Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Return of Patriarchy

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Thu 18 Feb 2010, 03:25:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', ' ')evolution has been an utter waste of time; we should have stayed harmless alopecian monkeys.

A modern conceit is that we are in charge of our evolution. We are not.


Were you born as a product of rape? Most people weren't; most parents have this old fashioned esoteric notion called love involved in their creation.
(is love a conceit?)
I think you have a miserable view of humanity and are a deeply unhappy person.
If you think that loving peace means bending over and taking it from war loving neighbours you are sorely mistaken.
My personal view is that there is such a thing as intuition. Deep knowing and understanding. There is a time for all things under heaven. Your assumption that evil is the primary drive in humans flies in the face of logic and observable fact. Getting out of the way of evil is a function of humanity.
If you have some sick fantasy of everyone killing each other being the main factor in dieoff; that is your problem not mine or anyone elses here on this internet forum.
If you think that stuff is cool and the basis of human nature why are you wasting your time talking about it when you could be leading some brutal street gang or mountain militia.
If it comes down to it I will use every wicked instrument at my disposal to kill anyone in self defense, or in defence of my highly enlightened and peace loving band.
Then I will repent, do some ritual cleansing and go back to my natural highly evolved, peace loving band. The next day if necessary or at 3am I will again rise like a thunderbolt and kill if I must. Rinse and repeat.
I will not become a war lover/ worshipper of violence like you seem to be.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Pretorian » Thu 18 Feb 2010, 04:22:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') will not become a war lover/ worshipper of violence like you seem to be.


Doesnt seem like a worshipper to me. More like a realism lover, like somebody that know that pretty much everybody is born due to sex rather then to some metaphysical love.
Anyways, if everyone was so peace-loving hippi as you would want them to be , Call of Duty/Battlefield games would never get that kind of a funding.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Thu 18 Feb 2010, 07:06:19

I really don't give a hoot what miserable so called realists think or if they are a majority or any of that. I also don't have a lot of time for stoned out lazy so called hippies.
I very deliberately chose my wife and she feels the same about me; we have a daughter. There are an infinite number of reasons we should never have met, but we did. So the premise we have no control over our genes means precisely nothing to me.
Post modern existential semantics being used to deny the reality of others experience because it doesn't match ones own experience.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby AgentR » Thu 18 Feb 2010, 13:32:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'Y')our hairsplitting bores me.


As do your replies without meaningful content bore me. I only reply to insure that your mischaracterization of my remarks does not stand as the last comment.

It is true enough that there are more men than women who are well suited to meet the demands of a Western infantryman. However, such suitability is entirely irrelevant to the notion of social patriarchy. It is also true, and perhaps only marginally more relevant, that most women are entirely capable of delivering lethal violence to a large number of targets, given modern weapon technology.

These are not exclusive nor contradictory.

What I disagree with, is the tacit assumption made, that whichever gender happens to be best suited to the role of infantryman has any additional claim to the leadership roles within a community based upon that gender. Nothing you have stated lends any support to such an assertion.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Loki » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 01:30:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', 'W')hat I disagree with, is the tacit assumption made, that whichever gender happens to be best suited to the role of infantryman has any additional claim to the leadership roles within a community based upon that gender. Nothing you have stated lends any support to such an assertion.

It's "tacit" because I neither stated nor implied it. I'm simply making a point about which gender is better at a particular task, organized group violence. Why this would even be a question is really beyond me. History, science, and plain ol' common sense are all in strong agreement on this. Just goes to show how much feminism has brainwashed even conservative-leaning men like yourself. I can't stand this kind of willful stupidity by otherwise very intelligent people, hence my rather aggressive approach towards dispelling such patently ridiculous arguments.

But let's address the "tacit assumption" that you ascribed to me, since it is a valid topic. I don't think it's necessary that those who excel at group violence rule society, but this type of social organization has been widespread in the past, is currently widespread, and will certainly be widespread in the future. Natural selection and primate behavioral science explain why this is. But it's not universal, so we do have some wiggle room to try to prevent it. This can't happen unless we honestly assess reality as it is, not as we think it should be.

I don't see "strongman rule" to be a good thing, on the contrary. It's one reason I feel very strongly against state monopolization of violence and why I support the Second Amendment, the original intent of which was to distribute the power of violence as widely as possible in order to prevent tyranny.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Loki » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 01:40:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '[')i]weird mix of idiotic assumptions, violent chest-thumping, and new age nonsense


That was a pretty aggressive, hateful post for someone with so much love for humanity :roll:

Your daughter will inherit your violently aggressive tendencies, and so human evolution will continue along the path it's been on for hundreds of thousands of years. Thank you for proving my point so thoroughly.

As for the control over human evolution that you seem to think you exercise, I refer you to the documentary Idiocracy.
Last edited by Loki on Fri 19 Feb 2010, 01:44:04, edited 1 time in total.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Loki » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 01:42:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') will not become a war lover/ worshipper of violence like you seem to be.


Doesnt seem like a worshipper to me. More like a realism lover, like somebody that know that pretty much everybody is born due to sex rather then to some metaphysical love.
Anyways, if everyone was so peace-loving hippi as you would want them to be , Call of Duty/Battlefield games would never get that kind of a funding.

Bingo. Always nice to encounter a fellow realist. Seems we're a rare beast. Self-delusion has become a religion.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 01:54:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '
')I support the Second Amendment, the original intent of which was to distribute the power of violence as widely as possible in order to prevent tyranny.


Considering how many doomers feel we're already living in tyranny, I'd say that ship has sailed.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Loki » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 02:08:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '
')I support the Second Amendment, the original intent of which was to distribute the power of violence as widely as possible in order to prevent tyranny.


Considering how many doomers feel we're already living in tyranny, I'd say that ship has sailed.


Not just doomers. I also troll (ha!) a very conservative gun forum, and many there are convinced that Obama is actually Stalin incarnate. Seriously. Same level of paranoia that the far right had about Bush. I think Obama is doing a shit job, but a tyrant he is not, nor was Bush. I've studied the history of enough true tyrannies to know better.

The creeping tyranny is coming from corporations. The Second Amendment will be much less of a barrier against corporatist tyranny unfortunately.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby culicomorpha » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 02:42:45

Well this thread has gone pretty far astray from the original argument.

Let me restate my original contention, that there is little evidence supporting Last_Historian's claim that there will be a "return to patriarchy."

As far as I can tell, nobody has really challenged that point. There has been a lot of arguing over which is the "superior" gender, an argument I think is as pointless as it is stupid. None of you has the remotest knowledge of me, or what my background and perspective is on this topic. I am certainly not a "feminist" and frankly, I abhor many of the claims feminists make. I especially grate at their claim that "biology is not destiny," as if the differences between men and women simply don't exist. I don't believe that at all. I agree with many of the points made about male physical strength, and would go further, but I would be equally emphatic about strengths that women bring, despite the fact that some men here evidently think that women are little more than chattel.

I don't intend to minimize the differences between genders - on the contrary. I think that both men and women bring different things to the table, and that in a post-peak world, we will need both in order to make it through the difficult transition ahead.

But that is not the same thing as saying that "men are superior and will rule the world," or that "women are superior and will rule the world." When I stated that inner city violence is not a "good model," what I meant was that the context of the inner city does not apply to most other contexts, particularly distributed communities, meaning that as a model it simply does not offer much in the way of predictive power.

As to arguments that ICs have up to this point been largely abysmal failures, I have no argument. I have a friend that made a very perceptive observation that most of the people who get involved in ICs are strong personalities, have definite philosophical beliefs, and can be difficult to live with. What she noted was that the missing piece in many ICs is the "glue" that holds tribes together, namely people who aren't so strong, don't have rigid philosophical positions, and who are relatively easy to live with. These people for now are largely ignorant of the coming changes, but when they are forced by circumstance to find other arrangements for survival, they may well be the glue that enables ICs to thrive and develop into real viable communities.

But at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing much in the way of evidence suggesting that there will be a "return to patriarchy." Men and women may well have different roles, or there may be significant overlapping of roles. What I am suggesting is that women will have more power in terms of participating in decision-making than they have had heretofore. As the structures that have permitted men to "rule" their nuclear families through their breadwinner status break down, there will be a new equilibrium of power-sharing, and it will be tending towards women having more power. (Simply because up until recently, they have uniformly had less) I think this is relatively uncontroversial and well-supported by the available evidence. After all, any time there is an imbalance in power, there will be counter-acting forces causing a re-balancing of that power. That patriarchy lasted so long is quite amazing in my view, but as far as I can tell, it is coming to an end.
User avatar
culicomorpha
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: cascadia

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Ayame » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 04:39:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')Let me restate my original contention, that there is little evidence supporting Last_Historian's claim that there will be a "return to patriarchy."


In some parts of the world even in some parts of the USA the patriarchy is still alive and well. Visited any mormon ranches lately?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')What she noted was that the missing piece in many ICs is the "glue" that holds tribes together, namely people who aren't so strong, don't have rigid philosophical positions, and who are relatively easy to live with.


The main glue that is missing in modern day ICs is blood kinship.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')But at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing much in the way of evidence suggesting that there will be a "return to patriarchy." Men and women may well have different roles, or there may be significant overlapping of roles. What I am suggesting is that women will have more power in terms of participating in decision-making than they have had heretofore. As the structures that have permitted men to "rule" their nuclear families through their breadwinner status break down, there will be a new equilibrium of power-sharing, and it will be tending towards women having more power. (Simply because up until recently, they have uniformly had less) I think this is relatively uncontroversial and well-supported by the available evidence. After all, any time there is an imbalance in power, there will be counter-acting forces causing a re-balancing of that power. That patriarchy lasted so long is quite amazing in my view, but as far as I can tell, it is coming to an end.


Well I will have to disagree I'm afraid. Women will always be and have always been valuable members of society, however so are men and in a post peak hard landing scenario I foresee men banding together to form mutal defense organisations against other men for the protection of them and their families. Pregnant women won't possibly be able to fulfill this role, they will also find it inconvenient to pull night time guard duty if they are looking after children and collecting food. Men will therefore still retain a lot of power. Women will probably have more decision making power in the unstable environment but successively less as organisation reasserts itself. I don't know what evidence you are referring to for your viewpoint? And are you honestly basing your premise on the fact that women have uniformly had less in the past so in the future they will have to have more? Is that really what I am reading in your post or did you mean something else? Also, from history I have seen no indication that gender power tends to be rebalanced. Was it re-balanced at any point during the history of aboriginies? Not that I can see. I see rather that once patterns have been established they tend to remain. Also I don't see the patriarcy coming to an end. It will change and evolve but I can't see any evidence that it will come to a definite end in some sort of enlightened utopia cultural revolution.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Ayame » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 05:26:46

I must also say that I'm losing patience with the people saying that women can shoot just like men, work nearly as good as men etc. Yes I'm not denying they can do these things. I mean I was watching the vancouver snowboard half-pipe on TV yesterday and though the women don't get as high as the men they still perform some sweet tricks. In laboratory conditions women can nearly work as hard as men, can shoot just as well if not better but the problem is post peak oil society is not going to take place in laboratory settings. For one, as access to medicine declines so does access to contraception. Women are going to be spending more time being pregnant and child rearing by default because you can bet no one is going to stop having sex just because of peak oil. Therefore men are going to have to take up the slack while women are busy doing these things. Haven't you ever asked yourselves why Indian and chinese societies prefer sons to daughters? It's because the men traditionally support the family group (including grandparents) by doing the bulk of the agricultural work while the women tended the family. So however much a women would like to be a gun slinging plough pushing she-farmer she will be limited by her natural role as mother and child rearer.

Also I am a bit incredulous about the concept of 'choosing a social organisation'. As far as I know at no point in history have people sat down and democratically decided if they were going to be a patriarchy or matricarchy or agriculturists or nomads or hunter gatheres etc. It was all determined by necessity or by the people holding power in society. The underclass just had to suck up the outcome whether they liked it or not.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby culicomorpha » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 07:28:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')Let me restate my original contention, that there is little evidence supporting Last_Historian's claim that there will be a "return to patriarchy."

In some parts of the world even in some parts of the USA the patriarchy is still alive and well. Visited any mormon ranches lately?

Mormon ranches? No, I avoid them like the plague. As far as I know, most of them live in the desert, and when the water runs out, so will they. My point was not about any uniform patterns, in fact it was the opposite. I think there will be a variety of patterns attempted as circumstances change, but Last_Historian's claim was that there will be a "return to patriarchy," which I interpret to mean that almost all women will submit to men almost entirely, which I think was his intended meaning - correct me if I am misinterpreting LH.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')What she noted was that the missing piece in many ICs is the "glue" that holds tribes together, namely people who aren't so strong, don't have rigid philosophical positions, and who are relatively easy to live with.

The main glue that is missing in modern day ICs is blood kinship.

I don't know about blood kinship being all that strong. It's easy to make the claim, but I know an awful lot of people who a) can't stand their relatives, b) have been disowned, or c) have moved so far away that the relationships are largely meaningless. Maybe in a post-peak world that will change, but I suspect that once those bonds are broken, many will not be reformed. Then again, I don't have much hope for humans making it out of this century, so my view is somewhat limited.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')But at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing much in the way of evidence suggesting that there will be a "return to patriarchy." Men and women may well have different roles, or there may be significant overlapping of roles. What I am suggesting is that women will have more power in terms of participating in decision-making than they have had heretofore. As the structures that have permitted men to "rule" their nuclear families through their breadwinner status break down, there will be a new equilibrium of power-sharing, and it will be tending towards women having more power. (Simply because up until recently, they have uniformly had less) I think this is relatively uncontroversial and well-supported by the available evidence. After all, any time there is an imbalance in power, there will be counter-acting forces causing a re-balancing of that power. That patriarchy lasted so long is quite amazing in my view, but as far as I can tell, it is coming to an end.
Well I will have to disagree I'm afraid. Women will always be and have always been valuable members of society, however so are men and in a post peak hard landing scenario I foresee men banding together to form mutal defense organisations against other men for the protection of them and their families. Pregnant women won't possibly be able to fulfill this role, they will also find it inconvenient to pull night time guard duty if they are looking after children and collecting food. Men will therefore still retain a lot of power.
Why? I'm not following the logic here. Protection = power? Sounds like a racket to me. They have an interest in protecting their spouse and offspring. They made an investment and they are protecting their investment. Women do the same thing when they continue to feed their babies and care for them. A difference in roles doesn't translate into a power differential. And this is a pretty stark scenario. Very Mad Max, which, BTW, I think is a bit over the top, IMO. Disease and famine are much more likely to kill large numbers of humans in the (near) future.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '
') Women will probably have more decision making power in the unstable environment but successively less as organisation reasserts itself.
Why? I don't see any reasons given here. Because you are dependent upon a man for your protection you are willing to cede him all your power? Fine for you, but I don't think it proves a "return to patriarchy." I actually think in an unstable environment many women will have LESS power, because they will be driven by fear of physical harm, justified or not, and in a stable environment they will have more power, as the elimination of the threat of violence removes one of the primary roles men have to offer.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '
')I don't know what evidence you are referring to for your viewpoint?

My position is that there will be a more equal distribution of power viz-a-viz decision making authority, because the primary form of authority for most men derives from their breadwinner status. Given that that is now rapidly changing due to rising unemployment among traditionally male-dominated fields and increasing numbers of households with women as the primary breadwinners, it stands to reason that women will have more power when it comes to major decisions. Is this really so hard to comprehend?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '
')And are you honestly basing your premise on the fact that women have uniformly had less in the past so in the future they will have to have more? Is that really what I am reading in your post or did you mean something else?
Not exactly, but since you put it that way, let me ask the converse question. Since men have historically had more power, does it necessarily follow that they will, or should have more the future? If so, why?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '
')Also, from history I have seen no indication that gender power tends to be rebalanced. Was it re-balanced at any point during the history of aboriginies? Not that I can see. I see rather that once patterns have been established they tend to remain. Also I don't see the patriarcy coming to an end. It will change and evolve but I can't see any evidence that it will come to a definite end in some sort of enlightened utopia cultural revolution.
Well, as far as I can tell, these pendulum swings are very long in time. It seems clear that prior to the neolithic revolution, women had much more prominent roles in social policy and structure, and it does beg the question how they lasted so long, yet once men took over the show, how quickly, relatively speaking, they managed to muck things up. If you think that patriarchy is the way to go, and wish for a man to make all the decisions for you, by all means, do so. I'm not for it or against it. I just don't think that it's the way things are going to go in the near-term future, say for the next ten or twenty years. If things really go zombie-horde, then maybe that would change temporarily, but it certainly wouldn't be the form of patriarchy that many people take for granted as the natural state of things.
User avatar
culicomorpha
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: cascadia
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 07:33:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '[')i]weird mix of idiotic assumptions, violent chest-thumping, and new age nonsense


That was a pretty aggressive, hateful post for someone with so much love for humanity :roll:

Your daughter will inherit your violently aggressive tendencies, and so human evolution will continue along the path it's been on for hundreds of thousands of years. Thank you for proving my point so thoroughly.

As for the control over human evolution that you seem to think you exercise, I refer you to the documentary Idiocracy.


You have no point. You have not proven zip. Nothing you have said means men are naturally 'in charge'. I asked if you were the product of rape because in context it is a valid question. If you don't believe there is such a thing as love, or an inner world or intuition or that these intangibles have any influence; why don't you just come right out and say so instead of labelling me a 'new age wanker' for believing these not only exist but are primary influences on such things as gene passing and war?
As far as idiocracy goes you can put that where the sun don't shine. We live in an idiocracy right now. The film was about the natural devolution of the trajectory stupidity and democracy combined are taking politics; not about whether or not you or I have any influence on the gene pool.
Stating that I will fight to the death in paradox to my love of peace is in no way hatefull; far less so than your assertions re. the weakness of not being gung ho militant patriarchal war mongers.
Why don't you come right out of your semantic little shell and say what you really think?
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby culicomorpha » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 07:47:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I') must also say that I'm losing patience with the people saying that women can shoot just like men, work nearly as good as men etc.


You know what I find amazing? That a woman would argue for her own subjugation, that she would cede her power out of fear. Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me.
User avatar
culicomorpha
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: cascadia
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 07:50:33

Here is the question I ask myself frequently.

I work with teenagers regularly who give every appearance of being technology dependent. That is to say they believe life revolves around txt messaging and it is much more important to them than keeping a job. How are these people going to function if the technology stops? A few days of blackout and the batteries in all those portable devices will be dead. What type of culture will they form or join up with?

I think from my observations that the bullies will take over, at least in the beginning. If they become entrenched you have "instant Patriarchy, just remove technology", which is certainly not the world I would choose to live in.

Sure the 'independent' women of their own generation and the older generations will object, but there have always been a number of females in any group willing to go along to get along. So long as there are enough of that type to keep the bullies supplied their organization will appear to be a success, and that will encourage imitators on the fringes to join in and make it stronger.

Ultimately it will be a cultural competition to discover which if any social structure works best in a low technology situation. I would like to believe that the egalitarian ideals many have expressed here will prevail, however history tells us just how unlikely that is to happen.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 08:13:38

Nice post Tanada. My life experience though is that every dog (or bully) has his day. Also women often act out bullying behaviours.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Ayame » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 09:16:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')I don't know about blood kinship being all that strong. It's easy to make the claim, but I know an awful lot of people who a) can't stand their relatives, b) have been disowned, or c) have moved so far away that the relationships are largely meaningless. Maybe in a post-peak world that will change, but I suspect that once those bonds are broken, many will not be reformed. Then again, I don't have much hope for humans making it out of this century, so my view is somewhat limited.


Blood kinship is the strongest bond in nature that there is. Tell me if an axe welding member of another group dropped by would you have more faith in an unrelated man running to your defense (rather than running away) or someone who was related to you through blood, your uncle for example?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')Why? I'm not following the logic here. Protection = power? Sounds like a racket to me. They have an interest in protecting their spouse and offspring. They made an investment and they are protecting their investment. Women do the same thing when they continue to feed their babies and care for them. A difference in roles doesn't translate into a power differential. And this is a pretty stark scenario. Very Mad Max, which, BTW, I think is a bit over the top, IMO. Disease and famine are much more likely to kill large numbers of humans in the (near) future.


On the contrary a difference in gender roles often leads to power differential in societies. If men generate and control the means of wealth and subsistence through their gender roles then they will have more power and control over women and vica versa. It's no coincidence that wife abuse happens more frequently in societies where men are the primary food generators.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', ' ')Women will probably have more decision making power in the unstable environment but successively less as organisation reasserts itself.

Why? I don't see any reasons given here. Because you are dependent upon a man for your protection you are willing to cede him all your power? Fine for you, but I don't think it proves a "return to patriarchy." I actually think in an unstable environment many women will have LESS power, because they will be driven by fear of physical harm, justified or not, and in a stable environment they will have more power, as the elimination of the threat of violence removes one of the primary roles men have to offer.

No not because women will cede power for protection rather because as social organisation begins to reassert itself men will band together like they always have. If they control the means of subsistence which usually happens in an agriculturally labour intense society they will organise society so that it re-enforces their dominance. In an unstable environment men will have no choice but to cooperate fully with women and not restrict them in any way with everyone doing whatever it takes just so that everyone can survive.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', ' ')I don't know what evidence you are referring to for your viewpoint? My position is that there will be a more equal distribution of power viz-a-viz decision making authority, because the primary form of authority for most men derives from their breadwinner status. Given that that is now rapidly changing due to rising unemployment among traditionally male-dominated fields and increasing numbers of households with women as the primary breadwinners, it stands to reason that women will have more power when it comes to major decisions. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

My argument is that men will still be the breadwinner but in a different way. They will not go to work in a suit, they will go to work yoked to a plough instead.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', ' ')And are you honestly basing your premise on the fact that women have uniformly had less in the past so in the future they will have to have more? Is that really what I am reading in your post or did you mean something else?

Not exactly, but since you put it that way, let me ask the converse question. Since men have historically had more power, does it necessarily follow that they will, or should have more the future? If so, why?
Simply because the dynamics and fundamentals of agricultural civilisations tend to stay the same and looking at the past it appears the most successful arrangement in agricultural societies is for men to work and defend the land while the women care for the family. If it hadn’t been the most successful arrangement then I would expect some historical evidence such as a great civilisation where the women could be observed to be ploughing for the family whilst breast feeding and maybe a female army ransacking the countryside instead of a male one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', 'W')ell, as far as I can tell, these pendulum swings are very long in time. It seems clear that prior to the neolithic revolution, women had much more prominent roles in social policy and structure, and it does beg the question how they lasted so long, yet once men took over the show, how quickly, relatively speaking, they managed to muck things up. If you think that patriarchy is the way to go, and wish for a man to make all the decisions for you, by all means, do so. I'm not for it or against it. I just don't think that it's the way things are going to go in the near-term future, say for the next ten or twenty years. If things really go zombie-horde, then maybe that would change temporarily, but it certainly wouldn't be the form of patriarchy that many people take for granted as the natural state of things.
Well I guess I hold the opposite viewpoint. In the short term if things go zombie horde I think women will have much freedom as everything will be so chaotic that men will have to cooperate with women and not dominate them just for everyone to survive. I feel that it is later on when society reverts to agricultural civilisation that the male power structures will elaborately established themselves. I would just like to say that I wouldn’t enjoy male domination or control any more than the next woman, however I would accept curtailment of gender role opportunities in exchange for male protection. I feel that this would be a strategically tactical decision as it would allow me to follow the roles most attuned to my biology as well as minimising exposure to organised bloodshed and violence. Also, mucking things up was due to unsustainable use of resources, a trait which is not exclusively male.
Last edited by Ayame on Fri 19 Feb 2010, 09:25:36, edited 1 time in total.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby Ayame » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 09:19:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I') must also say that I'm losing patience with the people saying that women can shoot just like men, work nearly as good as men etc.


You know what I find amazing? That a woman would argue for her own subjugation, that she would cede her power out of fear. Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me.


Too bad you didn't take my sentence in the context of the whole post. Your loss.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: The Return of Patriarchy

Unread postby rangerone314 » Fri 19 Feb 2010, 10:23:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') will not become a war lover/ worshipper of violence like you seem to be.


Doesnt seem like a worshipper to me. More like a realism lover, like somebody that know that pretty much everybody is born due to sex rather then to some metaphysical love.
Anyways, if everyone was so peace-loving hippi as you would want them to be , Call of Duty/Battlefield games would never get that kind of a funding.

Oooo I have BF2 and CoD4, I excel at them! Use every dirty rotten trick that there is to plug people. Its so much more fun to fight human players than computer players.

Like a player was from Serbia and I taunted him with "Long live Kosovo" (Kosovo had just gotten independence from Serbia) and I told him that not all Kosovars hate Serbs, in fact I love Serbian women enough to have several illegitimate children with them. He kept coming after me and I mowed him down 8 times :P

People are angry, mutated chimps. Sometimes before I get on I-95 to drive, I watch the brief Youtube video of a chimp trying to get sex from a frog, and remind myself that what I will be driving next to is like 98% genetically similar to that chimp. After that its really hard to get angry at the stupid things I see.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron