Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

But this is a great article for showing how our 'expectations' may not have been the way things worked. We're just not open-minded.

theconversation.com/dna-from-10-000-year-old-chewing-gum-reveals-the-secrets-of-stone-age-scandinavians-117272

If you want more of that kind of thing, there is a Ronald Hutton book on the history of archaeology in which he demonstrates, quite convincingly, that archaeological theories tell us more about the present than they can do about the past.

A woman complaining about patriarchy is not being sexist.

A black woman complaining about white supremacy is not being racist.

But the patriarchy is a theory, primarily espoused by a feminists who represent

As I mentioned before, the narrative of non-agrarian societies being egalitarian is turning out to be a false one, or at least not entirely true. There is evidence that there were wealthy and powerful tribal leaders and elders well before the myth of agriculture ushering in the hoarding of wealth.

Human history is messy and convoluted, not simplistic and linear. This is a long read, but very enlightening

newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-dwellers-or-hunter-gatherers

One of my long standing annoyances with feminism is the romanticizing of hunter gatherers and vilification of agriculture.
It's more likely that both forms of human society had shitty and good aspects.

Men are also victims of patriarchy, so why do they work so hard to uphold it and keep blaming women for their predicament?

But I'm sure you've already made your mind up on this matter so I'm not going to bother arguing the point. 93% of women don't identify as feminists so the majority probably don't agree with you either.

But men are the main victims of male violence, both assaults and suicide. 40x more men kill themselves weekly than they do women (not that either is ok).

Tbh, you come across as much more sexist than most men, Sakura, I'm sorry to say.

The vast majority of women in this country choose to spend their life with a man who is their principle soulmate. They're not forced to. Women earn more than men up until the approximate age of motherhood and studies done by the Economist have shown that those who forego motherhood continue to be promoted more aggressively than their male counterparts.

Hmm, where to begin on this.

I'm still trying to put my own thoughts together, but here are some odds and ends which I am turning over.

Firstly, archaeology is deeply sexist and 'interprets' finds in terms of its own patriarchal world view. This is now being challenged by, in particular, use of DNA sampling and isotope analysis. In particular, there seems to be evidence for Neolithic women being as well fed as the men and participating in battle.

I've also read an argument that why it all goes wrong at the start of farming is that women are domesticated just as surely as the sheep and the cows. this isn't to contradict the idea of paternity being important, but that the reproductive system is worked out when farmers start keeping animals. Women are now kept for breeding (and hence wife raiding, all manner of things), kept close to home and beaten when they step out of line. So men control reproduction just as they do for the animals.

Worth bearing in mind though, that people are in the end the most important resource if you are an early farmer: without them you can do very little with your land, and you certainly can't defend it.

In terms of writing about the early, pre-patriarchal systems, have you looked at Marika Gimbutas?

First of all, these women were likely not "whores".
Many "mistresses" were high born, noble ladies.
Plenty of the bastards of kings and probably barons and such were acknowledged as real sons, just not allowed to inherit in the law that the men themselves created.
That didn't mean they had nothing - a lot of these bastards were given titles and land.
And in some cases the rulers had real sons, but none legitimate, which was a real detriment to them as they wanted nothing more than an heir to pass their titles, land and wealth to. They actually had one but ruled that they couldn't do that.

Honestly, a lot of this stuff is just completely ahistorical and made up. I don't even know how to start talking about it. Like witch hunting? That's a pretty late development historically speaking, it properly belongs to the early modern period, and to connect it to the beginnings of patriarchy...??? there was in some ways a degradation of women's position in society at that time but presumably we can agree that agriculture and inheritance laws and accumulation of wealth were well established by that time.

And as for the desire to acquire wealth being particularly male, and calling women who went along with that handmaidens, I have to wonder if people know any women. Of all the differences between the sexes I don't see the desire for material wealth being a significant one, greedy and materialistic women, or women who want a more secure life to put a better spin on it, are not markedly less common than men who want the same thing. If agriculture allowed humans material advantages does it really seem plausible that women weren't also keen on those? All the women would much rather have stayed hunter-gatherers, all over the world, in every society that adopted agriculture?

This isn't looking at the information and seeing what can be concluded, its reading a set of conclusions or values back into scant or non-existent history.passe some time in the 80s.

sakura184

Maybe you are new here.
Shutting women down by calling them ridiculous for not agreeing with you 100% is generally frowned upon here.

I'm sorry but your posts are just ridiculous.

And here's me thinking your posts are ridiculous.

Sakura184 , I think you might be a new poster. I hope you stick around for some time as I enjoy reading your posts.

Inheritance is a rich man's problem

So why would rich (and powerful) men create a law which disinherited their own children?
They're the ones with the wealth and the power.
They could have created the patriarchy to benefit themselves 100% and rules that bastards were always legitimate.
Monogamy suits women as well if not better than it suits men, certainly rich powerful men.
In other cultures and at other times, rich powerful men have had harems of wives and 100s of children.
This system is perfect for these patriarchs - they end up with loads of descendents and wives.
Yet you want us to believe these rich men set up this imperfect system here where their actual children are disinherited, and if they have no male children their wealth is lost to someone else's family?
Not a very good patriarchy is it?
Also I'm not sure why the mothers are affected by their children being cruelly branded as bastards, and the the fathers aren't!

Who said "women did it worst"? Certainly not me. They can be as bad as men though, even if it's less commonplace - the evidence is there.

The wars/imperialism which men have implemented have undoubtedly been pretty horrid, but women have passively benefitted from them in many cases. For instance, without the British Empire we'd likely be a very different country today. Similarly, white women benefit from the privilege and power bestowed by historical racism.

If you watch "Eden" the documentary/reality TV experiment that put a group of people and resources in a remote-ish part of the Highlands for a year or so - you will get to see the patriarchy being born, I think it's the start of the second series you want.

It is fascinating and horrifying. From a reasonably happy and equitable group, with "modern" values, there is a shift and a minority of the men start saying "I'm bigger and stronger, I can do the jobs I prefer faster, so we'll do the jobs we prefer and the women can do all the washing and weed the garden". The majority of men go along with it and become increasingly unpleasant towards the women, who are seen as "lesser". It's worth a watch.