"Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple."

I would have expected we would want exciting sex and impregnation by people to whom we aren't genetically related rather than vice versa - the exciting and different.

And if all those people (men and women) are related, and we respond better to people to whom we are genetically related (whether we sense this by appearance, or smell or whatever), that's just another way for patriarchy to self re-inforce.

We might all secretly be ruled by Genghis Khan's offspring?

Creepy.

Vestal They can trace the y-chromosome for paternal lineage or mitrochrondial dna for maternal lineage. Because a father can pass his x-chromosomes to his daughters, but not his sons and a mother can pass her x-chromosome to both sons and daughters, a direct line back to a man from a woman cannot be established just by looking at the x-chromosome, althoguh they can trace things like population migrations those analysis of diversity in of x-chromosomes in populations explanation here

So a man can trace both his paternal and maternal lineage as he has a y-chromosome and mitrochrondial dna, a woman can only directly trace her maternal lineage...but paternal lineage can be indirectly traced for a woman by looking at her father's, brother's, paternal uncle, or paternal grandfather's dna y chromosome.

So, on that basis, I would have thought a similar number.

And if all those people (men and women) are related, and we respond better to people to whom we are genetically related (whether we sense this by appearance, or smell or whatever), that's just another way for patriarchy to self re-inforce.

And also factor in super-y lineages- like the theory that one in 200 contemporary men are direct descendents of Genghis Khan (1 in 200 men are direct descendants of one man, and the best guess is that person is Genghis Khan).

How many women are descendants of Genghis Khan, then? Or did they only look at the Y-chromosome?

Thanks Garlick sorry to hear you've got a headache.

Well, Machiavellian does really mean "traits and skills Machiavelli recommended adopting in order to succeed in being a Prince" and get himself out of prison I've always read it as a bit of a veiled warning to people about the nature of power and the habits of their rulers.

And once patriarchy is established, it doesn't even have to be about other men consciously copying the dark triad skills because it is successful...it's indoctrinated/socialised into boys and myths that make it easier for women to be manipulated are socialised into girls...and so it cascades down that way as well as personality traits perhaps being inherited genetically too.

And also factor in super-y lineages- like the theory that one in 200 contemporary men are direct descendents of Genghis Khan (1 in 200 men are direct descendants of one man, and the best guess is that person is Genghis Khan).

Wow, Pit, that is FASCINATING! It fits a whole, massive and worrying bunch of things together ... including the hidden & more repulsive sides of patriarchy as we know & understand it.

I find such theories fascinating, as they provide insight into how patriarchy works and how it could be destroyed.

@Gurl: No, but it is on my "to read" list. Did you find the matriarchal dictatorship realistic? As I see it, women have not as much reason to oppress men as the other way round, therefore feminist dystopias suffer from a believability problem.

Have you read "A Brother's Price"? A great read, it mirrors patriarchal oppression ... complete with brothels were men are kept as sperm donors/ breeding stallions. Which is unrealistic, as replacing the sex with the turkey baster method would be much more efficient, and they have the technology to do that, whereas they cannot cure STDs.

This discussion reminds me of one of my favourite fantasy novels: Sheri S Tepper's The Gate to Women's Country.

This is the synopsis on Goodreads...

"Tepper's finest novel to date is set in a post-holocaust feminist dystopia that offers only two political alternatives: a repressive polygamist sect that is slowly self-destructing through inbreeding and the matriarchal dictatorship called Women's Country. Here, in a desperate effort to prevent another world war, the women have segregated most men into closed military garrisons and have taken on themselves every other function of government, industry, agriculture, science and learning.

The resulting manifold responsibilities are seen through the life of Stavia, from a dreaming 10-year-old to maturity as doctor, mother and member of the Marthatown Women's Council. As in Tepper's Awakeners series books, the rigid social systems are tempered by the voices of individual experience and, here, by an imaginative reworking of The Trojan Woman that runs through the text. A rewarding and challenging novel that is to be valued for its provocative ideas."

Has anyone else read this?

Wow, Pit, that is FASCINATING! It fits a whole, massive and worrying bunch of things together ... including the hidden & more repulsive sides of patriarchy as we know & understand it.

I've got a migraine at the moment, which is probably just as well. I'd be off and running with this if I could concentrate!

So the old "first son inherits, second son gets a commission in the army, third son goes to the church"- well that's financial power, military power and social power covered isn't it?

Bring your sons up into the patriarchy then cover the power bases to perpetuate those attitudes.

Vestal something like that yes.

Explains a lot of things like primogeniture, droit de seigneur a lot better than just "it's to ensure that a man only raises/passes on to his own kids". It all about transfer of power and benefits, creating allies, creating norms that enable manipulation, and also to bypass competing strategies like "just being a decent, reliable person/parent and treating your partner well". (And it also makes both "being a good guy" and "pretending to be a good guy" more defined alternative strategies, especially in males who don't have the resources to compete head to head with the patriarchy).

To be honest, I don't like oppression, full stop. Bit of an obvious statement on the face of it but...

It's always struck me that oppression of any kind is all the same thing. Whether the moniker is racism, sexism, religious hatred, gender bias, snobbery, ableism...it all comes from the same root. And that root could be personality traits, which in certain circumstances confer some "advantages". You see different expressions of it in different areas, and considerations of intersectionality/privilege is used as a divide and conquer mechanism.

Something like a desire to dominate and put others down/succeed through force and whatever other means available, combined with lack of empathy, willingness and ability to manipulate.

A high risk and high reward strategy, where you have a good chance of pushing a lot of the costs onto others.

But I'll stop rambling before I get all rainbow coalition.

SomeDkye, I agree. If it's true, that edict to break up the one thing that made some of these sects work - large families with in most cases no incest and close bonds between parents and child- could be its undoing. Also you need lots of different new genes not one donor if you want healthy humans which is why keep it all in the family Pakistan first cousin marriage, the old aristocratic marriage between relations etc is a bad plan.

On these just about always male led cults the New Zealand one Gloriavale youtube films are interesting - again women are controlled by men although in that case one wife only and fidelity.

I haven't found a group yet where women prevail.

I certanily agree that in all groups some people male or female get to lead, have the best lives, money, power etc and that actually struggles for equality can often be about class not just gender.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

Interesting. You mean, hierarchical patriarchies are lead by psychopaths and enable men with psychopathic traits (and those who copy them) to reproduce at a higher rate, therefore reinforcing the hierarchy?

Fascinating theory.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

Interesting. You mean, hierarchical patriarchies are lead by psychopaths and enable men with psychopathic traits (and those who copy them) to reproduce at a higher rate, therefore reinforcing the hierarchy?

Fascinating theory.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

That would account for, as Garlick says, more men getting that "normal life" is oppressive for women than you might initially expect. It's oppressive for them too.

But a certain proportion of men (without that personality triad) see it as a strategy that succeeds, so they copy it. And the dark triad strategies do contain elements that pass benefits on to people who co-operate, and manipulation of others (to be sympathisers as well as victims)is a key dark triad skill too, so it spreads.

Why do people join this sect? I don't think they do, so much as those already in it want to follow the old religious ways of their forebears (i.e. the 'true' LDS with polygamy). I presume we have the classic ways of keeping control (home schooling, restrict access to outside sources of information, have your church being a significant percentage of the community, threats for those who leave). The polygamy issue was always going to seem difficult but for successful males and their sons, it meant lots of wives (I think leaders got to reallocate wives as well?), and then more wives as prizes for their cronies.

Women are of course, not free to chose in this, but compared to more traditional views (from father to husband, and he gives you away (but not for free?)), what is really different here is that the male patriarchs have taken over more power from the father/husband.

This current variant, I think this nutter and child-rapist has finally broken the system, in that he has now removed effectively the one thing that might have kept men in his church crime syndicate..........access to your own wives and the right to raise what you knew were your own children. By requiring men to give other men sole access to 'their' women, that is gone, and it is hard to see why anyone will stay -- apart from real and continuing actual belief in wherever they think these new-fangled ideas come from, or a masochistic insistence on seeing it all as a humongous test of faith.

Polygamy was never going to be a really successful strategy, because given the birth ratio, you were always going to have a surplus of sons who would have to be ejected from the population at some point. Loads of males with no prospect of a wife (hence the chance to pass on their genes) is always going to cause problems in evolutionary terms if nothing else. Whether this is because of polygamy, or problems like in china.

VV - The FLDS are Mormon fundamentalists. In layman terms, the husband is required to sit in the room while the chosen seed bearer, or a couple of them, rape his wife or wives,"

Clicked on the link - not sure I wanted to know this. Oo

This is batshit crazy! Somewhat reminding me of the nazi's ideas about breeding their ideal blonde, blue-eyed German. Nothing at ALL to do with Christianity whatsoever, though.

Why do people join this sect? It is just exploitation - where is the reward for women, and for those men who don't get to be sperm donors?

Ha! I like your take on the invasion of the Americas!

VV - The FLDS are Mormon fundamentalists. In layman terms, the husband is required to sit in the room while the chosen seed bearer, or a couple of them, rape his wife or wives,"
edition.cnn.com/2015/09/30/us/polygamist-flds-warren-jeffs-update/

They are only weaknesses if the default state of a human is male.

True. Instead of saying that women are vulnerable because we can get pregnant, one could say that men have the unfortunate trait of causing pregnancy in others.

I don't believe women are inherently more peaceful than men.

Not as individuals - but I do think that there'd be less war if women had bodily autonomy. The whole attack on the Americas was caused by famines in Europe, caused by people not having their own land to farm, and by the fact that religious minorities didn't have land to settle on and mind their own business.
If the three-child family had been the norm back then, I don't think people would even have bothered with trying to find new land to settle. They'd have gone to the Americas, exchanged some trading goods and went back.

Rather than that, I'd prefer to see biological difference recognised & accommodated without prejudice. Under patriarchy, women's reproductive equipment and its outcomes are treated as weaknesses (it's interesting how current language uses 'weak' and 'vulnerable' differently.)

They are only weaknesses if the default state of a human is male. When we fully accept both sexes as equally worthy & valuable, with all their different, various and changing qualities, there'll be no need for feminism.

Like most feminists, I don't really want to see a female dominated society. Because patriarchal thinking runs so deep in everyone, it's sometimes necessary to imagine it before examining our assumptions about men and women.

Some examples: I don't believe women are inherently more peaceful than men. I don't believe women should need special protection as a class. I don't believe men as a class are inherently driven to rape. I don't believe we're a pair-bonding species (we're probably a bit of both) and I don't believe PIV is inherently aggressive.

Apparently more people are asexual than gay even in the UK.

Makes sense. After all, to identify as asexual, it is enough to never have met someone you were attracted to, whereas to identify as gay, you have to at least once have been attracted to a person of the same sex.

I don't think there are any written accounts of a society where PiV, but no other forms of sex, were banned - it just doesn't happen in patriarchy.

What's the FLDS? One of those religious sects, I assume?

We might be able to find some examples where PIV sex was banned although I am struggling to think of many. Apparently the FLDS group in the US have now banned marital intercourse (although have set up a new system to ensure women can have babies if they choose from named men). Also there are those hundred thousand Indian men who have their penis cut off so they can sing at weddings or whatever. I suppose some upper class UK marriages traditionally the couple would hvae sex for a short while for babies and then stop (actually see many current mumsnet marriages for that.......) but seek their sexual satisfaction with other partners (so I suppose that is not no PiV it's just no marital sex).

A lot of people get no PiV sex at all - first of all all those men who cannot attract a woman or choose not to have them and dislike them (I remember seeing their Reddit postings but forget the special name they have for their choice) (or are gay). Then all those women who choose to have no sex at all even if married. Apparently more people are asexual than gay even in the UK.

Anyway all very interesting.

I don't see this as a sexual utopia at all, for what it is worth. I see this as another gendered set of constrained choices. Not disagreeing with the provision of contraception and abortion, but the premise that the consequences of unplanned pregnancy are still borne by women whilst the expectation of PIV as the norm has risen.

Indeed.

I suggested the thought experiment of what would happen if PiV WAS treated as rape on page 15 or 14 or somewhere. What do you think?

It'd by no means be an utopia, but it would solve some problems we have today and replace them all by the single problem of women who enjoy PiV not getting it.

Lower pay and part time contracts for women; alcohol and drug problems among men, not to mention mental health issues.

Men being supported by working women - consider impact of de-industrialisation in the 1970s and 80s and rise of service sector - more women did become bread winners.

Lower pay, part-time contracts, alcohol and drug problems etc.