“If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.” - Camille Paglia

[LabubuSixSeven]

I came across this (in)famous quote by feminist academic Camille Paglia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia) a few weeks back, and it has stuck with me.

At first, I was offended. However, as I’ve thought more about it, I can’t help but feel she has a point. Men are risk takers in ways that women are not. There are both positives (technology etc) and negatives (violence, war) to this. Is it the case that culturally and socially women aren’t allowed to take risks? Or is it that we biologically driven to not? If there were no men, would society be as progressive as it is?

I’d like to hear others opinions on this.

Any people wonder why feminism gets a bad name?
This it literally the female version of the manisphere.

On average men can certainly maintain social bonds but often in a more activity-based way. Hence old boys' networks etc

Camille Paglia is so obviously a "pick-me-girl". Please don't spread her misogynistic notions.

I honestly don't know why she doesn't date men. Her girlfriend must be a strange woman to put up with someone who denigrates the abilities of the majority of women (with exceptions of course including dear Camille herself!) and praises men in comparison all the time. Not to mention the paedophilia advocacy...!

Nope. I didn't say men shouldn't have equal rights, or be treated badly, or oppressed, or owned by women, or anything like that.

I stated a fact: That, reproduction aside, women don't need men to run a perfectly successful society (true) and that on a demographic level, men cause more problems (violence, rape, oppression, war, etc) than they solve – because they do. Men often tout themselves as protectors, but protectors from who? Other men!

Of course, a person's value doesn't rest upon how much they're 'needed', luckily.

If you took that as misandry, I think you have a lot of internalised misogyny to untangle.

It's lost in time, but the indications are that women were the ones who learned to use fire. (In just about all "non-techno" cultures I've heard of it's women who tend the flame or hearth.) Women likely invented spinning and weaving. Ever tried to carry groceries home without a bag? That's how important ropemaking and knotting or weaving would be to hunter-gatherers trying to live in villages and have a society. Women likely invented agriculture. Root bits or seeds tossed out the back door and harvested later are the earliest form. And in non-tech cultures, it's women who do that. It goes on and on. Women invented rolling luggage. Motherhood is one long marathon of inventions. Women here can probably confirm?

Invention doesn't primarily involve risk. It involves smarts and the ability to put things together in new ways. That talent isn't gender-limited. Or even related. (Yes, sure, once women are properly oppressed their minds shut down. But that's true of men too. It's how depressed brains work.)

And Camille Paglia hasn't been right about anything, ever, as far as I know. She's made her name being a mouthpiece for the patriarchy, so you wouldn't expect much else from her.

Not true as clearly evident from the number of single mothers in any country around the world, especially after war.

Men are far more dispensable than women in society when it comes to survival of the species. One man can impregnate many women but most women cannot give birth to more than a dozen children.

Also, women invented farming while the men were out hunting for meat often for long periods of time. Women were also the first doctors, cooks, bakers and brewers - the latter is where the witch's hat originates. Women brewers wore tall black triangular hats to be visible in markets in the middle ages.

Also, it’s such a culturally narrow-minded statement. If we think of grass-hut-living societies of say the last 250 years, did they have lead poisoning? children working in mines or factories? phossy jaw? industrial accidents? syphilis? etc … and on the other hand did they have rich oral and sung traditions and artisanal/land and water practices suitable to their environment … plus the presence of men in such societies.

Not to mention we still have thatched cottages in this country, what's that if not a grass roof? Environmentally friendly, biodegradable and insulating. And growing grasses is a lot better for your health than slate mining was back in the day.

Also a massive fire risk, prone to pests and expensive to maintain, but they look nice on the cover of Country Magazine.

Without women humanity would have starved to death very quickly indeed. Without men, we'd feast.

These kind of threads always decend into this kind of moronic oneupmanship nonsense. Hunter gather societies, unsurprisingly as the name implies, relied on both endeavours for a balanced diet that benefited the whole group. Collecting plants, berries, nuts, seeds, roots, and tubers provided a reliable, everyday food supply and this required detailed knowledge of seasons and landscapes which in turn lended itself to early medicinal knowledge. Hunting required tracking skills, also knowledge of landscapes and migrations, skill in killing small game to large mammals, the use of tools like spears, bows, traps etc More unpredictable, but a rich source of protein, high in calories when successful and supplied by products insofar as furs, tools, essential oils etc.

@ChamonixMountainBum indeed. The 20%/80% of calories isn’t as simple as they are making it out to be. As you said, have to consider protein and fats plus the vitamins from offal (the ate all of the animal). To add to that, you can starve in one winter and winter is the season where you can only get food from hunting or fishing. Both hunting and gathering were essential. If one sex didn’t exist then they would still have to both hunt and gather.

*descend

Men aren't disposable. Noone is.

This is the problem I have with Paglia and the "philosophers" like her. They start of by criticising Marxism for being anti-human (and conflate that with everything left wing and progressive usually). They do have a sort of point in that classic Marxism had a very mechanistic (don't know if that's the right word) view of people. There isn't any understanding of the value of humans as individuals or the idea that the value of humans comes from the fact they are humans.

Peterson, Paglia etc criticise that, but are completely trapped in that way of thinking themselves. The answer to "what are men/women FOR” isn't "we need men to invent things and hunt and women to have babies" anyway. It's way more complicated than that and as has been discussed here the idea only men can invent things, provide shelter and food etc is laughable. But it's also a stupid question. And a circular one. If the "point" of women is to have babies etc then what's the "point" of the babies. If there is no inherent point in humans, them there isnt any point in the continuation of the human race so arguing that the point of humans is ultimately to continue the human race is dumb.

Its partly a result of "philosophers" thinking they are much better at science than they are. Scientists might talk about what's an evolutionary advantage. But "evolution" doesn't want anything. It isn't a conscious thing, or anything with moral imperative. I evolved to want to eat sugary food. That doesn't mean there is a moral imperative to eat sugary food or that my purpose as a human is to eat biscuits. But people like Paglia and Peterson use scientific sounding terms to make their arguments sound more intellectual.

And the problem with provocative arguments by the likes of Paglia is people then get drawn into debating the specifics. Because her central point that we "need" men because it would only ever occur to a man that the roof shouldn't legal is dumb. But that them provides fodder for people saying "you see modern society/feminism/etc think men are useless". On the other hand, if we agree men's "use" is to provide shelter that's not a nice feeling either.

Either you tale the religious view that humans are created in god's image and therefore have inherent value. Or you take a humanistic one that humans have inherent value. Or an absurdist one that lifes a joke and deaths the final laugh. Or you seethe in misery like Peterson and the other post-modern anti-postmodernists.

Finally, people quote the 80/20 thing a lot like it's some mathematical rule. It isn't. The person who first identified it didn't think it was. It's a very good way of predicting the approach of pseudo-science though.

hunting presumably became more important in the balance as humankind spread away from more equatorial regions to latitudes with increasing seasonality?

@TheSunjustcameout sorry, just to say I know you qualified what you were saying by specifying "when it comes to the survival of the species". I don't think you are the problem. But the trouble is the likes of Paglia fail to qualify any of their statements like that and make it the basis of their arguments. Which then sets the ground people have to argue the points on to something inherently stupid and depressing.

Great post.

Yep, Google tells me that:

"hunter gatherers in equatorial regions lived in rich but challenging environments. Survival depended on broad diets, deep ecological knowledge, and strong cooperation, with gender roles that were often less rigid than commonly assumed. Less emphasis on large game hunting, greater reliance on plants, fish, and small animals, more year-round food availability (but still effort-intensive).
Often more flexible gender roles, especially in group hunting"

Except women can (and did) hunt both small and large game. I'm sure if men hadn't been around but women had still reproduced somehow, we would've managed.

Sure, and men can (and did) gather the aforementioned berries, nuts and roots etc when required to do so and if they could somehow reproduce without women they would have managed as well. Its a stupid argument. Both groups were capable of hunting and gathering. It could be argued that men were better suited to take on very large game as their increased upper body strength and size allowed them to kill animals from a greater distance thus reducing the risk profile of such tasks but that did not mean women did not get involved.

Yes… some years ago I read or heard something about which human physical abilities are remarkable. In our modern world we tend to think it’s all about brains, opposable thumbs and speech, but compared to other animals we’ve also got a couple of other things relevant to hunting. One is that humans are really good at long distance running. We tend to compare ourselves negatively with a cheetah or gazelle but they don’t run marathons. And that’s something that many people of both sexes are capable of doing, with training.
The other one was throwing. Overarm throwing starting presumably with stones and progressing to spears is clearly a huge advantage to a hunter, and no other species can do it. And this is something where men’s bodies skeletons and muscles really do give them an advantage over women.

Yes, but we would not be feasting.

I didn't say we would. But I imagine we'd be alright, given that women have and do also hunt for both small and large game, especially if necessary.

What was a stupid argument was the pp saying that women would starve without men, which was what the commenter you replied to was responding to. I was just reiterating that women can both hunt and gather, of course.

And yes, I'm sure men would've managed to survive as well - although I must admit I have doubts about the quality of their society.

Oh, I agree with you that all women or all men would manage. I said the same upthread.

was referring back the poster who introduced the 80/20 guess that we have been discussion who had also said in the 80/20 post that without men, we would all be feasting.