The Norse people, which all modern concept of is man driven, was actually pretty egalitarian too.
Not perfect but women had a lot more rights than say, 1900 america.
Discussion
I have a hypotheses; we tend to equate violence with leadership. So when we see men in the armies, we assume that means men were the leaders. Which is in part true. No doubt in a world run by violence the most violent will rule. But why do we assume that a civilization has to be run by violence?
it doesn't.
and yet many who rail against "indoctrination" fundamentally believe that violence is a fait accompli
I can't seem to find the video now but it described why we see patriarchies everywhere and nearly 0 true matriarchies.
Simply put, to know lineage without genetic testing men need to control their women, women do not. Since it isn't necessary for lineage women don't bother to control men in matriarchies. That leaves the men of their society the freedom to wander off and do something else rather than stick around a place where they are subservient and have no real rights. If they disliked the matriarchy enough to leave it they are going to switch up the rules at their new tribe 1 watering hole over.
I'm not arguing patriarchy is right. I am just dedicated to understanding the truth of the world around us. Patriarchy is more socially stable (in the sense of the way society is structured stays the same not necessarily the quality of stability inside that sodlciety) for some reason. Any plan to fix society in any way built on denial of basic facts like sexual dimorphism is doomed to fail.
What is disappointing is that digging up facts for maximal understanding of the reality of how we got here gets you kicked out of both camps. They want to win more than they want a better society.
As for violence, I absolutely believe that violence or the threat of violence is always looming in every human interaction. We are animals competing for scarce resources. Look at repeated prisoners dilemma, optimal algorithms cooperate until the opponent defects, then seek revenge, then return to cooperation after getting revenge. As an anarchist my complaint is that we outsource our violence to the government. It allows people to pretend that violence isn't there and they didn't demand it with their vote. Again, by denying the facts of the world around us we are making the world worse. Take away the distance and make people personally responsible for their violence in society and I think most would chicken out.
There are bits of truth in there. Yes I do think patriarchy came about in part as an attempt to control women’s bodies in order to establish male linage. There is a strong link between patriarchy and the importance placed on monogamy. Interestingly in hunter gatherer tribes patriarchy is not the norm, and in many groups monogamy isn’t the norm either. ...don’t forget we are all part Bonobo. Bonobos are a very friendly group!
“Patriarchy is more socially stable” what evidence might there be for this? These egalitarian civilizations Çatalhöyük, the Indus Valley civilization, the Minoan civilization, etc. all lasted 1000+ yrs. That seems pretty stable to me.
“Any plan to fix society in any way built on denial of basic facts like sexual dimorphism is doomed to fail.” Not sure what you mean, but certainly denying the reality of biology isn’t going to help anything. Why does this come up for you?
“What is disappointing is that digging up facts for maximal understanding of the reality of how we got here gets you kicked out of both camps. They want to win more than they want a better society.” I’m not sure what ‘both camps’ are here, but yes, humans have some lingering issues with this tribal thinking.
“As for violence, I absolutely believe that violence or the threat of violence is always looming in every human interaction.” I would suggest you find better friends! Certainly violence it’s a factor in a lot of interactions. I would know, I'm a woman that walks around cities by herself… but is that how we should arrange our civilization? Is that what we want? If so why not go rejoin some Chimpanzee troops? ...don’t forget we are all part Chimpanzee. Chimps are a very violent group!
It would seem that patriarchy is not at all the norm in human history, but we experienced quite a lot of in it in the past few thousand years. And so the question is, why?
It’s complex, but the TLDR is violence and pregnancy! I wrote a bit about it here, https://hannahmr.com/an-answer-to-red-pilldom/#patriarchy-natural
You are mixing things up from what I said. Societies can be egalitarian, patriarchal, or matriarchal. A long lived egalitarian society isn't disproof of greater social structure stability in patriarchal societies than matriarchal ones.
Back to the repeated prisoners dilemma. Cooperate first is the ideal outcome. I'm pro cooperation. The society that is really cooperating is egalitarian.
You may desperately want it to be another way, but the high time preference win for men is to use their power to take control. I take control and now I get more power and control today. The long term costs are fuzzy possibilities like what if a woman was going to invent something cool but now can't because me and the other men took the resources and control away from her?
Egalitarian societies should be workable long term given the right conditions. Matriarchal society is just a different but still horrible place. Because feminists are the winners they still cheer for matriarchy because they get to be the winner.
You may disagree, but try being a man doing a service call in an all female business sometime. Crassness, leering, sexual harrasment, cruelty when they get turned down, I've been through all of it. Women definitely need men around to remain civilized every bit as much as men need women.
are you equating feminism with being pro matriarchy?
do you think I'm out here trying to say that women are better than men?
I think a large percentage of self declared feminists are pro matriarchy but not all.
It's that self declared part that's interesting. It might be that a large percentage of the loud "feminists" in your social media feed support matriarchy. We need to remember that most humans aren't loud on social media. So I would think that in actuality of the people that would respond "yes" when asked if they are a feminist, only a very tiny percentage of those people would also say yes they support matriarchy.
also, how would you define feminism? What does that word mean to you?
I suspect If I started throwing around the word masculinity and synonyms a lot in a positive light, it would set off your Spidey sense as a woman. Your level of reaction may vary but at least a little part of you would start to think I was a possible Andrew Tate or similar heman woman haters club wannabe.
That's where I sit on the word feminist as a man. It isn't a done deal but I've been burned enough times to definitely see it as something to be on guard around.
I don't know if either word can really be redeemed at this point. Dictionary still says one thing but that is definitely not a perfect record of how it is used.
it's it fair to have your spidey senses tingle at those words. but that isn't what I asked.
I get the sense that you are more interested in venting. So I'm going to duck out now.
Not trying to vent at you, sorry. I clearly didn't express my idea in a way that made sense to you.
Words are a layer on top of feelings and ideas to try to allow us to share those feelings with others who can't directly experience our internal state.
Dictionary definitions are another layer of abstraction on top of the words to attempt to document our collective agreed uses.
Both layers of abstraction, and the beliefs of the dictionary writer, and the companies editing policy for mass sales all add errors in the final result in the dictionary.
I skipped all those errors and gave an explanation of what I feel when I see a person I don't know use the word.
No one is strictly hewing to the definition of any word internally, we all feel first. So if I want to talk about trying to encourage a healthy concept of masculinity I have to be very careful about my choice of words because people like Tate have been pissing in that pool for ages. For the most part, males in the audience aren't going to feel that tingle on masculinity talk but women will.
If I'm really trying to build a future that is better and more fair for everyone I can't do that with an all male audience and all male ideas. I need everyones input to arrive at a solution that actually serves everyone. So I need to talk about masculinity in a way that doesn't chase away all the women.
I see you writing and you seem to be trying to express an idea that women should be women but that doesn't mean just pretending there is no difference between men and women and it doesn't mean following outdated stereotypes that were put on to women without their say.
As a dad to girls and a volunteer in a children's program, I want that for the little girls I spend time with. I also want a healthy concept of what it is to be a man for the boys in my life. So I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about what that means for both of them and how to teach it.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I wanted to share a landmine I spotted with a fellow person I see out there who seems to be persuing a common goal.
I think in general we would agree about language and the impact of certain words. Indeed Tate and others in that crew have really tarnished the word ‘masculinity’ just as other angry people on social media have tarnished the word ‘feminism’.
This is why when we use these words we need to be careful to know our audience or to define them clearly. Below are my definitions.
Feminist: Someone who wants to achieve a world built for and lead by women just as much as it is built for and lead by men.
Masculinity: There really isn’t such a thing as ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity’, there is only biology and how we manage it. A ‘good man’ or a ‘good woman’ is simply someone who is doing a good job managing the benefits and burdens of their biology. So for men, who are generally physically bigger and stronger, and who don’t get pregnant, managing that well means things like… protecting those physically weaker, not walking away from a pregnancy they caused even though they could, etc.
“I see you writing and you seem to be trying to express an idea that women should be women” that was not my intent. I’m curious how I gave you this impression.
Do you mean that women should be men?
What I meant by women should be women is that they should do a good job managing the benefits and burdens of their biology.
well of course.
So look at this note you wrote. I would like a world where masculine meant managing the pros and cons of being a man well and feminine meant managing the pros and cons of being a woman well.
In the world we live in an apparently reasonable man and woman simply used the words and all hell broke loose, see our conversation above.
Now remember my use case here is largely with a mixed gender group of children whose parents are watching. I have to assume that stove is hot at all times and find another way to guide those kids towards becoming decent adults.
I started this conversation with you because I'm a dude. I'd love to see a woman address this in a way I can use to learn more about the other perspective.
Okay.
...when did all hell break loose?
Well you threatened to walk away once and it has been how many posts of pedantry and still I don't know if you grasped what I set out to express.
Not the worst conversation on the internet but definitely chaos compared to the nostr average interaction "bitcoin good" "I agree bitcoin good"
O you thought all hell broke loose in our conversation?
...are you new to the internet? 🤪
Saying 'no thanks' isn't hell breaking loose. This is a very calm reasonable convo for any setting really.
Not new to the internet, just in nostr mode where I just say I hate the government and love bitcoin and everyone comments to tell me they agree with everything I think.