<sigh> Sorry, flamingo here again - boys vs. girls...?

[FlamingoBingo]

Debate with my brother on my FB page at the moment.

1. can anyone on my FB please come and help me out?

2. can anyone help me form a good coherent argument to this:

"It's a valid point that we've lived under a patriarchy since humans first existed but this is a legacy of our ape ancestry and is completely natural. A chimp colony has 1 alpha male, chosen by the females, and every other male is a second c...lass citizen with no right to mate. Imagine being a man in those circumstances!

Men and women are different, men ( generally) have more developed spatial awareness and are more likely to take risks (thanks to higher testosterone, and wanting to look cool in front of girls) - useful for hunting and building stuff. Women (generally ) have higher emotional intelligence - useful for building relationships and alliances. We're like 2 sides of the same coin, different but necessary."

I've said something about us living in a patriarchal society since organised religion took over, not since we were apes, and asked him for some links to evidence for what he says. Any other thoughts?

I don't think I have anything constructive to say but am interested in the responses you get. Howeve my thoughts are his ape theory doesnt really stand up. If the females choose one alpha male and the rest of the males are treated as second class then surely that's not patriarchy? Also men and women being different doesn't mean one is any better than the other. They are also stereotypes which dont apply to all men and all women.

Thanks LilBB. The debate has ensued following a link I posted to this blog post.

Interesting blog. I'm really intrigued about whether or not apes have a patriatchal society. I'm off to research apes now.

SwallowedAFly that is very interesting!

Depends on the type of ape - I think bonobos are pretty matriarchal. But if you really want to blow him out of the water, try to get hold of Feminist approaches toscience, edited by Ruth Bleier, and read the pieces by Donna Harraway ("Primatology is politics by other means") and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy ("Empathy, polyandry and the myth of the coy female") - brilliant essays.

I am not sure it matters that much.

There is some evidence to suggest that early human societies were matriarchal and matrilinear, and that early religions were goddess-worshipping. Other people would debate this. We evolved from fish that developed lungs. And then from primates that lived in trees.

So fucking what? We can't live our lives and organise our societies according to what we used to be when we were something very different to what we are now.

Rough synopsis (as far as I can remember). Both start with the observation that science doesn't happen in a social vacuum, it is embedded within elaborate, typically male-dominated institutional structures which in turn are part of a male dominated society. The history of primatology as a science has moved from a very male dominated field, where male researchers went into the field and saw patriarchal societies - not because that was what was there, but because that was what they expected to see, because primatology isn't a socially neutral discipline, it's often taken as a model for what human beings would be like in a state of nature (more or less what your brother is doing, Flamingo). As more women entered the field, they found that women researchers spotted different things - matriarchal structures, female monkeys actively seeking out mates rather than being passive recipients of the attention of the alpha male, etc.

Where Harraway and Blaffer-Hrdy part company is where they go next. Blaffer-Hrdy is a liberal feminist and scientific realist (she believes there is a way the world is, objectively, and science can discover this). For her, more women into science = job done. We unearth the way primates really behave (stripped of preconceptions about how monkeys, as some sort of primeval precursor of humans, should behave in order to justify the power structures of patriarchal human society - though of course the apes don't really behave this way). Women researchers bring balance to the field of study and remove bias and preconceptions.

Harraway is a radical feminist and anti-realist. There is no way nature is (or if there is, we couldn't get at it), just multiple ways of constructing views of it. And if men have constructed one view, to justify their power structures, it's up to women to construct an alternative view to undermine the patriarchy. Hence my all time favourite footnote "Everybody knows orgasms are highly political; that's why female monkeys had to have them in the last few years. It took some ingenuity to engineer them in the lab, but now observations are properly replicable in field and lab..."

By the way, Harraway's article was originally in Philosophy of Science Association 1984 (Vol 2), which may be easier to track down than the Bleier collection.

Ormirian - I agree, humans are highly social, and it's wrong to think one can find biological justifications for shit aspects of human behaviour. This for me is the big mistake of sociobiology (Steven Jay Gould was brilliant at debunking this).

There's a great Jackie Fleming cartoon - Man: "I think genetically I'm allergic to doing the dishes and I've been socialised not to take out the bins" Woman: "Quite frankly, by the time you're living with them, it doesn't make a difference."

SAF - that is a great post!

Ormirian - that is a great post too!

I wonder if he'll come back with anything, or whether I should just go ahead and continue arguing with him in his absence!

I wrote the following. Please critique!

^Firstly, there are plenty of arguments to blow your ape argument out of the water. The fact the science was done by men, who were subconsciously looking for a partriarchal pattern. When women do the same research, they see a different picture.

What actually happens is that a group of female apes gets followed by a group of male apes. The males are generally bigger and stronger so the alpha male is the one who is able to batter the other males into submission to give himself the right to rape the females when they are fertile. So by your argument (ie. we are the same as apes), women form a society and the men really are aggressive rapists. Which obviously isn't the case, and I would assume, knowing you, that you would agree with me on that.

Secondly, it's irrelevant. Many people have argued and debated for years the basis of patriarchy, and compared how we live now to how we lived then. But it really doesn't matter - the fact is, whether it's 'human nature' for men or women ...to behave a certain way or not, it is not acceptable that certain modes of behaviour are still apparent in our country; and elsewhere in the world. It is not acceptable that women are still being raped but not taken seriously. It is not acceptable that the police shy away from 'men, don't rape women' campaigns and put time, effort and money into 'women, stay at home and cover yourselves up' campaigns. And if stopping boys growing up with toys and clothes and comics that push the 'men are aggressive' message helps to stop women being raped, then it's worth campaigning against!"

Flamingo you are doing a sterling job.

I was going to post sth rude about why model our society on apes, it's bad enough that we've got Jeremy Clarkson and the X factor wihtout descending to apes, but I thought it would detract from your arguments.

Ooh, thanks, HerBeX

Was going to come to your aid, FB, but couldn't see any discussion on your FB page.

Am I being dim?

Yes, further down, Jess. It started on 29th! I wonder if I can post a link...might at least PM it to you on FB.

Ok, need more answers! After more debating where I felt I knew what I was talking about, we have now got to:

"I just fundamentally disagree that pink being a girl's colour and men calling each other girls has any link whatsoever with violence towards women. If I said a woman was very manly I think she'd take that as an insult too.

I played army ga...mes when I was a boy, so did all of my friends. Everyone of us has been involved in fights. If has never engendered any kind of feelings of resentment or violence towards women.
There's a film called 300, it's about the Spartans fighting the Persians at Thermopylae. You would probably hate it, it's unremittingly violent but I've never met a man who doesn't love it. It appeals on a primal, basic level. Men want to be seen as brave and strong, they always have and probably always will. Basically because over millennia women have chosen braver, stronger men to have children with to give them the best chance of survival.

If someone can't throw properly then it is generally said that they "throw like a girl". I'm sorry that girl's aren't very good at throwing, it's not my fault!"

What would you say next!?

I think he's still arguing against the importance of trying to stop gender specific/gender stereotype reinforcing clothes and toys in childhood, Engelbert.

But about the 'but not at the expense of emasculating men' argument? Do men really think that preserving men's masculinity (whatever that is!?) is more important than stopping women getting raped and beaten up!?

He's coming over here in a couple of hours. Might bash him over the head with my copy of Reclaiming The F-Word

It's interesting his comment about men loving 300 because it's violent. My take on it is men love 300 because it is one big homoerotic cartoon. It also showed the women as being just as tough and powerful as the men.

Hahahahah - OMG he would go mental if I suggested he liked it because it was homoerotic I love my brother, but he can be a complete idiot at times!