Why has it always been a patriarchy?

Hang on. Have you ever seen a group of female chimps tear another female chimp literally limb from limb? They're ALL violent.

Yes but they'd interbred themselves into insignificance by about 200 BC and produced almost no art (unless you count the death-poetry of Tyrteaus, the world's first gangsta rapper) - so that's a good example of a society not working in the long term.

Although Spartan women had a great deal of freedom and autonomy and could own property and run families, unlike in Athenian democratic society.

I think as men are physically stronger and I think women are more hormonally vulnerable. If we're bleeding, pregnant etc.

The Spartans made boys separate from their mothers at 7 to join military training where they would be physically and sexually abused.

I don’t think we really ‘lived in’ caved. Took shelter and had ceremonies maybe.

The natural adoration of the mother has to be broken for oppressive patriarchy to work properly.

Perhaps when we lived in caves - but so much is fundamentally wrong with this I don't even know where to start!

No. The reactions to these and systems of support (or lack thereof) to these.

Yes, absolutely. I wasn't arguing for the converse.

Male size&strength is an evolutionary outcome (at this point in time).

I would examine the idea of a 'default', it seems to imply some form of constant whereas evolution is always in flux by definition. And I think it can easily be conflated with some dubious ideas about a 'natural' order or a 'correct' outcome.

My point is that evolution unfolds over large periods of time and is probably less driven by any moral ideas than it is by basic reproduction mechanics, for the most part. Which isnt to say that morality or societal ideologies don't affect it, everything in the environment will affect/inform it. But they may be subtler effects and they may not work as intended!

'Might is right' often prevails, it's not always the case, though.

😢 And some baboon species.

I heard her speak on the radio and, she dismissed men being stronger as a reasons for partriarchy, but did not talk about women having children which I would have thought explains men having dominant positions. Pregnancy and child rearing are enormously time consuming and really limit what you can do.

Bonobos, though much less violent than other apes, are still much more violent than humans.

100% of female chimps experience domestic violence. 😞

It’s not always consistent across ape species. Bonobos’ status comes from the mother.

I always put it down to upper body strength.

Allowed men to dominate women from the get-go.

Its even worse with other great apes, where females don't have language to protect, organize and argue their case.

What was that again about stripping the language of words to identify women and their needs... interesting.

@NotHavingIt

When I say disembodiment what I mean is detaching the body from the self and viewing it as just a container; a container which can be modified, nullified, marketed.

Yes, I was too succinct, and careless. Sorry. I agree with you. It's a resurrection of the "ghost in the machine" idea. The idea then becomes that you can change the machine without changing the ghost - there will be a "you" that always remains "you" whatever you do. I believe that is a fantasy and therefore not possible. If you tried to operate it far enough (more than just adding, for example, a robot hand) you would find that "you" had significantly changed, perhaps becoming nothing but a collection of spare parts. Hence the cybermen example - for me, Kit Pedlar's cybermen are the most nightmarish monsters that Dr Who ever came up with.

Male size being an evolutionary default is not the same as patriarchy being an evolutionary default.

Matriarchal human societies have evolved in various times and places. They didn't have smaller men. And it's not just humans - a PP mentioned elephants. They have matriarchal societies and males are larger than females. Size may = syrength, but it is not inevitable that size = social power.

Societies aren’t always patriarchal. Many cultures worship female deities. I find it interesting that Inanna, Erishkigal and Dumuzid (ladies ruling the roost) morphed into Isis Osiris and Horus (men ruling the roost) then to Demeter, Hades and Persephone (women ruling the roost) again.

So it is with Catholics worshipping ‘mother Mary’ from the patriarchal religion.

The love of the mother is very natural to human beings.

There are two types of organisation really - the ‘matralineal’ and the ‘patriarchal’.

Because mothers give birth, there is the ready-made loyalty of the children to their mother and grandmother. A bit like elephants.

Patriarchal organisation is possible because men are physically stronger than women, but also, because they don’t get pregnant or have small babies or children clinging to them, they can act as scouts for information or protect the group by fighting.

It’s interesting, that deity-wise, often the most powerful females are worshipped as ‘virgins’ or as women who refuse to marry. Demeter, Saraswati gave Brahma the boot, Hestia, Artemis.

The oppression of women is not something that has always been the case, it’s just that it is very easy.

I imagine that ‘village raids’ by warlords, where the male villagers are slaughtered and the women and children are captured, has been the beginnings of oppressive patriarchy and oppressive practice like polygyny.

first, there was no conscription of female prisoners for war. even male prisoners were not conscripted but offered a chance to sign up in mercenary wagner group with abolition of sentence (if that is a right word) as payment for their service. not many of them live long enough (six months i think ) to collect it, though.

second, feel free to give an example of female prisoners been used as cannon fodder anywhere in modern warfare. something like "not a step back" from hitler or stalin. or banzai charges in japanese army. or mass attacks in first world war.

I think the message of patriarchy being an evolutionary default reduces our ability to say, "hang on, this isn't working for half the population, let's take a different approach." Because people (men) can just say "we can't, we've evolved to be this way, there is no other option."

But if it's the truth that male size & physical strength (in certain situations) is simply a result of evolutionary processes/pressures then that's the truth. Women have well documented other strengths and abilities (long distance running/endurance springs to mind). Neither is inherently 'better' or 'worse', but in some situations either sex is at an advantage/disadvantage.

Even if we find it unpalatable, 'might is right' informing society is perhaps just an unfortunate fact.

Evolution works in a rather blunt way, it's about 'survival of the fittest' (at a specific time), which has no innate moral compass at all.

That said, evolution is always still a process that will continue to unfold in response to environmental pressures. Humans can and do apply moral judgements to society.

And while mechanical, material and physical issues will inform evolution, so too will social and cultural issues.

Evolution is simply response to environment, to arguable degrees accidental, and it's constant.

Are you suggesting that what is "not working for women" is pregnancy, motherhood and the consequences of that?

But disembodiment is what transgendersim is predicated on.In that the body has got nothing to do with the 'true self'? that sex is not real - it is just constructed. That what makes you a man or a woman has got nothing to do ith your body.

Also, the advent of commercial surrogacy whereby some women, and some men, can circumvent the messy and involved process of pregnancy, by paying another woman to do it for them. Privileged women need have nothing to do with the consequences of living in a female body ( or so they believe)

When I say disembodiment what I mean is detaching the body from the self and viewing it as just a container; a container which can be modified, nullified, marketed. When this happens it is inevitably women/females who get minimised and erased. women have always been associated with nature ( Mother Earth and so on) - and mankind has always sought to control and to tame nature to his will; and since the pill so too have women.

I know!

Personally have never seen 'equality' for women in the armed forces as something to strive for. There are surely some military roles which women can carry out as well as men - those which are not on the front-line - and where strength and musuclarity is not required - but I can imagine that on battlefield that many men may alter their behaviour in defence/protectiveness of their female colleagues - and counter to their role as a fighting force.

That's not a sign of equality, female prisoners are always seen as expendable and not important, our own government feels the same way, if they could get away with using them as cannon fodder they wouldn't blink 🤷