do you believe in the patriarchy?

Although, I have a feeling I may have overlooked something obvious with your theory, I can't put my finger on it.

'The most obvious reason for selecting a smaller, slighter mate is that she is easier to overpower.

Thus, the 'rules' of evolutionary sexual selection would suggest that the male selected partners based on the ease of raping them.'

Garlic, what if shorty is prettier, therefore likelier to produce more attractive children, who in turn are more likely to attract a mate? (Attractiveness being in the eye of the beholder etc etc etc).

This exchange between Himalaya and meow was interesting:

I do think sexual selection played a big role in human evolution, but I don't think it was the major driver for bigger, stronger, more aggressive men - it doesn't make sense- why would there not be the same evolutionary pressure favouring women who were bigger, stronger and more aggressive themselves?

i think your confusing sexual selection with natural selection. natural selection will be a major driver in determining average hieght of women. sexual selection will only be a driver if men favour tall women.

I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men.

yes, as they compete for females.

Bigger, taller women have more successful live births than shorter, slighter women.
If sexual selection is presumed to be driven by a desire for viable progeny, selection should have favoured the tall of both sexes.
If, in fact, the male has always selected the smaller mate, he must have been selecting for reasons other than reproductive efficiency.
The most obvious reason for selecting a smaller, slighter mate is that she is easier to overpower.

Thus, the 'rules' of evolutionary sexual selection would suggest that the male selected partners based on the ease of raping them.

(At this point, I depart from the more traditional interpretations of human evolution.)

Going back to the OP - do you believe in the patriarchy? If not, who is doing the oppressing? I think it isn't possible to say unless you define what you understand the word to mean. In some descriptions, it comes across as a secret cabal deliberately designed and perpetuated by men exclusively for the subjugation of every female in the world from birth to death. A bit like the masons. If this is the case, I have not yet been asked to join.

For me, the patriarchy is a new concept because this is the first time I have ever been asked to consider it. It appears to be the name for how power is constructed and apportioned within society. The comedian Louis CK once spoke about building a time machine, and how he (and therefore I) could go back in time to virtually any point or place and be welcomed with open arms, by virtue of being a white male (it's a lot funnier when he tells it ). If I was black, or by extension a woman, or both, well, I'd have to be a lot more careful about who and when I was visiting! If that is the patriarchy, then there is little doubt that it is there and has been for a very long time. It isn't a 'them' though - it's a form that society takes.

Sorry you are right, not clear....

You are suggesting male strength, aggression was selected for by intersexual selection (i.e. it makes them more attractive to females)

I am suggesting that the primary mechanism is intrasexual selection (i.e. intimidating, deterring or defeating other males)

Probably a bit of both, but I think the second makes sense more than the first.

himalaya

i think your confusing sexual selection with natural selection.
natural selection will be a major driver in determining average hieght of women. sexual selection will only be a driver if men favour tall women.

"I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men."

yes, as they compete for females.

chairmanmiaow

I do think sexual selection played a big role in human evolution, but I don't think it was the major driver for bigger, stronger, more aggressive men - it doesn't make sense- why would there not be the same evolutionary pressure favouring women who were bigger, stronger and more aggressive themselves?

I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men.

Civilisation and the patriarchal patterns it evolved in is the story of men finding other ways to compete which didn't involve bashing each others heads in. A lot of good has come of that - cooperation beyond families into tribes, guilds, corporations, states, invention, trade etc... and lots of bad

just a thought beachcomber about your finacial adviser guy , you dont come accross as a girl who cant look after herself, could he have felt intimidated by you?

Feel free to report, I am fed up reading that men are the enemy.

namechangeguy, very good point. Historically men have sought power and influence over other men, this is what led to the accumulation of property as a source of power over others. Men are and always have been in competition with each other to acquire power, patriarchy was born out of the means and desire to do this. Evolutionary process has relied on men acquiring property and power, influence and position. Patriarchy was born out of the human evolutionary process.

a child is more likely to receive abuse ( not sexual abuse) from his/her mother than father, now if i said
'women should stop beating children' !!!
do you see how it sounds now?

would you say france is behined england in terms of sexism?

Perhaps. In some ways yes. In others it is about the same. Although I can't talk really for England as I lived in Scotland before coming here.

Nope, he was younger than me and I'm under 40.

the problem i have with hatred is that i find it an attack on me.

Well, I'm afraid that is kind of too bad - you are taking political analysis of wider society as a personal attack, when it isn't. There isn't much I can do about that. And I'm not about to not make my political analysis on the oppression of women, because it might hurt a man's feelings. There are rather bigger things at stake, like women's freedom from male violence and dominance.

If you are a man who is mindful of his privilege and socialization, who is respectful and non-dominating in his relations with women as a group and who contests the status quo then comments about hatred aren't about you.

that was a x post btw, i diddnt see you were in france before i told my french experience.
would you say france is behined england in terms of sexism?

sorry to hear that BC was he at least an old fossil from another time all set in his ways?

the problem i have with hatred is that i find it an attack on me , because i'm a man and i rather like the women in my life.

MiniTheMinx your post contains personal attacks on dittany. I have reported.

"Men are not the enemy they are too conditioned and shaped by our history."

nice to hear you dont see men as the enemy, there is far too much vitriol against men on these threads. and i agree with you, we are all conditioned by our history and culture, women too. when i was living in france 25 years ago the women told me it was 'womens work' ( 'traville femme ca' was the exact phase used ) when i offerd to help with the washing up.

'The alternative is that, men as a group, are dominating, violent and consider themselves superior, as a part of their make up.'

This rings true. However, it is not just directed at women, which is another sticking point I have with some of the theory. (Some) men have been, are, and will be violent and domineering over men and women - anyone who gets in their way. You see domineering bullies in all walks of life, and most of fairly indiscriminate as to who they shit on, on their way up the ladder.

Gosh thechairmanmeow! DH and I were at our financial advisor the other day and he kept addressing DH even though I am the one who does all the figures, handed over the papers, and answered the questions! And we are in France!

And I don't know what other word to use for the killing, mutilating, maiming, beating, raping, exploiting, abusing, subjugating and global domination that men inflict on women.

Hatred seems to fit the bill quite well IMO.

mini
"I am more interested in how we got to this point"

my theory on this is very simple, sexual selection.

women chose bigger men who would be able to protect them and their children which produced a speices where one sex was bigger than the other.

given that sort of power the temptation to use it would be overwhelming.
in other words, men became the oppressors because they could.

A lot of the attitude seems to be almost condescending, in terms of attitudes to women and their capabilities. Given that men are on average physically stronger, perhaps they were able to till a field at a faster rate while the woman stayed at home and cooked. But really, how much stronger, and how much faster was a man - a few percentage points? And once machinery, even horse-drawn, was introduced, the gap would become less important anyway. But the hierarchy was established by then, and we don't seem to have moved on. People are always reluctant to give up a position of power.

i also find 'hatred' a strong word unless used for an individual who actually does hate women, there are plenty of them.

patriachy in europe is less than half what it was only 30 years ago, worldwide however it's very much enbedded in many cultures.

when we were in india, my OH would, for example, ask for something in a shop and the shop assistant would adress me! as though i had asked the question, women are just seen as a burden on families.
allthough they did have had a female president, something america hasnt managed yet