do you believe in the patriarchy?

[bejeezusWC]

A poster on another thread said she views feminism as the struggle against patriarchy. That is how I view it too. I believe that is considered the rad fem stance?

Another poster said she didn't believe in patriarchy

I don't geddit

Why/how are women so unequal if not for patriarchal societies? WHO has been oppressing us?

Please tell me what you think, if you don't believe in patriarchy

just a thought beachcomber about your finacial adviser guy , you dont come accross as a girl who cant look after herself, could he have felt intimidated by you?

chairmanmiaow

I do think sexual selection played a big role in human evolution, but I don't think it was the major driver for bigger, stronger, more aggressive men - it doesn't make sense- why would there not be the same evolutionary pressure favouring women who were bigger, stronger and more aggressive themselves?

I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men.

Civilisation and the patriarchal patterns it evolved in is the story of men finding other ways to compete which didn't involve bashing each others heads in. A lot of good has come of that - cooperation beyond families into tribes, guilds, corporations, states, invention, trade etc... and lots of bad

himalaya

i think your confusing sexual selection with natural selection.
natural selection will be a major driver in determining average hieght of women. sexual selection will only be a driver if men favour tall women.

"I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men."

yes, as they compete for females.

Sorry you are right, not clear....

You are suggesting male strength, aggression was selected for by intersexual selection (i.e. it makes them more attractive to females)

I am suggesting that the primary mechanism is intrasexual selection (i.e. intimidating, deterring or defeating other males)

Probably a bit of both, but I think the second makes sense more than the first.

Going back to the OP - do you believe in the patriarchy? If not, who is doing the oppressing? I think it isn't possible to say unless you define what you understand the word to mean. In some descriptions, it comes across as a secret cabal deliberately designed and perpetuated by men exclusively for the subjugation of every female in the world from birth to death. A bit like the masons. If this is the case, I have not yet been asked to join.

For me, the patriarchy is a new concept because this is the first time I have ever been asked to consider it. It appears to be the name for how power is constructed and apportioned within society. The comedian Louis CK once spoke about building a time machine, and how he (and therefore I) could go back in time to virtually any point or place and be welcomed with open arms, by virtue of being a white male (it's a lot funnier when he tells it ). If I was black, or by extension a woman, or both, well, I'd have to be a lot more careful about who and when I was visiting! If that is the patriarchy, then there is little doubt that it is there and has been for a very long time. It isn't a 'them' though - it's a form that society takes.

This exchange between Himalaya and meow was interesting:

I do think sexual selection played a big role in human evolution, but I don't think it was the major driver for bigger, stronger, more aggressive men - it doesn't make sense- why would there not be the same evolutionary pressure favouring women who were bigger, stronger and more aggressive themselves?

i think your confusing sexual selection with natural selection. natural selection will be a major driver in determining average hieght of women. sexual selection will only be a driver if men favour tall women.

I think the evolutionary pressure for bigger, stronger men was competition between men.

yes, as they compete for females.

Bigger, taller women have more successful live births than shorter, slighter women.
If sexual selection is presumed to be driven by a desire for viable progeny, selection should have favoured the tall of both sexes.
If, in fact, the male has always selected the smaller mate, he must have been selecting for reasons other than reproductive efficiency.
The most obvious reason for selecting a smaller, slighter mate is that she is easier to overpower.

Thus, the 'rules' of evolutionary sexual selection would suggest that the male selected partners based on the ease of raping them.

(At this point, I depart from the more traditional interpretations of human evolution.)

'The most obvious reason for selecting a smaller, slighter mate is that she is easier to overpower.

Thus, the 'rules' of evolutionary sexual selection would suggest that the male selected partners based on the ease of raping them.'

Garlic, what if shorty is prettier, therefore likelier to produce more attractive children, who in turn are more likely to attract a mate? (Attractiveness being in the eye of the beholder etc etc etc).

Although, I have a feeling I may have overlooked something obvious with your theory, I can't put my finger on it.

Well, as you say, ncg, pretty's in the eye of the beholder. It's not an absolute value. If the males fancy little females more, it's because littleness bestows some quality the male finds attractive. So he'd have to have some reason for wanting smaller mates.

I've just looked up worldwide data for the first time. Average man height: 165cm. Average woman height: 154cm. Ratio: 93.3%.
Chimps (both kinds) ratio: 94%.

It's only a slight difference. Interesting, of course, and there must be a reason. But looks like a total red herring wrt gendered supremacy.

Males have greater muscle density, while females have higher fat content. The fat content is more conducive to pregnancy and breast feeding, so that pretty much explains that.

We still have no evolutionary justification for men to select smaller women. I suspect, therefore, that it's a purely social phenomenon of fairly recent origin.

a purely social phenomenon - sorry, I meant a cultural phenomenon, not 'social' in the evolutionary sense.

I blame Kylie Minogue - 157cm of pure....actually, never mind.....

garlic

i think the females are doing the selection actually, how many times have you heard a woman say they couldnt date a man who was smaller then themselves?

We still have no evolutionary justification for men to select smaller women. I suspect, therefore, that it's a patriarchal phenomenon of fairly recent origin.
(Kylie notwithstanding.)

As a Palaeolithic farmer, you bloody wouldn't select a delicate little flower for your mate. You'd want a sturdy, strong woman.

Telling us that little women are prettier is yet another way of subtly encouraging us to be weak & subservient. So is telling us that starving women are more attractive.
This is a very recent phenomenon, so I reckon it's a backlash effect. Well, thank goodness there's enough to 'lash back' at

as a sidenote.
male chimpanzees compete for the females and the males are bigger and stronger.
there is a speices of chimp called benobos however. sometimes thought of as the sexy ape. they have sex like other apes would say hello, when a female comes into eastrious ( wish i could spell) all the males in that troup will mate with her.
the comunities are much more peaceful and to the males every infant in the trope is potentialy his own.

male and female benobos are the same size and height.

It's cultural, meow, innit.

Models still have to be 173cm or taller. So it's not even a beauty ideal, really. It's just women responding to all the "tall, dark & handsome" bollocks we've been fed since nursery.

No, bonobo females are averagely 6.4% shorter than males. And they mate with anybody all the time, regardless of gender. They are very cheerful apes with highly developed social skills and are faster learners than 'troglodites' chimps.

Sorry, 5.4%. Same as humans and trog chimps, basically. Only nicer.

I suspect small is evolutionary 'normal' i.e. in a variable and low nutrient environment it biologically 'cheaper' and less risky not to grow too big, and to store extra calories as fat rather than expensive muscle.

i.e. boys and girls are the same size roughly till puberty, then boys get a bigger growth spurt and put on upper body muscle much more easily.

The muscle and size is a high risk strategy to beat other males, and could make the difference between having 0 and 100 offspring.

For females being more than averagely tall or muscley is not such an advantage.

The male preference for 'small and pretty/young' could well be related to seeking out mates who are not pregnant already.

THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE MALE PREFERENCE FOR SMALL FEMALES, Himalaya. Except in very recent times, in organised human cultures.

Even today, in the industrially-developed world, we hold tall women up as the beauty ideal - which is what 'model' is supposed to mean.

For females being more than averagely tall or muscley is not such an advantage.

This is just a ridiculous statement, looking at the majority of humans today, never mind our much harder past. To fetch water, build houses, fight, hunt and farm by had, you need to be tough!

You're applying contemporary 'western' values to the whole of humanity. that's insane.

The gender dimorphism is only 6%. That is not a big enough difference to be explained by evolutionary selection.

Re: fat/muscle. Let's say all post-pubertal humans in a given tribe have an average 2,000 calories a day available to them. The females need to lay down fat in order to have healthy babies. So they do. The males don't need to lay down fat, so they gain muscle and an extra 9cm height.

It's not rocket science.

Sexual selection can result in really daft things like the peacock's tail or the stag's antlers. There doesn't have to be any logical advantage to it at all, unlike natural selection.

are you sure garlic?
i was sure they were the same size, whats more i think david attembourgh told me !
they also have enormous testicles, thats also sexual selection, if you mate with one female, you only need a small amount, if everyone is mateing with her the more semen you produce the more chance of the offspring being your own