'Everyday sexism' vs origins of patriarchy and big ideas for the future

We seem to be missing the point here. What I am trying to say is, men and women should be treated equally. If sexism against women is wrong (which it is), then, shouldn't sexism against men be wrong?

Racism is wrong. As a white person I do not experience as much racism as some other people do.

I have been on the receiving end of racism, but it didn't affect my life, stop me getting a job, pay me less, make me scared, force me to wear uncomfortable shoes for a 12 hour shift, assume I was less intelligent or comment on my 'being up for' a particular sexual act.

When a black friend complains of racism I don't say, 'yes it happens to me' because I don't invalidate her experience and I know it has much more impact on her life.

So you pay a bit more for car insurance, maybe your wife is the better driver. Maybe she is the reason your insurance isn't higher still.

Not taking but tackling patriarchy is what I was meant to say. ^

isn't necessity the mother of invention? Will humans ever have enough? It's why capitalism thrives. We want, need and must have.

How many men spent hours inventing things, whilst their partners took the brunt of child rearing?
My point was in regards to what would happen if people didn't have what to do. People will come up with things whether there is patriarchy or not because of the sense of unfulfillment in our nature. Those with more free time on their hands will have more opportunities to do so.

Re-Scandinavia. They were never invaded by the romans. I also believe that it could be the reason why they are more progressive now in their way of thinking when it comes to taking patriarchy. Not that am saying is the same for the world over that won't invaded by the romans. Am specifically talking about Europe.

The allegations of child sacrifice are irrelevant in the question of power balance between the sexes. Not a lot is known about how Carthaginian society functioned, but they are another society that had queens.

You are denying history when you write women out of it as irrelevant.
In those early human societies mentioned, the predominant food would have been gathered, not hunted - by all. There are persistent suggestions that hunting was in fact quite unusual for most of human prehistory, and that when meat was on the menu - itself a rare treat - it may have been scavenged more often than not.

But you go ahead, keep telling us that men are the only people that ever mattered.

I should add here that I generally take the view that being a human being alive today in western society makes us all very lucky compared to our long line of ancestors. There is certainly no other society I would like to be part of and we're lucky that ours is the most advanced and most powerful. So I would say taking a critical look at our civilisation is one thing, saying it is top to bottom a disaster is bound to be controversial though :)

Well, I think that suggesting Finland is less patriarchal than England is questionable, but stating that Carthage whose most celebrated citizens were generals and who are alleged (by their conquerors) to have been heavily into child sacrifice were not a civilisation dominated by men is plain wrong.

Patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it appears to have been somewhat successful in allowing humans to associate and cooperate on a massive scale. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you have to think it must remain or is required to remain as we continue to evolve.

I'm not justifying Patriarchy. One cannot deny history! Patriarchy and violence goes hand in hand. It's unfortunate. But true. In a post truth world.

I've been driving for over 25 years without a point on my license or a claim on my insurance, yet, it is cheaper for my wife to insure the same vehicle, with only 9 years driving and 2 no fault claims.

This practice was actually challenged under equality legislation a year or two ago and rates harmonised to remove gender bias. Basically women drivers all got an insurance cost hike to cover the stupidity and recklessness of (some, statististically proven) male drivers. So cheer the fuck up - equality legislation cuts both ways. You can cross that off your grudge list for your next MRA circle jerk.

Marking place for later on

Governments need to take a tougher stance on inequality between the sexes. (But they won't)
Society as a whole will then follow suit.

I find the justifiers of patriarchy, the direct consequence of which is male violence, equally tiresome, particularly on a forum supposedly dedicated to women's rights within a women's website. The country savaged was of course the lands of the Iceni. I cannot produce a map sadly as cartography wasn't advanced then, and borders were fairly fluid then anyway.

So what country did they savage Post?

Tiresome at best. You are.

"Male was power. Female was subservience." Rubbish. Boudicca went on the rampage because Rome refused to accept her ascendancy as queen. They believed the legitimate ruler was then Rome in the absence of a male successor. They savaged the country and raped her daughters as a response.

It makes a bit of a difference from the narrative that is currently re-establishing itself that women's rightful place is in the home. There is variety and variability is possible. The belief that it isn't is the first enemy of women.

For early humans, would it not have been beneficial to send the strongest, fastest people out hunting, building stuff and fighting off predators? The most successful would surely have been people who could lift and throw the heaviest things the furthest. In most cases they would have been men.

What we are discussing is the origins of Patriarchy v everyday sexism.

Finland wasn't even a country then nor was Engerland.

Boudicca went on the rampage because her daughters were raped as a show of power. She tried, and failed, to correct the imbalance of power.

I doubt gender was a concept then. Male was power. Female was subservience.

it is generally believed that their gender balance was very different

By whom ? Having the odd queen here or there doesn't really count I don't think.

PostTruthBreakdown

Why on earth would you say that the Carthaginians were not a patriarchal society ?

or indeed, of course, in the fundamentalist Islamic countries. Which by and large were not so fundamentalist in the recent past and women had more rights. Humans are not a species driven by biology alone. We have choices.

Elendon I'd like to know howit was established in 'good ole Engerlund' as that country did not exist before the Romans. The island we now know as Britain was inhabited by a number of celtic-speaking tribes and it is generally believed that their gender balance was very different. The story of Boudicca most famously bears that out. They had other queens that we know of. It is true that the Greeks were very patriarchal before the Romans came along, but there was variety among the different city states.

Finland is a country with a very different balance of gender power than in the UK now. Is evolution acting differently there do you reckon?

Posttruth, it wasn't the Romans. Patriarchy was well established before then. Even in good ole Engerland.

Quencher isn't necessity the mother of invention?

How many men spent hours inventing things, whilst their partners took the brunt of child rearing?

Vestal's summary of the likely origins of patriarchy is more likely to be accurate, and in the west I can even give the people she describes a name - the Romans.

Evolution is not driving the particular gender (im)balance of power, or it would not be so culturally variable. girlwiththeflaxenhair is wrong to say that every homo sapiens culture is patriarchal. Go look up several of the early iron age cultures of the ancient near east, Phoenicia/ Carthage among them, and the Minoans for a start.

The gender balance in our own culture keeps changing: we gain a little, then there's a backlash. We're in one now.

Robots. Utopian world. Humans doing what they want equals anarchy.
Yup! I agree. Humans need to exercise their brains and body. Idle hands and mind is the devils workshop. The result is anarchy. A lot of people are helpless when not told what to do. You also, have those who thrive on telling others. Our world is this way because we thrive on pushing our selves forward for a need and want for things we actually don't know (probably happiness).
To me utopia is a form of content and that is a world which stagnant. Most forward thinking thoughts and inventions have been out of deviating from social norms and that in essence is anarchy. In a small dosage can be productive for society. Disturbing the peace and pushing boundaries. This is human evolution. But when every one is disturbing the peace, I would then worry. I see extinction.

Spot on, BBCN
I mean, the robots will all be owned by the wealthy (the top 1% or whatever) who will reap the rewards of productivity and economic gain while the rest of us can get to shit. This is the pattern evident since automation has developed, why would it suddenly change to benefit everyone...