If women ruled the world...

[InigoTaran]

Would it be a better place? Interesting article in The Guardian today with opinions from various prominent women.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jul/05/what-if-women-ruled-the-world

Patriarchy is a social cultural construct - it has nothing to do with genes, limbic brains, evolution or hormones. Nothing.

Then why does it exist on the whole world? Why is there no large country where women are, and always have been, free?

I know it is not a nice thought, that patriarchy is inherent to the human male and you can't just educate men to not support it anymore.

But I don't see any other explanation for how widespread patriarchy is.

but you sure can't claim she wants the male lion to kill her young

Interesting. I thought the sunken costs fallacy is often demonstrated in animal behaviour / evolution.

Given the right circumstances you can see how it would be genetically preferably for a dependant offspring to be disposed of allowing for the creation of potentially more successful offspring, for either male or female.

Runts are disposed of all the time by females in favour of the stronger of the litter, even though they have already devoted considerable resources gestating them.

The sexual behaviour of dolphins is an extreme example. Dolphins engage in all sorts of weird shit.

What evidence do you have for that assumption?

Well, none I could point at, because patriarchy is all over the world.

It is just logical.

Before the patriarchy-caused overpopulation of the world, humans could live, and very well, in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Which they probably would have continued to do (as many hunter-gatherer cultures did before they were killed off by colonialists) if males had not caused overpopulation.

I frequently hear on mumsnet that one of the prime times for a man to stray is when his partner is pregnant. Is that true?

I assumed it was because maybe she wasn't up for sex, or he was being required to step out of his comfort zone and look after her, etc.

As a group, people, both men and women tend to frown very much on a man cheating on a pregnant partner.

But could it be as simple as the knowledge that she is pregnant? His job is done? Off to the next fertile female.

Given the right circumstances you can see how it would be genetically preferably for a dependant offspring to be disposed of allowing for the creation of potentially more successful offspring, for either male or female.

Why then do female lions hide away their young when a new male appears and goes on a killing spree, in which he kills all young not fathered by him, not just the runts?

Then why does it exist on the whole world? Why is there no large country where women are, and always have been, free?

Probably for economic reasons. I'm not an anthropologist, but is it universal? There is certainly debate about whether matriarchies existed in pre-history; but since agrarianism women have been relied upon for their 'reproductive labour' as you put it to produce workers to maintain an economic system - and I agree with you up until that point. Then caste and feudal systems developed in which women were accorded a kind of transactional value, and it went from there.

But now something very interesting is happening with the digital revolution. Economies - or certainly western ones - are no longer primarily driven by labour, increasingly dominated as they are by big data and finance. That will change everything. If anything ends patriarchy, it will be advanced robotics and labour saving technology - because they will render the embodied labour economy of patriarchy obsolete.

The thing is, you saying 'patriarchy is inherent to the human male' is what I hear MRA's say all the time. They typically say "You feminists you think it's all a case of nurture but men and women are different...testosterone..evolutionary psychology....blah blah blah'"

But she would not have risen to power in a society without patriarchal power structures. Because there would have not been any power to rise to. But there is always a power hierarchy in any group be it males only, females only or mixed. That's true of humans and animals of all ages.

You'd just end up with a load of Margaret Thatchers & Nicola Sturgeons - Think I'd rather have the men.

But could it be as simple as the knowledge that she is pregnant? His job is done? Off to the next fertile female.

Probably more subconsciously. Lack of attraction as his body considers the job done, and the lack of morals in his brain then cause him to cheat.

Of course, cheating also has an element of abusiveness, and we know abusers feel safer when their victim is pregnant.

But there is always a power hierarchy in any group be it males only, females only or mixed. That's true of humans and animals of all ages.

Have you ever been part of a group of humans who assembled out of their own free wills, to do a hobby or such?

Yes, there's usually someone who dominates the discourse and gets to make decisions because the others don't care enough, and making decisions is hard.

As soon as this person pisses off a majority of other people, this person is kicked out.

Before the patriarchy-caused overpopulation of the world, humans could live, and very well, in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Which they probably would have continued to do (as many hunter-gatherer cultures did before they were killed off by colonialists) if males had not caused overpopulation.

Erm..well people have babies....and then they migrate...I'm not sure you can ascribe that just to men. We could not have stayed 'hunter gatherer communities'. They hunted numerous species such as Mammoths and Mastodons to extinction. Furthermore, there's no physical evidence to indicate what kind of organisational structure existed back then, so talk of 'egalitarianism' is very speculative.

It's what Marx called 'primitive communism' and the whole structure of Marxism has its root in an understanding of primitive communism and his hypothesis that the dialectical process of social evolution through class struggle will eventually lead back to a classless society (communism) but at a much higher level of human civilization, monopoly capitalism being the last stage of the private ownership of the means of production.

Marx was right about many things but not about this. We can't go back to a decentralised egalitarianism.

Before the patriarchy-caused overpopulation of the world, humans could live, and very well, in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Which they probably would have continued to do (as many hunter-gatherer cultures did before they were killed off by colonialists) if males had not caused overpopulation.

You've said several times that men caused the overpopulation of the world, but the overpopulation was caused by huge advances in medicine, not in any increase in reproduction.
Google world population graphs, it's more or less static until 1800.
If men overpopulated the world, they did it by enabling children to live to adulthood.

What s/he said ^^

They don't always hide them Vestal and the males don't always go on a killing spree. It depends on various factors.

Female animals can and do destroy their young in circumstances where it would be more beneficial for their general reproduction success to do so. The genes are selfish regardless of whether they are carried in a female or male body.

The genes are selfish regardless of whether they are carried in a female or male body.

The genes might in a sense be selfish (although there is a LOT of debate about Dawkins' book and hypothesis now) but the way that 'selfishness' is manifested is culturally determined. For example, people in our culture feel compelled to acquire possessions in order top secure status, but there is nothing universal about that compulsion. It would make no sense to some Amazonian tribes person. Neither is it always strictly selfish in the sense of being self-advantageous. People say bankers are 'selfish' or 'greedy' but are they all really? I saw a programme about young men who went into the finance industry who had ended up completely burnt out wrecks with mental health problems because they were continually compelled by a system to compete for status. What they were doing was putting their own well-being in jeopardy.

So I think there are always power systems but the way they manifest themselves varies from culture to culture. The patriarchal power system seems universal but there is no theoretical reason to believe that it will always be so.

"Patriarchy is a social cultural construct - it has nothing to do with genes, limbic brains, evolution or hormones. Nothing."

So why do most male mammals behave like absolute monsters to the females? Among our cousin primates, females plan their whole lives around trying to survive male violence on themselves and the young. Only the tree-dwelling monkeys have more equitable mating processes. Among chimps the male on female violence is not always even sex-related, but just for kicks.

If women were just as strong as men physically, patriarchy would not have happened. Because there is no other advantage that men possess that gives them power. Even the reproductive burden would not weaken women as much if they were not raped into constant pregnancy thanks to strength disparity.

User, you're wrong on overpopulation. It did not start in 1800. It started with the agricultural revolution around 10,000 years ago. That's when large scale wars began as competition over resources - which would've never been a problem without overpopulation.

As for the economy driving oppression: well, look at who makes and has always made those economic decisions. MEN. Which wouldn't have happened if women weren't shut out of the leadership process by the pre-existing patriarchy.

And the MRA argument is different. They adopt a religion-like argument that men abusing their physical strength is moral and good because it has always been like that. That nature made men inherently superior in muscle mass, therefore they must be superior in everything else too. Natural+misogyny+no morals=good to them.

The feminist argument follows the Dworkin statement: "We believe in the humanity of men despite all evidence to the contrary". I, too, believe in the humanity of men somewhere deep down buried under their toxic mix of sexist, selfish, violent hormones. Nicer, more empathetic men are better at overriding their hormonal craziness, but there are just not enough of them to change things. I see misogyny as a kind of mental illness that can only be done away with via neurological treatment, because the CBT has had only marginal effect.

Vestal is 100% right on the main problem being men continuously forcing themselves on women and producing too many humans as a result. Genes are selfish, but so is self-preservation and avoidance of pain. Which is why women have always had to be coerced into having lots of PIV - because they're smart enough to know the consequences.

Look at Japan which doesn't believe in pain relief for childbirth. As a result, 1/3 of women have no children at all out of fear, and the rest only have 1 because they don't want to put themselves through the pain again. Luckily for them, despite their deeply sexist society they have access to contraception and some economic independence to make that choice.

It's a vicious cycle:

Male physical strength + strong craving for PIV = rape or other form of coercion of females into unwanted PIV > too many humans> wars for resources (relying on too many humans being available for armies) > economic inequality via empire building by the militarily stronger societies > even more humans thanks to feeding on plundering of resources of the militarily weaker societies > technological development growing out of economic prosperity > tonnes more humans thanks to medical technology outpacing access to contraception (because women are still coerced into PIV).

It all comes down to unwanted PIV by women since the dawn of time. Which could only be enabled by male muscle mass and lack of empathy.

Look at the fact that womens' sex drive plunges while breast-feeding, and for some - for years after. For some it disappears during pregnancy. Sure, there are non-biological factors there like exhaustion and finding alone time, but it also seems to be nature's way of spacing pregnancies. The whole concept of marriage took away that opportunity from women, because their male slave-owner was legally entitled to force intercourse on them despite their natural lack of desire, and still is in many, many places of the world. Those places also happen to be poor and overpopulated. Gee, I wonder why...

The 1st city in the world predicted to run out of water is in Yemen. This is because the country's population has quadripled in the past 60 or so years. It also happens to rank one of the lowest in the world on gender equality. So even in that microcosm the scenario plays out the same regarding patriarchy, unwanted PIV, too many humans, poverty and the environment.

The patriarchy is killing this planet and torturing women in the process. No wonder feminists are so pessimistic these days. We've already hit the iceberg, but men keep merrily throwing more water in to sink the Titanic faster via overpopulation - all just to service their dicks on the regular.

Mexico was considered a China-like economic miracle in the 50s, but it could not develop fast enough to outpace the rapid population growth. It had to take a breather to institute nation-wide family planning programs in the 70s. Men were often resistant to them to the point of violence. After several decades of that and a degree of female empowerment, it beat the fertility rate down enough to be able to resume reasonable, but not spectacular development.

So no, oppression's not just about the economy. Otherwise Mexican men would've thought back in the 50s: "Hey, let's give women full reproductive autonomy to make fewer babies so we'll all be richer." Men everywhere could invent and use a chemical suppressant of the excessive sex+violence+misogyny hormones along the lines of the trans hormones and surgery or anti-depressants. So we can all be richer, safer, use the full intellectual potential of half of our species, breathe cleaner air and divide resources among fewer humans. Why don't they???

"You've said several times that men caused the overpopulation of the world, but the overpopulation was caused by huge advances in medicine, not in any increase in reproduction."

Do you seriously think that women wanted the 14 or so children forced on them in 1800? Medicine has just kept more of those babies alive. It's technology layering on top of the patriarchy and reproductive sex being forced on women. Frosting on a cake.

User, I have no idea what you're trying to argue as a main point. When you say: "people want power", you really mean: "men and the few women who behave like men want power". You have no basis for arguing that women on the whole want power equally because we just don't know - because the world has been patriarchal for all of written history. You're making the error of viewing all of humanity through the male lens, because men are the default humans in our world.

"If men overpopulated the world, they did it by enabling children to live to adulthood."

...after forcing women to have countless children to start with. Men have pushed constant PIV on them regardless - only now the collateral damage from that gets to live more often (with more chances if it's male). Most of the undernourished children in the world are girls, and most of those who die under 5 y.o. are girls, because the parents give away the food and medical treatment to boys.