The Patriarchy...or the Best System?

[NoMereRanger]

Have had this discussion with a female friend of mine before: She contends that most of history demonstrates the existence of an all-powerful patriarchy. Men have the final say in everything, men physically impose themselves on women, men have all the fun. I contend that evolution has enabled both genders with specific attributes that lend themselves to our survival. From there we developed the best ways to do things and thus became the dominate species on this planet. I don't deny that sexism has always existed and will most likely exist for as long as we do. I only posit that, in general, men tend to gravitate towards certain roles and women towards others because we realized that it was best for the continuation of our species. For example, men tend to be more assertive and bigger assholes, which make them better leaders. Women tend to be more empathetic and understanding, making them better caretakers. All this is a long winded way of saying "There are gender roles." Right or wrong?

 

[ecofarm]

Gender roles are created by society. Of course they exist. They are what we expect from someone according to a gender. Could be old, young, male, female, etc. Any category for which society has expectations. Are they primarily biological? No. Individuals vary.

White hetero men have about 90% of the power while being about 30% of the population.

When we refer to women as a minority, we are not referring to population demographics. People are not claiming women are less than 50% of the population. The claim is referring to social dynamics, not population demographics. Women are a power minority.

Men having the power is patriarchy. It was 100% long ago. Today it's 90%. Maybe 80% if we don't include men that are members of a minority (orientation, race, religion). Just white hetero cis male Christian power? Maybe only 70%.

 

[trblmkr]

Have had this discussion with a female friend of mine before: She contends that most of history demonstrates the existence of an all-powerful patriarchy. Men have the final say in everything, men physically impose themselves on women, men have all the fun. I contend that evolution has enabled both genders with specific attributes that lend themselves to our survival. From there we developed the best ways to do things and thus became the dominate species on this planet. I don't deny that sexism has always existed and will most likely exist for as long as we do. I only posit that, in general, men tend to gravitate towards certain roles and women towards others because we realized that it was best for the continuation of our species. For example, men tend to be more assertive and bigger assholes, which make them better leaders. Women tend to be more empathetic and understanding, making them better caretakers. All this is a long winded way of saying "There are gender roles." Right or wrong?

There is some truth in men being bigger assholes. For more that a few years of my life, if someone shouted asshole, I would assume they were talking to me.
Seriously, I am a patriarch of sorts. I bought property, had it developed for two more homes and moved in family that well, don't do all that well on their own.
The problem with this line of thinking is when it says "you must conform to the role nature and my society says is your role".
That is quite unacceptable.

 

[NoMereRanger]

Gender roles are created by society. Of course they exist. They are what we expect from someone according to a gender. Could be old, young, male, female, etc. Any category for which society has expectations. Are they primarily biological? No. Individuals vary.

Could it be that we come to expect certain things from certain genders...simply because each gender tends towards certain things? Saying that society expects things doesn't automatically correlate it to being a product of society, it could just be a natural reaction. Of course there are always exceptions, but that's why they're exceptions, not the rules. Biology absolutely does play a role though. Men tend to be bigger, stronger, louder, aggressive and more mentally resilient(or just dull witted, take your pick) and thus more naturally adjusted for a demanding workforce. Women tend to tolerate pain a lot better, have the natural ability to feed children and show more compassion and patience, making them capable of handling demanding kids. In other areas it also gives them a natural advantage, like healthcare. The majority of nurses in this country are female. Is there a matriarchal overlady that is ensuring that women take most of the nursing jobs? Or are they just more inclined to it, thus structuring that aspect of our society and not the other way around?

White hetero men have about 90% of the power while being about 30% of the population.

When we refer to women as a minority, we are not referring to population demographics. People are not claiming women are less than 50% of the population. The claim is referring to social dynamics, not population demographics. Women are a power minority.

Men having the power is patriarchy. It was 100% long ago. Today it's 90%. Maybe 80% if we don't include men that are members of a minority (orientation, race, religion). Just white hetero cis male Christian power? Maybe only 70%.

I'm really interested in three things: a) How you define power, b)how you quantify it and c) where you get these stats from.

If you're referring to "power" simply in terms of who is in office, then sure, I'll bet a majority of those in elected office(at least in the US) a white males. But that's not the only way to define power, nor is it the only important aspect of social structure. Many women see having a professional career as something "powerful" but many choose not to pursue it because they're not inclined to it the way men are. Many women actually choose to leave their careers to raise families:

The number of women opting out of the workforce hasn’t changed over the past 30 years.
Stay-at-Home Mothers on the Rise | Pew Research Center

Is this a phenomenon simply because "society says" that they have to quit? Are their SOs making them quit? I'm inclined to think that the claim of the almighty "society gods" having control of everything seems a bit too abstract. Who is pulling all these strings that make sure men stay in the workforce and women stay at home? I think the other issue is that people are quick to assume that being the breadwinner is powerful and exciting, while being stuck at home is a drag and thus the least desirable of the two options. Both are equally important though and both are equally challenging. Trying to say that because men work, they have the power, is completely inaccurate.

 

[NoMereRanger]

There is some truth in men being bigger assholes. For more that a few years of my life, if someone shouted asshole, I would assume they were talking to me.
Seriously, I am a patriarch of sorts. I bought property, had it developed for two more homes and moved in family that well, don't do all that well on their own.
The problem with this line of thinking is when it says "you must conform to the role nature and my society says is your role".
That is quite unacceptable.

I 100% believe it, we're definitely more inclined to yell, fight, swear, get in someone's face and want to boss others around. Again, I think these are natural developments and we've used them to our advantage. We're imperfect byproducts obviously but that's why we've tended towards roles that do the most good, to make up for the shortcomings.

And I also agree, I think humans are messy and complicated and trying to put them in boxes and say that you must do this and you must do that is unrealistic. My belief is that, in general, people tend towards things that they're good at, and that applies on a biological level as well.

 

[ecofarm]

I 100% believe it, we're definitely more inclined to yell, fight, swear, get in someone's face and want to boss others around. Again, I think these are natural developments and we've used them to our advantage. We're imperfect byproducts obviously but that's why we've tended towards roles that do the most good, to make up for the shortcomings.

And I also agree, I think humans are messy and complicated and trying to put them in boxes and say that you must do this and you must do that is unrealistic. My belief is that, in general, people tend towards things that they're good at, and that applies on a biological level as well.

Boys are taught to be aggressive, go after what they want, take leadership positions. Girls are taught to be patient and courteous.

It's not biological.

 

[NoMereRanger]

Boys are taught to be aggressive, go after what they want, take leadership positions. Girls are taught to be patient and courteous.

It's not biological.

You can keep saying that but it doesn't mean anything. Who exactly is teaching them all this so consistently? Biological differences are easily observable to both casual observers and scientists alike:

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders
https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-rev...plications-for-exercise-prescription-Ol2A.pdf

 

[nymillennial]

Gender roles are created by society. Of course they exist. They are what we expect from someone according to a gender. Could be old, young, male, female, etc. Any category for which society has expectations. Are they primarily biological? No. Individuals vary.

White hetero men have about 90% of the power while being about 30% of the population.

When we refer to women as a minority, we are not referring to population demographics. People are not claiming women are less than 50% of the population. The claim is referring to social dynamics, not population demographics. Women are a power minority.

Men having the power is patriarchy. It was 100% long ago. Today it's 90%. Maybe 80% if we don't include men that are members of a minority (orientation, race, religion). Just white hetero cis male Christian power? Maybe only 70%.

With policies such as affirmative action giving minorities benefits in jobs and college admissions over whites and males (especially white males), "social justice" movements attacking masculinity and whiteness, and the spread of white male guilt and male feminism I find it hard to see how society still favors white men. It is simply a reaffirmation of the "separate but equal" belief upheld in Plessy v Ferguson (which of course was overturned in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka) that separate standards can or will lead to social equality. Equality stems from giving everyone an equal shot to achieve in life and prove their merits. The patriarchy is long dead with power shifting to women, minority, and LGBTQ+ group and away from the formerly priviledge white hetero male.

 

[ecofarm]

With policies such as affirmative action giving minorities benefits in jobs and college admissions over whites and males (especially white males), "social justice" movements attacking masculinity and whiteness, and the spread of white male guilt and male feminism I find it hard to see how society still favors white men. It is simply a reaffirmation of the "separate but equal" belief upheld in Plessy v Ferguson (which of course was overturned in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka) that separate standards can or will lead to social equality. Equality stems from giving everyone an equal shot to achieve in life and prove their merits. The patriarchy is long dead with power shifting to women, minority, and LGBTQ+ group and away from the formerly priviledge white hetero male.

Too late. I'm a feminist.

 

[nymillennial]

Too late. I'm a feminist.

I'm an egalitarian, or a believer in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Much fairer than a movement that empowers one gender over the other, equality cannot be achieved by supporting one group and ignoring those of another. If you feel social change is possible it should include input of all parties involved.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm an egalitarian, or a believer in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Much fairer than a movement that empowers one gender over the other, equality cannot be achieved by supporting one group and ignoring those of another. If you feel social change is possible it should include input of all parties involved.

I find anthropocentrism below ecocentrism.

 

[nymillennial]

I find anthropocentrism below ecocentrism.

I find both ideologies flawed extremes. I support more of a middle ground between between the world being the means to an end for humans and human equality to all of nature. I feel that way because I recognize the importance of nature and complex ecosystems as well as humans' superior cognitive ability and ability to rationalize.

 

[ecofarm]

I find both ideologies flawed extremes. I support more of a middle ground between between the world being the means to an end for humans and human equality to all of nature. I feel that way because I recognize the importance of nature and complex ecosystems as well as humans' superior cognitive ability and ability to rationalize.

Neither are extremes, merely perspectives. If there's an extreme, it's the most common perspective, egocentrism.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Have had this discussion with a female friend of mine before: She contends that most of history demonstrates the existence of an all-powerful patriarchy. Men have the final say in everything, men physically impose themselves on women, men have all the fun. I contend that evolution has enabled both genders with specific attributes that lend themselves to our survival. From there we developed the best ways to do things and thus became the dominate species on this planet. I don't deny that sexism has always existed and will most likely exist for as long as we do. I only posit that, in general, men tend to gravitate towards certain roles and women towards others because we realized that it was best for the continuation of our species. For example, men tend to be more assertive and bigger assholes, which make them better leaders. Women tend to be more empathetic and understanding, making them better caretakers. All this is a long winded way of saying "There are gender roles." Right or wrong?

Choices were made and all was agreed to based upon who was better suited for the job.

Clear lines of authority were required back when life was hard.

Before we got soft.

 

[nymillennial]

Neither are extremes, merely perspectives. If there's an extreme, it's the most common perspective, egocentrism.

I find the two are best interchangeably. Energy for example is ends to necessary means in modern society. It is used in our everyday lives for our health, education, leisure, transportation and in that way is a means to an end, sustainability of modern society. However we can minimize our impact on the environment through environmental review, alternative energy sources, etc. Humans superior cognitive ability make these resources we are dependent upon necessary to maintain the complex society we have today. However we cannot assert dominance over the ecosystem itself as it is one we are a apart of and dependent on. The relationship between mankind and the environment is a two way street in that way.

 

[nymillennial]

Choices were made and all was agreed to based upon who was better suited for the job.

Clear lines of authority were required back when life was hard.

Before we got soft.

I see your point but I could agree to anyone doing any job they are capable of doing, equal opportunity is fair. What needs to end is affirmative action and separate standards for different groups of people, which is repetitive of the old "separate but equal" failed ideology.

 

[NoMereRanger]

Choices were made and all was agreed to based upon who was better suited for the job.

Clear lines of authority were required back when life was hard.

Before we got soft.

Agreed. Survival has always been the priority, even as life has gotten better and better. Hand in hand with that was recognition of the need for stability, which made us more than just surviving animals, it made us the dominant ones. The most stable societies tended to last to longest, and those were predicated on stable systems, all the way down to the individual family units. It's not that we demanded that men do this and women do that, it's that we realized that men are best at lifting heavy things and killing each other and women are best at raising replacements and keeping their dumbass husbands alive.

Now that we are "soft"as you say, there is breathing room when it comes to people attempting new things. Leisure time has increased and the odds of us dying from stuff like the plague or wild animals attacks is basically nil. We don't have to worry so much about the "survival" aspect but the "stability" aspect is still important. We are only as strong as our ability to work together and we only work well together when we do what we're each best at.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Agreed. Survival has always been the priority, even as life has gotten better and better. Hand in hand with that was recognition of the need for stability, which made us more than just surviving animals, it made us the dominant ones. The most stable societies tended to last to longest, and those were predicated on stable systems, all the way down to the individual family units. It's not that we demanded that men do this and women do that, it's that we realized that men are best at lifting heavy things and killing each other and women are best at raising replacements and keeping their dumbass husbands alive.

Now that we are "soft"as you say, there is breathing room when it comes to people attempting new things. Leisure time has increased and the odds of us dying from stuff like the plague or wild animals attacks is basically nil. We don't have to worry so much about the "survival" aspect but the "stability" aspect is still important. We are only as strong as our ability to work together and we only work well together when we do what we're each best at.

You lost me at the last 13 words, it is not that everyone is doing the jobs they are best at, it is that people have to want to work together, they need to do the work of working together (Like we say when we say that good marriage is work). But look for instance at all these dimwits at DP who act like they have no interest in that...it's scary.

The thing that pisses me off is that history is very clear that hubris, the lack of understanding and appreciating risk, is the #1 reason for the coming of GREAT PAIN, Hell just look at all the pain caused in just the last 100 years as a result of Utopia Building Projects, and we have learned nothing..... here we are insisting upon doing it again...we cant just throw humanity into the air trying to remake it on the fly and come out ok.


EDIT: I have decided that Civility is at base not being kind and docile as many have it, that it is at base a willingness to work together. You will find an interesting few thoughts on civility at the link:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...kabee-sanders-red-hen-incident-starts-debate/



ANYWAYS, back the the thread: The Feminists are lying because they find it in the interest of their agenda to lie about the oppression of women both historically and currently. So many people believe it because people are willfully ignorant now, we believe what we want to believe, and for some reason that I have not quite put my finger on we want to believe that men suck.

 

[NoMereRanger]

You lost me at the last 13 words, it is not that everyone is doing the jobs they are best at, it is that people have to want to work together, they need to do the work of working together (Like we say when we say that good marriage is work). But look for instance at all these dimwits at DP who act like they have no interest in that...it's scary.

The thing that pisses me off is that history is very clear that hubris, the lack of understanding and appreciating risk, is the #1 reason for the coming of GREAT PAIN, Hell just look at all the pain caused in just the last 100 years as a result of Utopia Building Projects, and we have learned nothing..... here we are insisting upon doing it again...we cant just throw humanity into the air trying to remake it on the fly and come out ok.


EDIT: I have decided that Civility is at base not being kind and docile as many have it, that it is at base a willingness to work together. You will find an interesting few thoughts on civility at the link:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...kabee-sanders-red-hen-incident-starts-debate/



ANYWAYS, back the the thread: The Feminists are lying because they find it in the interest of their agenda to lie about the oppression of women both historically and currently. So many people believe it because people are willfully ignorant now, we believe what we want to believe, and for some reason that I have not quite put my finger on we want to believe that men suck.

I'll try to rephrase so that so I make more sense. I see it in terms of "We are strongest together when we volunteer our individual strengths, rather than trying to be good at things we're not." I agree it is hard work to want to work together, that is the agreement we make when we sign the social contract(figuratively speaking). On that same note, biology endows each of us with natural strengths, whether they are physical, mental or some combination of the two, and part of what determines that is our genders. So rather than me attempting to be the architect for example(because that would result in the bridge falling down), I would volunteer my skill of being big and dumb and able to carry heavy things in order to get the bridge built. It's not the most glamorous but we need to get the bridge built, not glamorously collapse it into the river. By the same token, many women may not see staying home with the kids as glamorous but no one who understands the importance of strong families in society should look down on upon women for staying home. Women just happen to be much much much better at having kids than us men are(sorry ladies).

I think your point about the lies of feminists goes back to one of my points on what we perceive as "powerful" or "glamorous." I've heard the arguments of "Men have all the fun, all the say, all the sex!!!" Well, yeah, we have a lot of that. We also account for the overwhelming majority of battlefield casualties, workplace injuries/stress and deaths, suicides, lost custody battles, longer prison sentences and homelessness, to name a few. I'd say it's a pretty fair trade off.

 

[MrMike]

Boys are taught to be aggressive, go after what they want, take leadership positions. Girls are taught to be patient and courteous.

It's not biological.

Nature (human physiology) and science illustrate the opposite. Hormones play a big role.

 

[ecofarm]

Nature (human physiology) and science illustrate the opposite. Hormones play a big role.

Boys are taught to be aggressive. Girls are taught to be passive. That's the difference.

 

[MrMike]

Boys are taught to be aggressive. Girls are taught to be passive. That's the difference.

Nature provides the internal combustion engine that pushes boys to be... boys. It also provides the reasoned nurturing nature that we (well, most of us) come to admire in women.

The other aspects (learned behavior) is just another factor in the mental development of each sex as they progress through life and mature. They are already fueled and programmed (mentally) for one path or another. When the programming goes wrong, therein is the issue of gender dysphoria which in itself is rather unfortunate.

You and I aren't in disagreement btw...

 

[ecofarm]

Nature provides the internal combustion engine that pushes boys to be... boys. It also provides the reasoned nurturing nature that we (well, most of us) come to admire in women.

The other aspects (learned behavior) is just another factor in the mental development of each sex as they progress through life and mature. They are already fueled and programmed (mentally) for one path or another. When the programming goes wrong, therein is the issue of gender dysphoria which in itself is rather unfortunate.

You and I aren't in disagreement btw...

Individual biology plays a role. Plenty of men are inclined to be passive. But what makes the difference between sexes, what creates the disparity in aggression, is socialization not biology.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'll try to rephrase so that so I make more sense. I see it in terms of "We are strongest together when we volunteer our individual strengths, rather than trying to be good at things we're not." I agree it is hard work to want to work together, that is the agreement we make when we sign the social contract(figuratively speaking). On that same note, biology endows each of us with natural strengths, whether they are physical, mental or some combination of the two, and part of what determines that is our genders. So rather than me attempting to be the architect for example(because that would result in the bridge falling down), I would volunteer my skill of being big and dumb and able to carry heavy things in order to get the bridge built. It's not the most glamorous but we need to get the bridge built, not glamorously collapse it into the river. By the same token, many women may not see staying home with the kids as glamorous but no one who understands the importance of strong families in society should look down on upon women for staying home. Women just happen to be much much much better at having kids than us men are(sorry ladies).

I think your point about the lies of feminists goes back to one of my points on what we perceive as "powerful" or "glamorous." I've heard the arguments of "Men have all the fun, all the say, all the sex!!!" Well, yeah, we have a lot of that. We also account for the overwhelming majority of battlefield casualties, workplace injuries/stress and deaths, suicides, lost custody battles, longer prison sentences and homelessness, to name a few. I'd say it's a pretty fair trade off.

Part of the problem is that my last post was a mess, I often do extensive edits as I try to add in quality but this time I did it very poorly, I ended up with a post that is partly incoherent.

"We are strongest together when we volunteer our individual strengths, rather than trying to be good at things we're not."

We get more done when everyone puts the skills that are most needed by the collective to work for the collective, but keeping the collective healthy is much more complicated than that. it is not just being good at something, it is the being fulfilled by doing that something, wanting to do that something, and being able to sustain the work at that something thus having the opportnity of getting good at it.

We have decided that we need 50% of the people doing STEM work to be women regardless of whether women are good at it or want to do it or are willing to stick with it for a lifetime and thus get really good at it. This is stupid, and is an example of what I think you are talking about about how we dont think things through....we dont care about the realities that get in the way of the fantasy we have in our heads (50% of stem geniuses will be women one day!"...we plow ahead trying to make humanity into our UTOPIAN DREAMS. So we spend a lot of time and money putting women into STEM careers only to see the vast majority of them leave the career usually early which the feminists point to and say "See, the women are leaving, they must be getting abused, we have to fix the career field!" but maybe they are leaving because they dont enjoy the work. Maybe they are leaving because it is too hard to do both a Stem career well and have kids because a STEM career is so demanding of their time because it has to be...this is not easy work. But the Feminists will hear none of that, if they do hear anyone talking about that then they get really pissy and insulting that the conversation is happening and they do what ever they can to shut down the conversation.

This "WE MUST HAVE 50/50!" dictate is really dumb, certainly you and I can agree on that.

 

[roughdraft274]

Boys are taught to be aggressive, go after what they want, take leadership positions. Girls are taught to be patient and courteous.

It's not biological.

I'm always amazed when someone seems so certain of something that is so absolutely hard to be certain of. Biology is complicated. Biology in regards to personality traits are complicated as ****. Saying that general personality traits have absolutely no biological basis is akin to saying "I'm going to believe this and I don't care about evidence or facts or reason."

Are you merely saying that it's not purely biological? Or that it's 'mostly' something we are taught? Or are you saying you are sure it has nothing to do with biology?