Why is patriarchy so pervasive? I search for answers with cognitive anthropologist Angarika Deb. You can either listen to our full conversation or just keep reading for the main highlights
Not a bad piece at all, but lacking in some respects - and having "Despite her young career, produced tons of interesting articles on gender inequality around the world" - Is not a ringing endorsement of her scientific rigor.
To take one example - "During the so-called “Y-chromosome bottleneck”, the genetic legacy of men and women started showing very different patterns, with fewer and fewer men monopolising mating."
What do you think happened to the rest of the men? Those who did not spread their genes? Before slavery was instituted, they were just killed off. This reminds me of the famous/infamous Hillary Clinton quote on war: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
Maybe -- but maybe not! We don't know what happened to the other men. The reference is clear on this. You don't need to read beyond the title to get the gist ;)
Anyway, this is tangential to the argument. Whether violence was involved or not, something big happened in regard to mating. As I try to articulate this in the episode "it doesn't prove anything, but it suggests that there was a time before and a time after."
Sorry to Angarika if my words "don't sound like a ringing endorsement"! It's really special that someone produces this amount of high-quality research during their PhD. I think she's great!
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this one. I believe that the "oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy when it comes to sex/gender is largely unhelpful and dividing. Further I believe that this is especially harmful to young men in general, and to large parts of working class men who were never privileged. But still get blameed for oppression and privilege. Which in some cases makes these men, by principle, distance themselves from everyone, party or i dividual, who make these claims.
If I "researched" how female sovereigns historically sent young men into war, into the mines and into slavery, and then used these (admitedly few) examples as proof of societal misandry I think most people rightfully would take issue with that.
Anyway, this is a large topic that better people than me have grappled with. I am sure you are familiar with tha works of David C. Geary, Joyce Benenson and perhaps Mads Larsen. To me, their explanations/reseaerch better addresses these issues.
I understand the concern. I'm not sure how relevant it is for this macro historical discussion, though. During historic times, the male bias in political and economic power was simply overwhelming. (This certainly didn't produce a mass of happy and jolly men who lived long and healthy lives. You are right about that!)
So, Patriarchy because US the best way to organise societies. As It produces more outspring and more soldiers in the next cohort.
Patriarchies instead of being bad It what allow avancement of the society and has allowed US to arrice here.
Matriarchy instead is substitute by Patriarchy because it does not provide outspring.
Like the Western World right now, which is looking feet to the East. Look at fertility rates: none of them are replacemebt level. And if you look at local women, Its even worst.
We can allow women not having kids because webhave a Patriarchy that produces It nd send them in form of emigration. But this ultimately leads to replacemebt of the local Matriarchy population. So, the Matriarchy is not sustainable. Only for a few time It can live in the basis of importing kids from abroad.
When hoy Kill men and mens industries (as de have made with our factories) you Kill the entire society.
Ib 20 years, the G7 Will not longer be relevant. Only the US Will barely stands (and we will see).
Herr you have the reason of why the Patriarchy is so resistance: because its the best societal orgsnistion.
Personally, I'd like to see a different world — not patriarchal or matriarchal, but a world where men and women respect each other as equals. You might enjoy it, too. It makes life more enjoyable for everyone! 😉
Ref: "Gender equality improves life satisfaction for men and women."
My mother was a stay at home mom. Is that not respect?
Is respecting women arguing against trad wifes?
Is respecting men gender quotas where there are lessbwomen, but not when men are underreprsed like the Uni orbtesching or doctors or nurses?
Is respecting men having a female agenda that does not take into account any male agenda?
Is resoecting men ignoring IPV against males?
Is respecting males talking about toxic masculinity as if women cannot be toxic?
Is respecting males the "Kill All Males"? (Feminism has proposed the biggest genocide ever?).
Is respecting boys and girls allowing 100000s of killing (abortion) babies? (feminism has also committed the biggest genocide ever).
Is respecting men putting 100000s of millions in female agenda?
Is respecting males having a female health while men have lower Life expectancy?
Is respecting males being them 90% of work casualties?
Is respecting boys being concerned about the math gender gap but giving a shit about the reading and education gender gap that disadvantages boys?
Is respecting males that the World Bank think that males cannot be dissdvantaged and only females can (gender gaps are measures to 1, and can never exceed 1)?
Is respecting boys not allowing BOYS Scouts BUT allowing GIRLS Scouts?
Is respecting men not allowing paternity tests in France?
Is respecting males making a fuss because they EU comission has 60% males... While at the same time the top 3 possitions in the EU are females??
Is gender equality moving all the factories and masculinisedvwork to China (and Poland and Marroco) while no giving any help to men?
In Iceland males are only 70% at the Uni and still have 90% of work casualties. Is respecting males that women goes into a protest because they earn a bit less? Really? Im dying 5 years ealier and do you think men should be concerned about women earning some euros less per hour for a job that is less risky?
Curious that you dont want to speak about a Matriarchy when It was a absolute scientific reality the Patriarchy.
Perhaps the problem is that you and the gender equality defenders have mess things so much and discriminated men so much in the past 20 years... Thats now we have learnt your neo language you are afraid that we use It. Because that will show that you were wrong.
ALL the gender gaps will shorty be for the dissdvantage of males in the EU (in Luxemburg they already are). ALL of them.
This study you mention btw confuses correlation with causation. Its propaganda. Males are better in more advanced societies (logic) AND thats allow more gender equality. Women dont work in messy factories, so when you change messy factories men get better... And there is more gender equality.
Btw, the gender gap in suicides is bigger in Sweden than in Turkey or China. So males commit less suicides in more Patriarcal societies. Would you mention that too?
Furthermore, is this study like the one of McKinsey that argued that more females in Board will bost the economy and performance? That study that nobody could ever reproduced and was based in a list of companies that remains undisclosed?
Btw, the EU is more gender equal than the US and China. And we are lagging behing, FAR behind!! Basically, because we have killed all masculinised work. And when you actually Kill men egonomically, other men surpassed Looking for correlation, does this means that gender equality means lagging behind in economy? Surely, yes.
And you know what? I AM in favour of gender equality if all happens because of the free will of the persons. BUT I am against Gender Equality when this comes from a political agenda ofnthe Government and lobbies with 1000000 of euros behind.
No! The reality is what a feminist friend told me: "The political purpose is to put men in such a bad possition that they have to beg for equality".
She is a high politician in Spain.
The only flow in her argument is that men vote. And we will vote. Against people like you.
Excellent stuff!
Not a bad piece at all, but lacking in some respects - and having "Despite her young career, produced tons of interesting articles on gender inequality around the world" - Is not a ringing endorsement of her scientific rigor.
To take one example - "During the so-called “Y-chromosome bottleneck”, the genetic legacy of men and women started showing very different patterns, with fewer and fewer men monopolising mating."
What do you think happened to the rest of the men? Those who did not spread their genes? Before slavery was instituted, they were just killed off. This reminds me of the famous/infamous Hillary Clinton quote on war: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
Maybe -- but maybe not! We don't know what happened to the other men. The reference is clear on this. You don't need to read beyond the title to get the gist ;)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47618-5.pdf
Anyway, this is tangential to the argument. Whether violence was involved or not, something big happened in regard to mating. As I try to articulate this in the episode "it doesn't prove anything, but it suggests that there was a time before and a time after."
Sorry to Angarika if my words "don't sound like a ringing endorsement"! It's really special that someone produces this amount of high-quality research during their PhD. I think she's great!
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this one. I believe that the "oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy when it comes to sex/gender is largely unhelpful and dividing. Further I believe that this is especially harmful to young men in general, and to large parts of working class men who were never privileged. But still get blameed for oppression and privilege. Which in some cases makes these men, by principle, distance themselves from everyone, party or i dividual, who make these claims.
If I "researched" how female sovereigns historically sent young men into war, into the mines and into slavery, and then used these (admitedly few) examples as proof of societal misandry I think most people rightfully would take issue with that.
Anyway, this is a large topic that better people than me have grappled with. I am sure you are familiar with tha works of David C. Geary, Joyce Benenson and perhaps Mads Larsen. To me, their explanations/reseaerch better addresses these issues.
I understand the concern. I'm not sure how relevant it is for this macro historical discussion, though. During historic times, the male bias in political and economic power was simply overwhelming. (This certainly didn't produce a mass of happy and jolly men who lived long and healthy lives. You are right about that!)
So, Patriarchy because US the best way to organise societies. As It produces more outspring and more soldiers in the next cohort.
Patriarchies instead of being bad It what allow avancement of the society and has allowed US to arrice here.
Matriarchy instead is substitute by Patriarchy because it does not provide outspring.
Like the Western World right now, which is looking feet to the East. Look at fertility rates: none of them are replacemebt level. And if you look at local women, Its even worst.
We can allow women not having kids because webhave a Patriarchy that produces It nd send them in form of emigration. But this ultimately leads to replacemebt of the local Matriarchy population. So, the Matriarchy is not sustainable. Only for a few time It can live in the basis of importing kids from abroad.
When hoy Kill men and mens industries (as de have made with our factories) you Kill the entire society.
Ib 20 years, the G7 Will not longer be relevant. Only the US Will barely stands (and we will see).
Herr you have the reason of why the Patriarchy is so resistance: because its the best societal orgsnistion.
Personally, I'd like to see a different world — not patriarchal or matriarchal, but a world where men and women respect each other as equals. You might enjoy it, too. It makes life more enjoyable for everyone! 😉
Ref: "Gender equality improves life satisfaction for men and women."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/08/24/gender-equality-improves-life-satisfaction-for-men-and-women/
My mother was a stay at home mom. Is that not respect?
Is respecting women arguing against trad wifes?
Is respecting men gender quotas where there are lessbwomen, but not when men are underreprsed like the Uni orbtesching or doctors or nurses?
Is respecting men having a female agenda that does not take into account any male agenda?
Is resoecting men ignoring IPV against males?
Is respecting males talking about toxic masculinity as if women cannot be toxic?
Is respecting males the "Kill All Males"? (Feminism has proposed the biggest genocide ever?).
Is respecting boys and girls allowing 100000s of killing (abortion) babies? (feminism has also committed the biggest genocide ever).
Is respecting men putting 100000s of millions in female agenda?
Is respecting males having a female health while men have lower Life expectancy?
Is respecting males being them 90% of work casualties?
Is respecting boys being concerned about the math gender gap but giving a shit about the reading and education gender gap that disadvantages boys?
Is respecting males that the World Bank think that males cannot be dissdvantaged and only females can (gender gaps are measures to 1, and can never exceed 1)?
Is respecting boys not allowing BOYS Scouts BUT allowing GIRLS Scouts?
Is respecting men not allowing paternity tests in France?
Is respecting males making a fuss because they EU comission has 60% males... While at the same time the top 3 possitions in the EU are females??
Is gender equality moving all the factories and masculinisedvwork to China (and Poland and Marroco) while no giving any help to men?
In Iceland males are only 70% at the Uni and still have 90% of work casualties. Is respecting males that women goes into a protest because they earn a bit less? Really? Im dying 5 years ealier and do you think men should be concerned about women earning some euros less per hour for a job that is less risky?
Curious that you dont want to speak about a Matriarchy when It was a absolute scientific reality the Patriarchy.
Perhaps the problem is that you and the gender equality defenders have mess things so much and discriminated men so much in the past 20 years... Thats now we have learnt your neo language you are afraid that we use It. Because that will show that you were wrong.
ALL the gender gaps will shorty be for the dissdvantage of males in the EU (in Luxemburg they already are). ALL of them.
This study you mention btw confuses correlation with causation. Its propaganda. Males are better in more advanced societies (logic) AND thats allow more gender equality. Women dont work in messy factories, so when you change messy factories men get better... And there is more gender equality.
Btw, the gender gap in suicides is bigger in Sweden than in Turkey or China. So males commit less suicides in more Patriarcal societies. Would you mention that too?
Furthermore, is this study like the one of McKinsey that argued that more females in Board will bost the economy and performance? That study that nobody could ever reproduced and was based in a list of companies that remains undisclosed?
Btw, the EU is more gender equal than the US and China. And we are lagging behing, FAR behind!! Basically, because we have killed all masculinised work. And when you actually Kill men egonomically, other men surpassed Looking for correlation, does this means that gender equality means lagging behind in economy? Surely, yes.
And you know what? I AM in favour of gender equality if all happens because of the free will of the persons. BUT I am against Gender Equality when this comes from a political agenda ofnthe Government and lobbies with 1000000 of euros behind.
No! The reality is what a feminist friend told me: "The political purpose is to put men in such a bad possition that they have to beg for equality".
She is a high politician in Spain.
The only flow in her argument is that men vote. And we will vote. Against people like you.
Best.