad that by page 4 it has not even been mentioned.
Im not sure your point here. It doesn't seem like any of that is controversial but neither does it seem relevant….I thought you were asking a question regarding which is better not for a history of either.
. Quoting Athena
No of course not, but male/female gender roles are not the same as leadership roles.
It seems like we have different ideas of what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. I take it to mean something like “when society is ruled or governed based on one gender”. I would call gender roles a sub category of society. If the society is modelled after one gender role or another then my criticism would be the same. Gender roles are not good metrics by which to build a society, rather they are components within a society.
Quoting Athena
Im not sure who you imagine would disagree with this. Not me.
Im saying it is foolish to insist a society “act like men”, where we disagree perhaps is that I also think it is foolish to insist society act like the homemaker as well. As others have mentioned, it is the “insisting” part that is problematic in the two “archy”’s.
If your going to insist, insist on people being responsible, productive members of society which isnt the purview of gender but rather the individuals within the society.
Quoting Athena
Again the relevance is lost on me. You’ll have to provide a better trail of logic for me to follow cuz Im not seeing the connecting tissue.
Like, is your main point “patriarchy bad”? Cuz yes, it is. So is a matriarchy. Men and women bring different tools, we should use all the tools at our disposal not one set or the other. Right?
This is very true in the modern world, but in my opinion was less true in the distant past. If you lived in late fifth century BCE Athens, a polis which was under constant threat of being besiegad by a Spartan or Persian army, then one might prefer to have men in control (of course, when Cornelius Sulla marched his army on Athens during the Mithridatic War, it didn't matter who was in control there...the Greeks had never seen anything quite so brutal as a Roman legion, and at that time, Athens was going to bleed profusely regardless of who was in command of the city). In a world of brutality and unchecked agression, I might be inclined to argue that the naturally greater (testosterone induced) agression of men as compared with that of women, renders male leadership preferable, for the sake of survival and independence, if nothing else. There were exceptions to this. The Kartvelian Queen Tamar seems to have been quite an effective leader in the distant past (though a much more recent, and assumedly less brutal, past than the Archaic or Classical periods). Even so, that is an exception, and not the rule. The world is a much different place today than it once was; I might even say that the mass consciousness has been much improved. In the milder, more thoughtful, more technologically advanced climate of the present, women can lead a society just as effectively as men.
One could argue that the brutality of the time was the symptom of patriarchy just as easily. We wouldn't need to have the warriors in charge if the other tribes had less warriors to. To the less enlightened of the before times might made right. We’ve grown up. Sorta.
Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive.
That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?
I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.
What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.
Quoting Athena
I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:
But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.
And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.
But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.
Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?
When I read those words, the first thing that came to my mind was Ralph Ellison wondering at how strange the life of a white supremacist must be after being raised by Black nannies.
The practice of alternate motherhood is bound up with visions of class and privilege.
Chicken and the egg.
So what?
Why should gender determine one's role?
Then, since you bothered to interject, you might bother to set out clearly @Apollodorus's argument.
None of you came back to this.
Curious. Why not?
What tools are you talking about here?
Was camping.
I agree.
Well, as far as I am concerned, I did suggest to @Athena to be a bit more specific:
Quoting Apollodorus
Otherwise it's just a free-for-all and we won't get very far IMO.
Also, I don't know how many participants here are female, but I think it may be useful to have a balanced representation from both sides.
I refer to the various abstracted ideals: ethicality/morality, individual liberty, equity, justice, and the like, which provide us with a framework for the conception and achievement of an egalitarian society. However, the state of technology, the necessity of the nation state to foster and employ that technology in various ways (civil, medical, military, etc) means that we by needs have too complex societies for the fostering of the egalitarianism which demands full and equal participation in non-heirarchical social structures. This means that like it or not, heirarchy is going to be with us for the long run, forced on us all by pressures both external and internal.
Well said!
And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role.
Once sex is taken off the table, though, (i.e. men and women are "spent") I think they are more rational, empathetic, civic minded, kind and caring. Further, I don't think it would adversely impact the good things that could be the result of aggression. Other, lesser drives would still exist and aggression would still exist, but it would be tempered somewhat. I think men would start to view women more as fellow travelers in life, humans, animals, worthy of dignity and respect, as opposed to some*thing* to be had. Women, likewise, might better access some of their non-maternal energies. Playing fields would be leveled.
Hell, there might actually be a greater inclination toward real interhuman intimacy and loving sex.
I find the idea of the "comfort girls" for Japanese troops to be abhorrent. But I understand the thinking of the Generals and leaders. On the one hand, you want to maintain aggression in your fighters, but you also want to keep them happy during down time, with something to look forward to. But all the "red in tooth and claw" boardroom bullshit just creates a culture of greed, gain, screwing people over to create the best plumage to intimidate other males and get the girl. It's a contributor to our intra-specific political and other division, and the rape of the Earth.
I think many women just want to feel safe. They might feel like prey in a world of predators. Men likewise don't want to worry about submission to Beta status, or bound to maintaining Alfa status. They predator/prey relation is there, too.
If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business of progress.
I know some religious folks would zealously object. But they can be marginalized. After all, we all know they would be jumping in, feet first, if only behind closed doors. You be able to spot them, with that afterglow on their faces as they futilely tried to work up a rage. At least they wouldn't be molesting children and whatnot. Yet another benefit, I'd say. Rape would drop too, I'd imagine.
I don't necessarily believe anything I just said. I'm just throwing it out there in the spirit of the forum.
I do not have the feeling that the patriarchy of Christian nations was a good thing, nor do I think it has changed in a good way, now that females are to be as males. That is why I opened the discussion.
No, all native Americans did not have the same social organization, and especially important, they did not rear their children the same.
The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. They had a beneficial effect on the development of democracy in American. Our literate forefathers had classical/liberal education based on Greek and Roman, but they had no experience with democracy so their understanding of it was incomplete. The Greeks are a better example than the Romans because the Greeks had different city-states but when we read of Rome it appears to be a huge civilization under one power. In the new land were people who were living the separate city/state reality and came to forming a federation and a notion of reasoning ruling just as the Greeks did.
Man, I am out of time- I will have to get back to you. It would be great to have two or me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences.
Haha, yes, our naturally-selected characteristics do stand in the way of "progress", don't they? An additional benefit of your suggestion would be that our species might stop overpopulating. The polar bears would surely applaud...
Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive.
Yeah, you are probably right. On the other hand, I bet it would remove several contenders from the mix. :grin:
I agree and disagree. It depends on the age of the child. Here is where we have made a huge mistake! The industrial revolution took men and women out of their homes, separating them from the children left at home.
The greatest success of our civilization was freeing the mothers to stay at home and be homemakers. That advanced our civilization. But the downside has been cutting men out of the children's lives. Men are as important to the development of children as mothers are. Until about age 3 the mother is the best person to care for a child, and then it is very important the father take an increasing role in preparing the child for life. Each parent has a different effect on the development of the individual personality and it is best for children if they have both parents working together to raise a child. Then grandparents play an important role and children who have grandparents in their lives are advantaged and statistically do better. By the way, next Sunday is Grandparents' Day.
And as for men feeling uncomfortable with a child, mothers do too, until they grow into the role. Female hormones help us a lot, especially if we breastfed the baby. And for hormonal reasons, we respond differently when a baby cries. But when the first baby is put in our arms and we are expected to do everything a mother does, a woman may wonder when the mother instinct is going to kick in and suddenly she knows how to be a mother. It does not work that way. Books and classes and calling another woman, are all part of becoming a mother. Here is where the socialization aspect comes in. As men and women, we try harder to do what we think society, or our peers, expects of us. But it is not all about socialization. Hormones play a very important part in how we react to children.
I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic. If our size and a deep voice does not help us get our way, we need to figure out another way to get what we want. On the other hand, if everyone submits to us because of our size and a deep voice, we might gain the confidence to rule we might take charge because that seems to be what is expected of us. If a man cries, the response to him may be different than if a woman cries. But bottom line- if a male is ranging with testosterone, something is going to happen because he isn't going to be passive.
Dinner is definitely the key word. You wouldn't need to be careful what you say. And, as Virginia Woolf said:
:smile:
Quoting Athena
I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated ....
Some tribes were/are matriarchies because we can be sure who the mother is, and the earth is our mother so it makes sense the women inherit the land and the man's role is to defend her.
What do you think Afro-American culture is? I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. It will enable them to have their traditional life purpose and we all can benefit from their care of the land.
:lol: :rofl: :love: :lol: I need to catch my breath. I have not laughed this hard for a while. Your first line is hilarious!
What you said about our democracy is sobbering. It is not funny at all. I will not believe the US is sincere about democracy until it replaces autocratic industry with the democratic model and I think doing this is as urgent as counteracting the manmade part of global warming. I am struggling with the effort to be philosophical instead of political. Do you realize the timeline of the US is almost identical to the timeline of Athens? Thanks to the spread of Hellenism and it being picked up by Christians and others interested in government and philosophy, Athens lives on, but the city/state did not. The US used the Athenian model for education until 1958 when that was replaced by education for technology but get this, Athens also replaced its education with education for technological. Not technology as we think of it today, but more along the line of doing things by the rules versus being educated to figure out what the rules should are and should be. That is a change in authority and the citizens' relationship to authority.
Oh my god! you just caused my heart to stop! "What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. " An institution can not do for a child what a family can. I am talking about the complexity of our feelings, behaviors, and relationships. Owning our children as we own pets that wait for our return home, may come with a danger. Making the family meaningless may resolve some social problems, and create others. Please, avoid speaking the truth when it regards children because my heart can not take the stress. I am afraid we take our human goodness for granted. Which one of the paid caregivers will be with the child they raise for life, always ready to support that individual as they manage the trials of life? How much can they really care about the child and his/her future? Do we want teachers to believe they are the most fit to raise our children? If we institutional our children, what will happen to our liberty?
About patriarchy or matriarchy, both have good and bad points. Democracy is not either one. All the gods and goddesses play an important role in a democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods and I think this opens our human potential. I think family and property ownership are very important to democracy and our liberty. But we have to raise our awareness before we have enough knowledge to democracy. Right now our knowledge is so lacking we can not defend democracy anywhere, not even at home.
All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter.
I am strongly in favor of your first sentence and it is concern about the negative effect that working outside of the home, can have on parenting and society at large, that motivates me to write. Further what you said about the demands of the competitive force on children is why I am opposed to leaving children in daycare centers for too long.
It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. I am not saying matriarchy is better, but that a patriarchy that is not balanced by the female force is a threat to the world and is not the democracy we defended. What we have become is an enemy to humanity. So much so, people argue we would be better off if computers were in control. That is very anti-human.
I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.
I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.
Quoting Athena
I'm pleased to agree. We have professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.
Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant.
:grin: I was swept up in women's lib just like everyone else and had it not been for a recession ravaging my life and plans, I may still be cheering for women's liberation. But thanks to the recession lasting a very long time where I live, I got to experience jobs and employers from hell. With some satisfaction, I can say the really bad employers are no longer in town. The practice of exploiting cheap labor and going through employees very fast is self-destructive, especially when you need your employees as customers but you have pissed off so many of them you no longer have customers. Bad management of employees leads to them thinking of ways to sabotage the company. This can mean breaking things, stealing things, working very slow, telling everyone how awful the company is, and of course walking off the job.
Then you have the Deming model which is democratic industry. Everyone learns all the jobs and is prepared to advance. Everyone has a say in how things are done. Supervisors are trained to take responsibility and if someone goofs, the supervisor checks to be sure the employee understood the directions and then acts as a coach, supporting the employee in doing better. I would bet if we experienced the democratic model, many more families would be doing very well! I do not blame male hormones for bad male behavior, but the Autocratic Industry that has been terrible to all employees. Some ass hole demanding what he wants and thinking bullying and punishing people is the best way to get it and completely undermining families by not allowing family concerns to interfere with the job.
In the past, not enough dared raise their voice because when you live paycheck to paycheck you don't dare displease the employer. But as we gain security we might gain some power and demand industry use the democratic model and families get the consideration humanity requires. Then our democracy might have some meaning. While we are seeing changes, this follows women sitting in the seats of power because those in the seats of power before were not thinking about the women and children. Abigail Adams told her husband to think of the women when he worked on the constitution, but unfortunately, men were not ready to do that nor to be firm about ending slavery.
Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).
I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally.
false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.
Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?
Quoting darthbarracuda
This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. We know in times of war women are stolen, raped, abused. And the behavior of Americans in the prison camp holding Muslim war prisoners was absolutely shocking and certainly should be considered a war crime. I also received a letter from a Black convict that was sexual and seething with hatred directed at White women. I don't think a date rape is equal to a rape motivated by intense anger and the intention to abuse and victimized someone. One of my women lib. alarms went off when the word "mother", flipped from meaning a wonderful, loving person to quite an offensive meaning. Do you all want to go down this path or should we move away from it? I think this path is risky but also has merit.
I am willing to go down this path because another thread I started is a question of if the Taliban can succeed in making Afghanistan a civilization that can be admired. It also has merit because the US mobilized for WWII with pin-up girls and personally I think the metal and leather uniforms of Romans are very sexy. It is well-known women find men in uniform attractive and war escalates our mating instinct. Hum, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I am by what seems a pretty strong connection between sex and war. And this subject is directly and strongly related to patriarchy taking over matriarchal societies.
To tie your post into the subject of this thread, what should the ruler achieve?
Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing.
Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.
Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.
I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.
I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.
I am working on trying to figure out when to be angry and how to express that in a way that gets the result I want. When raising my children, I realized I can be a real tyrant and that does not mean being a bad person, but a lack of a good balance of power. It is not easy being human and our best hope is working together.
Nietzsche had some strong thoughts opposing Christianity and slave mentality. I like pagan values and Greek arete. I am out of time, but perhaps you can say something about what reason has to do with being civilized? At some point in time, when city living meant living among strangers, we became self-reflective and experienced ourselves as separate from nature and everyone else. We filled our newly discovered loneliness with a God and imagined a different reality.
[quote=From the above article]New research has found that of the more than 5,000 known species of mammals, just a handful are led by females.[/quote]
Some of the "...handful..." are hyenas, elephants, and bonobos.
Anyway, mother nature is the wisest of us all; 3 billion years of perfecting every single organism, solitary and social, must mean something, right? She, sorry girls, prefers patriarchy and we all know better than to mess with mother nature.
No idea. I'm assuming it's got to do with music styles, etc.?
According to the UN Gender Inequality Index 2020, African countries rank among the worst in the world:
Uganda 131
Sudan 138
Tanzania 140
Cameroon 141
Congo 150
Niger 154
Sierra Leone 155
Central African Republic 159
..........
On average, Africa is on par with Pakistan (135) or worse.
Compared with US (46), UK (31), and OZ (25), Africa seems to be miles behind the West.
Gender Inequality Index (GII) | Human Development Reports
Is African-American culture less male-dominated? And if yes, why?
Quoting Athena
Sounds good to me. However, I think another interesting question is why there has never been a Native American president? What is the cultural, social and political mechanism that prevents this?
Oh, absolutely. Anybody who considers questions of human sociology without including the facts of biology by giving primacy to the sociobiological aspect, is quite remiss, in my view. This is particular true because we humans are animals who have largely ceased to behave like other animals, a fact which tends to obscure the importance of the portion of our human mind which we share in common with other animals: the primal mind, the "Id". Even so, that primal aspect lies at the core of our mental complex, and recognition of it's power over us is necessary to understand how men can sometimes be so brutal, so savage. Truly, we have evolved, but we have by no means left "the beast within" by the side of the evolutionary way. Rather, said beast continues being tenuously repressed by the Super-ego, the higher man, and remains thinly covered with a veneer of civility.
What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.
Well, you are not wrong about that, and it is a valid and important point that you make. It is true that these two are, indeed, concepts...particularly political and sociological concepts; in that way, they differ little from such as "democracy", "monarchy", "socialism", and "Bolshevism". None of these words describe natural phenomena. This recognition serves to demonstrate that such socio-political concepts as the forementioned, though they are not natural phenomena, yet have the power to exert a profound influence within human societies.
Save in the human realm, neither "patriarchy" nor "matriarchy" exist in nature per se, since the concepts of government and the body politic do not exist among the animals apart from ourselves. What does exist in nature almost universally among mammaliam species, is the phenomenon of male dominance, based upon physical power and the hormonal differences between male and female mammals. While patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, this phenomenon of male dominance among mammals is a biological fact.
Attendant to these considerations, it should be recognized that patriarchy in human societies naturally evolved and grew directly out of the male dominance experienced by our non-sapiens hominid ancestors. This is why virtually all human cultures throughout history have been patriarchal, and why that status mundi has been so seldom questioned until the modern era. Moreover, the argument in favor of patriarchy, among those who would so argue, is based largely in natural male dominance. I feel that in expressing our own opinions regarding these socio-political concepts, we should take into consideration that, because male dominance is natural, it is (both naturally and understandably) found difficult by some men to be subordinate to a woman, whether in the business or political environment; it engenders a vague resentment within them. Should we just tell these chaps to ignore millions of years of their own evolution, and to "get over themselves"? I would argue that such advice could only be given with blinders firmly in place...not to say that I have an answer for them, either. The difficult fact is, that our human cultural evolution has been so acceleratorily rapid that our physical evolution has been "left in the dust" by it. So, all that babble is by way of noting that, while it is true that both patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, it is equally true that the concept of patriarchy seems to have a basis in the natural world not shared by the other, and that such conceptualizations do have an effect upon real human societies.
Quoting Christoffer
The first data would be the hormonal difference between males and females. Next is zoology a study of animal behaviors and physical reasons for them. Then anthropology and cross-cultural studies. Also, archeology and geology can give us important information. Where the climate is mild and it is easy to grow food, commonly there are signs of matriarchy and then a switch to patriarchy. Where life is hard and the main source of food comes from hunting, and where raiding and wars became common, there is patriarchy. I have read nothing of a patriarchy becoming matriarchal however, this might be happening today. Why? Because as in the valleys where the climate was mild and food was abundant, we once again are experiencing the good life of physical and food security.
How many women went with the men to burn the Blacks out of town, or were in the cloaked mob to linch a Black person? Women supported this behavior and at times instigated it, but I think the behavior is lead by men and those who engaged in that behavior were men. But if they were Bonobo instead of humans or chimps, it would be the females maintaining social control.
Matriarchal, Patriarchal, it's the same!