$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')That might have worked back in the stone age, but women can shoot just as well, if not better than men.
PeakOil is You
The Return of Patriarchy
Re: The Endgame Begins
by Loki » Mon 15 Feb 2010, 23:31:18
Has that ever really been tested in the field, aside from Annie Oakley? I don't think so. Being willing to pull the trigger and besting a raiding party in a firefight are two different things.
I've competed in precision rifle and trap shooting and I know for a fact that women can be just at good at shooting as men. I've been outshot by a woman on more than one occasion, with both rifles and shotguns.
That said, I've also studied martial arts for quite a few years and have had many women in my classes. Almost without exception, they just can't compete against men, especially in the more practical styles I've studied (kickboxing, judo, arnis). Men are usually bigger and stronger, and almost always more aggressive and want to win more. The bigger, stronger combatant with a fierce fighting spirit will usually win, even if the smaller combatant has better skills. Sexual dimorphism in primates suggests that this will be the male in most cases. Human history overwhelmingly confirms this, even after the invention of the firearm.
Combat is more than shooting firearms precisely in a competition scenario. It's mostly about fighting spirit and the ability to destroy your opponent as aggressively and violently as possible. Men will always have the edge in this. This is not rocket science, anybody with a rational, fair mind unclouded by feminist ideology can easily understand why this is.
A garden will make your rations go further.
-
Loki - Expert
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: The Return of Patriarchy
by Loki » Mon 15 Feb 2010, 23:54:10
I've read through this thread and it seems the various posters are talking past each other. No demarcation of basic assumptions has been attempted. Do we agree on the definition of patriarchy? Has such a thing actually existed? What is the time frame? A week from now? A century from now?
I would suggest that contemporary understanding of the term patriarchy is primary ideological, as opposed to empirical. It is a straw man for feminist ideologues more than it is a useful social scientific term. I find it to too laden and too simplistic.
What the vast majority of historical cultures have practiced is what we might call "separate spherism." Men's work and women's work, sometimes overlapping, but generally different and complementary to each other. This is anathema to modern feminism, which assumes that equality = homogeneity. But separate sphere does not mean unequal. It does not mean patriarchy. Anthropologist Lillian Ackerman has made a very convincing argument about this in her analysis of Columbia Plateau Native groups, which she found to have a quite equitable gender power balance despite the separate spheres of men's and women's work. Others have made similar arguments about other traditional societies. This will be difficult for many Americans to accept, largely because of our shameful record of race relations (the specious "separate but equal" argument of Jim Crowists).
Will our society embrace separate spheres as a legitimate way to organize work again? Not in a week. Not in a year. Maybe in ten years, grudgingly. Very possibly in a hundred. My crystal ball is in the shop, so I can't say, but it seems well within the realm of possibility, especially if we "revert" / progress back to a smaller scale farming-based economy like many here believe we will.
I personally don't think separate spherism is a bad thing per se. I'll pass on the warlordism, though, thanks very much.
I would suggest that contemporary understanding of the term patriarchy is primary ideological, as opposed to empirical. It is a straw man for feminist ideologues more than it is a useful social scientific term. I find it to too laden and too simplistic.
What the vast majority of historical cultures have practiced is what we might call "separate spherism." Men's work and women's work, sometimes overlapping, but generally different and complementary to each other. This is anathema to modern feminism, which assumes that equality = homogeneity. But separate sphere does not mean unequal. It does not mean patriarchy. Anthropologist Lillian Ackerman has made a very convincing argument about this in her analysis of Columbia Plateau Native groups, which she found to have a quite equitable gender power balance despite the separate spheres of men's and women's work. Others have made similar arguments about other traditional societies. This will be difficult for many Americans to accept, largely because of our shameful record of race relations (the specious "separate but equal" argument of Jim Crowists).
Will our society embrace separate spheres as a legitimate way to organize work again? Not in a week. Not in a year. Maybe in ten years, grudgingly. Very possibly in a hundred. My crystal ball is in the shop, so I can't say, but it seems well within the realm of possibility, especially if we "revert" / progress back to a smaller scale farming-based economy like many here believe we will.
I personally don't think separate spherism is a bad thing per se. I'll pass on the warlordism, though, thanks very much.
A garden will make your rations go further.
-
Loki - Expert
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: The Return of Patriarchy
by Ayame » Tue 16 Feb 2010, 03:02:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') guess we can wait and see, saying "I don't mind giving up my freedom for protection" 
Or we can look at other models and see what is successful. I'm hoping people will not simply default to what they have been taught is the way to live, instead of looking at options.
Or we can look at other models and see what is successful. I'm hoping people will not simply default to what they have been taught is the way to live, instead of looking at options.My first question would be that if other models were so successful why is it that most of them (until relatively recently) were superseded by the cultures of patriarchy where women were viewed as inferior (islam, christianity, hindu etc.)? This must itself show that they weren't successful enough to come out on top in the competition between social organisations.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat if most of the men decided "times are tough" and patriarchy is the way forward? How would the group keep these types of men from grabbing power and turning the group into a chiefdom?
I think this is very important. I don't know what could stop them. What could stop them from invoking divine justification for their premise as well? In history many things are done through greed and might to benefit those on top not because everyone discussed it and came to a consensus that suited everyone's needs.
I guess I'm just being pragmatic. Personally I'll say it again I wouldn't mind losing some freedom (hell there have been many suicides by women who just couldn't cope juggling work and rasing children at the same time) in exchange for not having to go on forced marches with no hygiene etc. and defend the border or homestead every time barbarians or pillagers threatened (with the risk of getting an arrow or bullet in the eye etc.) and for having priority for evacuation in case things got really bad.
Last edited by Ayame on Tue 16 Feb 2010, 03:15:38, edited 1 time in total.
- Ayame
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: UK
