by 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.