Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

[Metaphor]

Remember, you're not just trying to force women who were born male out of your bathroom. You're also forcing a bunch of individuals who understand themselves to be male, who look male, who totally and nonsecretly want to fuck women, and who have been taking male hormones to bulk up for decades, to use your bathroom. And why? So you can feel safe. The thing is, you're not a very good judge of what is and isn't safe.

First, not every transman wants to 'fuck women', if the transmen on Grindr are any indication.

Second, what makes Emily's perception of her safety "not very good", and what makes you so sure your perception is better? Are you saying transmen who are sexually attracted to women are more violent and rapey than transwomen who are attracted to women? Show your work.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not the transgender element that gives me pause. It's the functioning-penis-that-can-make-me-pregnant-against-my-will element that I have a problem with. I genuinely don't care how people dress or present themselves. I'm 100% for smashing the gender binary. But the sex binary is a real thing, with real repercussions, and real risks.

If you think that makes me an asshole, well, okay then. Most females, have the same problem. For some bizarre reason, we don't like having male-bodied people around us when we're naked. I can't imagine why. It's a mystery.

Most men don't like the thought of having gay men in the men's room, either. And yes, that makes them assholes too.

Even if your statement was true (that 'most men' don't like gay men in their bathroom), why does it make them 'assholes' for 'not liking the thought'?

Internal feelings don't make people assholes. A woman who feels more nervous sharing an elevator with a man than she would feel sharing an elevator with a woman doesn't make her an 'asshole' (though it's simply an unfortunate feeling that she will need to tolerate - elevators are not single-sex spaces).

 

[rousseau]

So if there is no innate, instinctual drive for men to find certain characteristics attractive in women, and women in men, why do they mate at all? What is driving men toward particular types of women, and not others? Why are men almost exclusively attracted to women that are younger than them, and within their child-bearing years?

You know, if you actually bothered to read the entirety of my post, you'd have some answers. But hey, you do you.

And you didn't answer my question:

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

I'm not going to answer it because it's an entire field of study in which I'm not an expert. I'm barely a novice. Go ask an anthropologist or a social scientist of whatever the appropriate field is.

I did read the entire post but it seemed to contain conflicting ideas. First you said that instinct doesn't exist, then you used the phrase behavioral tendencies, which to me sounds like instinct. But in the beginning of the post you explicitly said that peahens have no innate drive to find long tails attractive. This is what I'm challenging in your post. If instinct exists, then humans should have some level of predisposition toward other members of their community, which should be reflected in their cultures.

Earlier you've made a claim that most behavior we see today is culturally learned, and yet you've mentioned that you don't know how instincts have played a part in that same culture. To me that seems like a crucial puzzle piece in the argument that most behaviors are learned and reinforced.

 

[rousseau]

That's fair, but I think seize power isn't a generous enough explanation of what happened, or what is happening. First, it starts from the assumption that women don't hold any power via the caretaker role. Just because women traditionally care for children, doesn't mean they don't have power. Throughout history men have relied on women to raise their children, take care of their households, and a multitude of other equally important things. So this argument starts from the assumption that being a mother is less important than holding power in society, which just isn't true. Both positions are important for child-rearing. And throughout history women have been able to dictate that men go find some fucking food or we're not having children.

I'm going to push back on this. Sure, there's "power" of a very minimal sort here, at best you've got the Lysistrata paradigm of women withholding sex as a means of power. But that overlooks the fact that for most of history, marital rape wasn't a thing - if a man forced his wife to have sex, it wasn't considered rape, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, and regardless of whether it caused her pain or injury. Additionally, the "power" of being bound to household chores and childrearing came at the cost of women having no agency. Sure, we had "power" over the household... but we didn't get to make decisions about our life as a whole, we weren't free to pursue our own desires, to seek our own happiness. We were denied the highest peak of Maslow's Hierarchy. The value of a woman was defined by her service to her husband.

As the sex that has historically be consigned to the home and childrearing, expected to find my greatest joy in making my husband happy and fulfilling all of his wants and desires... I rather think that's not really power at all.

I'd start off by mentioning that you're making a pretty broad generalization about women's oppression. It's easy to paint a picture of women being universally oppressed, but I'm sure that's not actually the picture we're looking at. Women have never been happy, ever, in history?

I'll grant your point that women can have less agency, but I believe you've misconstrued my point about their power. The point was that their 'role' gave them a lot of power to survive - their partners, men, needed to extract resources from the environment which flowed to them. No things haven't always been perfect, but that's the world we live in.

A lot of the arguments we're seeing in this thread now display a short-sighted view of history. Up until the end of the 19th century women's role in the family unit was absolutely essential for survival in most of the world. It's only been in the twentieth century that women have been needed to work outside the home, and guess what? Gender roles changed pretty rapidly to reflect that. But a few decades have passed, many cultures have changed, and our values are now oriented to women making money. Fair enough, but the world now isn't reflective of the world before modernity.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did read the entire post but it seemed to contain conflicting ideas. First you said that instinct doesn't exist, then you used the phrase behavioral tendencies, which to me sounds like instinct. But in the beginning of the post you explicitly said that peahens have no innate drive to find long tails attractive. This is what I'm challenging in your post. If instinct exists, then humans should have some level of predisposition toward other members of their community, which should be reflected in their cultures.

Earlier you've made a claim that most behavior we see today is culturally learned, and yet you've mentioned that you don't know how instincts have played a part in that same culture. To me that seems like a crucial puzzle piece in the argument that most behaviors are learned and reinforced.

Prior to the 1920s, the standard of beauty for American women was to be somewhat chubby. Then Twiggy burst on the scene, and the standard of beauty became one of incredibly thin, flat chested, fairly androgynous women for a bit. Then in the 50's it came back around to being a bit thicker. You can find articles and adds out there aimed at women who are too thin to be considered attractive. Now we're back to very thin.

At one point in time, being very pale was considered the height of fashion, and very attractive. Tans were considered ugly. Then the 80s showed up and everyone had to have that beach tan or be considered sickeningly pale. Now we're swinging back toward pale being considered pretty again.

What "instinct" is it that drives these swings?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'd start off by mentioning that you're making a pretty broad generalization about women's oppression. It's easy to paint a picture of women being universally oppressed, but I'm sure that's not actually the picture we're looking at. Women have never been happy, ever, in history?

I'll grant your point that women can have less agency, but I believe you've misconstrued my point about their power. The point was that their 'role' gave them a lot of power to survive - their partners, men, needed to extract resources from the environment which flowed to them. No things haven't always been perfect, but that's the world we live in.

A lot of the arguments we're seeing in this thread now display a short-sighted view of history. Up until the end of the 19th century women's role in the family unit was absolutely essential for survival in most of the world. It's only been in the twentieth century that women have been needed to work outside the home, and guess what? Gender roles changed pretty rapidly to reflect that.

I'd like you to take a bit and consider that the only reason we have the agency to work outside the home is because we fought for it. We protested and we argued, and we made a stink about it... and we were only grudgingly given access to be financially independent. And at that, it's not even universal. Much of the planet, even in areas with plenty of wealth and reasonable development, women *still* don't have agency and freedom.

 

[rousseau]

I'd start off by mentioning that you're making a pretty broad generalization about women's oppression. It's easy to paint a picture of women being universally oppressed, but I'm sure that's not actually the picture we're looking at. Women have never been happy, ever, in history?

I'll grant your point that women can have less agency, but I believe you've misconstrued my point about their power. The point was that their 'role' gave them a lot of power to survive - their partners, men, needed to extract resources from the environment which flowed to them. No things haven't always been perfect, but that's the world we live in.

A lot of the arguments we're seeing in this thread now display a short-sighted view of history. Up until the end of the 19th century women's role in the family unit was absolutely essential for survival in most of the world. It's only been in the twentieth century that women have been needed to work outside the home, and guess what? Gender roles changed pretty rapidly to reflect that.

I'd like you to take a bit and consider that the only reason we have the agency to work outside the home is because we fought for it. We protested and we argued, and we made a stink about it... and we were only grudgingly given access to be financially independent. And at that, it's not even universal. Much of the planet, even in areas with plenty of wealth and reasonable development, women *still* don't have agency and freedom.

Is that true? The only reason you have agency to work outside the home is because you fought for it? It has nothing to do with industrialization and the fact that men's labor is no longer productive enough to support a family?

 

[rousseau]

I did read the entire post but it seemed to contain conflicting ideas. First you said that instinct doesn't exist, then you used the phrase behavioral tendencies, which to me sounds like instinct. But in the beginning of the post you explicitly said that peahens have no innate drive to find long tails attractive. This is what I'm challenging in your post. If instinct exists, then humans should have some level of predisposition toward other members of their community, which should be reflected in their cultures.

Earlier you've made a claim that most behavior we see today is culturally learned, and yet you've mentioned that you don't know how instincts have played a part in that same culture. To me that seems like a crucial puzzle piece in the argument that most behaviors are learned and reinforced.

Prior to the 1920s, the standard of beauty for American women was to be somewhat chubby. Then Twiggy burst on the scene, and the standard of beauty became one of incredibly thin, flat chested, fairly androgynous women for a bit. Then in the 50's it came back around to being a bit thicker. You can find articles and adds out there aimed at women who are too thin to be considered attractive. Now we're back to very thin.

At one point in time, being very pale was considered the height of fashion, and very attractive. Tans were considered ugly. Then the 80s showed up and everyone had to have that beach tan or be considered sickeningly pale. Now we're swinging back toward pale being considered pretty again.

What "instinct" is it that drives these swings?

There is noise and then there is a signal. The signal is the instinct. What all of these women had in common was likely - young, child-bearing years, healthy.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Our leaders must be virile, conquering types. For tens of thousands of years, if not longer, men have played the role of leaders in society and women have been shunted aside.

I see where you're coming from, but you are writing from the perspective of the US, the white segment of whose population was founded by a particular religious tradition which valued women as subordinates and home makers. It still shows.

You ignore

(mentioning only those instances that my limited historical and political knowledge is reasonably sure of)

*indigenes, whose political structure wasn't the same as yours
*India
*Israel
*Egypt
*New Zealand
*Argentina
*Norway
*all those European queens who ruled in their own right and
*queen consorts who were happily accepted by their subjects as regents for extended periods
(The last 2 groups despite existing in a world where power was usually automatically inherited in the male line.)

and all the other countries who have had multiple women wielding supreme executive power

And I think you'll find that women will more overtly wield power now that we have greater reproductive control and less legal constraint, and that men will be less inclined to joke about men being "hard wired as leaders" as time goes on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"Hard-wired" is a strong claim. No one in this thread has denied that patriarchy is common; it's the claim that it is absolute and "natural" that we find very dubious. No, if there multiple exceptions to the rule, it's not "hard-wired" in, even if those exceptions don't make up a global majority at the moment. There are other cultural near-universals, and that isn't surprising given that humans talk to each other and spread ideas around.

Is it really a strong claim? It's not controversial that we're partly ruled by instinct. We're also hard-wired to prefer fatty and sugary things. Which is why so many people are obese. We're hard wired to want to feel happy feelings. Which is why addiction is a thing. How aren't you saying that all fat people are fat by choice and all addicts want to be addicts? Clearly some things are hard-wired and natural.

Something being hard-wired or instinct, just means that we are systematically nudged in a direction. Anybody can avoid eating cake if they put their minds to it. But over time, fat people are more likely to fail at resisting. That's what something being innate or natural means.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that this effect is absolute. You just made that up. There are plenty of female leaders in the world, and they have done a stellar job. Nobody in this thread has challenged this. So in what way is anybody in this thread claiming that the preference for male leaders is absolute?

I think you are making the black and white fallacy in this thread. I think you are interpreting the statements you don't agree with as being much stronger than they are, in such a way that they are easy to refute. Without actually replying to what is being said.

All kinds of nonsense ideas get spread. But they are constantly tried and tested all the time. Ideas that don't solve problems, or are perceived to solve problems won't be retained in a population. What's in it for the ladies with patriarchy? Why would 51% of the population, up until the modern age, put up with being reduced to property? If you claim that all it took was a conspiracy of men, I'd say you don't have enough respect for the intelligence and abilities of women. Also you'll need some way to explain why enough men would go along with the patriarchal conspiracy to maintain control? I find it hard to believe that even a majority would do it, unless it's nudged in this direction by something innate and hard-wired.

And I note that you didn't think it was a red herring until you were educated against your will about the nature of Mosuo society. Funny how irrelevant a data point becomes when you realize it doesn't support your ideological projects.

I still have read very little about Mosuo culture. Not enough to judge whether or not you are correct. Either way, it's a statistical population of one. And since they seemed to have male chieftains up until the communist takeover, it makes me suspect that this matriarchy was engineered by the communist party. It brings to mind how the British government broke the Scottish clans during the high middle ages. They gave them enough money to not have to do anything all day, and gave them enough free beer to ensure they were all drunkards. They did this until the clan system had fallen apart and was beyond repair. Without factoring in the "intervention" of the British crown your conclusions of the nature of the clan culture from this period, will be wrong.

A society where men do nothing but lie about all day doing nothing, is not a sustainable society. It's questionable whether this Mosuo culture is a genuine product of real demands of Himalayan mountain life, or engineered by the communist party, and a result of that intervention.

Other Asian hill tribe peoples I know more about is the Zao and the Hmong in Vietnam. I was there in 1996 when most Westerners weren't allowed in. I was one of the first outsiders who had been there since the wars of independence in the 1950'ies. To say that they had been royally fucked over by the communist government is to put it mildly. The Hmong were all drunks. By central government design. The Zao and Hmong were in perpetual conflict, also thanks to central government design. All designed to make the hill tribes less of a problem for the central government. Back then if they ever built a large building the central government wouldn't inspect it. They just sent war planes that bombed it to bits. Which put a lid on attempts to effectivise farming to make some money, and lift themselves out of poverty. That's the degree these hill tribes in communist countries have been treated. It's pretty extreme.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A thing people we rarely talk about is the fact that mixed workplaces where men and women are equals was rare or special cases before the 1950'ies. Gender mixed workplaces is a recent and massive social experiment we're treating as if it should just work smoothly out of the box, and we're supposed to do soul searching whenever it fails. Instead of being amazed whenever it has worked at all.

Let's give this a shot for comparison...

A thing people we rarely talk about is the fact that mixed workplaces where blacks and whites are equals was rare or special cases before the 1960'ies. Racially mixed workplaces is a recent and massive social experiment we're treating as if it should just work smoothly out of the box, and we're supposed to do soul searching whenever it fails. Instead of being amazed whenever it has worked at all.

Still make sense to you? Still sound reasonable?

Ok, let's. Racism is a still a thing. Were you not aware of this? It is something we acknowledge and talk about. Ending slavery didn't magically over-night create racial equality. It's been quite a journey. It still is. Which is why BLM is a thing. It's why NAACP still is a thing. The reasons for racial inequality still existing is acknowledged and explored. Which I'd argue is a good thing. Don't you?

I know you are not arguing that racism doesn't exist and that racial equality is already achieved. So I don't understand why you made the comparison? Ignoring a problem and pretending a real difference doesn't exist doesn't fix the problem. You're like white people emphatically claiming they don't see colour. Of course they do. How could they not? Sweeping this under the rug won't magically create gender equality nor fix racism. And shaming people for not living up to a fully rational ideal version of a human being is hardly going to make the world a better place, nor fix gender inequality.

I think mainstream feminism is being willfully ignorant, refusing to open the door to exploring innate gender differences, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

But it's far from all feminists. Janet Radcliffe Richards is awesome for instance. She's very much a feminist. But also a biologist by training. These feminists do exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Radcliffe_Richards

 

[Politesse]

"Hard-wired" is a strong claim. No one in this thread has denied that patriarchy is common; it's the claim that it is absolute and "natural" that we find very dubious. No, if there multiple exceptions to the rule, it's not "hard-wired" in, even if those exceptions don't make up a global majority at the moment. There are other cultural near-universals, and that isn't surprising given that humans talk to each other and spread ideas around.

Is it really a strong claim? It's not controversial that we're partly ruled by instinct. We're also hard-wired to prefer fatty and sugary things. Which is why so many people are obese. We're hard wired to want to feel happy feelings. Which is why addiction is a thing. How aren't you saying that all fat people are fat by choice and all addicts want to be addicts? Clearly some things are hard-wired and natural.

Something being hard-wired or instinct, just means that we are systematically nudged in a direction. Anybody can avoid eating cake if they put their minds to it. But over time, fat people are more likely to fail at resisting. That's what something being innate or natural means.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that this effect is absolute. You just made that up. There are plenty of female leaders in the world, and they have done a stellar job. Nobody in this thread has challenged this. So in what way is anybody in this thread claiming that the preference for male leaders is absolute?

I think you are making the black and white fallacy in this thread. I think you are interpreting the statements you don't agree with as being much stronger than they are, in such a way that they are easy to refute. Without actually replying to what is being said.

All kinds of nonsense ideas get spread. But they are constantly tried and tested all the time. Ideas that don't solve problems, or are perceived to solve problems won't be retained in a population. What's in it for the ladies with patriarchy? Why would 51% of the population, up until the modern age, put up with being reduced to property? If you claim that all it took was a conspiracy of men, I'd say you don't have enough respect for the intelligence and abilities of women. Also you'll need some way to explain why enough men would go along with the patriarchal conspiracy to maintain control? I find it hard to believe that even a majority would do it, unless it's nudged in this direction by something innate and hard-wired.

And I note that you didn't think it was a red herring until you were educated against your will about the nature of Mosuo society. Funny how irrelevant a data point becomes when you realize it doesn't support your ideological projects.

I still have read very little about Mosuo culture. Not enough to judge whether or not you are correct. Either way, it's a statistical population of one. And since they seemed to have male chieftains up until the communist takeover, it makes me suspect that this matriarchy was engineered by the communist party. It brings to mind how the British government broke the Scottish clans during the high middle ages. They gave them enough money to not have to do anything all day, and gave them enough free beer to ensure they were all drunkards. They did this until the clan system had fallen apart and was beyond repair. Without factoring in the "intervention" of the British crown your conclusions of the nature of the clan culture from this period, will be wrong.

A society where men do nothing but lie about all day doing nothing, is not a sustainable society. It's questionable whether this Mosuo culture is a genuine product of real demands of Himalayan mountain life, or engineered by the communist party, and a result of that intervention.

Other Asian hill tribe peoples I know more about is the Zao and the Hmong in Vietnam. I was there in 1996 when most Westerners weren't allowed in. I was one of the first outsiders who had been there since the wars of independence in the 1950'ies. To say that they had been royally fucked over by the communist government is to put it mildly. The Hmong were all drunks. By central government design. The Zao and Hmong were in perpetual conflict, also thanks to central government design. All designed to make the hill tribes less of a problem for the central government. Back then if they ever built a large building the central government wouldn't inspect it. They just sent war planes that bombed it to bits. Which put a lid on attempts to effectivise farming to make some money, and lift themselves out of poverty. That's the degree these hill tribes in communist countries have been treated. It's pretty extreme.

So you're just... making up bullshit to defend your point, now? Fine. But I do hope it is now clear to all who are reading this that what you're doing has no relationship of any kind to anthropology.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is it really a strong claim? It's not controversial that we're partly ruled by instinct. We're also hard-wired to prefer fatty and sugary things. Which is why so many people are obese. We're hard wired to want to feel happy feelings. Which is why addiction is a thing. How aren't you saying that all fat people are fat by choice and all addicts want to be addicts? Clearly some things are hard-wired and natural.

Something being hard-wired or instinct, just means that we are systematically nudged in a direction. Anybody can avoid eating cake if they put their minds to it. But over time, fat people are more likely to fail at resisting. That's what something being innate or natural means.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that this effect is absolute. You just made that up. There are plenty of female leaders in the world, and they have done a stellar job. Nobody in this thread has challenged this. So in what way is anybody in this thread claiming that the preference for male leaders is absolute?

I think you are making the black and white fallacy in this thread. I think you are interpreting the statements you don't agree with as being much stronger than they are, in such a way that they are easy to refute. Without actually replying to what is being said.

All kinds of nonsense ideas get spread. But they are constantly tried and tested all the time. Ideas that don't solve problems, or are perceived to solve problems won't be retained in a population. What's in it for the ladies with patriarchy? Why would 51% of the population, up until the modern age, put up with being reduced to property? If you claim that all it took was a conspiracy of men, I'd say you don't have enough respect for the intelligence and abilities of women. Also you'll need some way to explain why enough men would go along with the patriarchal conspiracy to maintain control? I find it hard to believe that even a majority would do it, unless it's nudged in this direction by something innate and hard-wired.



I still have read very little about Mosuo culture. Not enough to judge whether or not you are correct. Either way, it's a statistical population of one. And since they seemed to have male chieftains up until the communist takeover, it makes me suspect that this matriarchy was engineered by the communist party. It brings to mind how the British government broke the Scottish clans during the high middle ages. They gave them enough money to not have to do anything all day, and gave them enough free beer to ensure they were all drunkards. They did this until the clan system had fallen apart and was beyond repair. Without factoring in the "intervention" of the British crown your conclusions of the nature of the clan culture from this period, will be wrong.

A society where men do nothing but lie about all day doing nothing, is not a sustainable society. It's questionable whether this Mosuo culture is a genuine product of real demands of Himalayan mountain life, or engineered by the communist party, and a result of that intervention.

Other Asian hill tribe peoples I know more about is the Zao and the Hmong in Vietnam. I was there in 1996 when most Westerners weren't allowed in. I was one of the first outsiders who had been there since the wars of independence in the 1950'ies. To say that they had been royally fucked over by the communist government is to put it mildly. The Hmong were all drunks. By central government design. The Zao and Hmong were in perpetual conflict, also thanks to central government design. All designed to make the hill tribes less of a problem for the central government. Back then if they ever built a large building the central government wouldn't inspect it. They just sent war planes that bombed it to bits. Which put a lid on attempts to effectivise farming to make some money, and lift themselves out of poverty. That's the degree these hill tribes in communist countries have been treated. It's pretty extreme.

So you're just... making up bullshit to defend your point, now? Fine. But I do hope it is now clear to all who are reading this that what you're doing has no relationship of any kind to anthropology.

So instead of trying to reply to my claims you are now pretending that I've claimed to be an anthropologist. If that's how you want to play it.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'd start off by mentioning that you're making a pretty broad generalization about women's oppression. It's easy to paint a picture of women being universally oppressed, but I'm sure that's not actually the picture we're looking at. Women have never been happy, ever, in history?

I'll grant your point that women can have less agency, but I believe you've misconstrued my point about their power. The point was that their 'role' gave them a lot of power to survive - their partners, men, needed to extract resources from the environment which flowed to them. No things haven't always been perfect, but that's the world we live in.

A lot of the arguments we're seeing in this thread now display a short-sighted view of history. Up until the end of the 19th century women's role in the family unit was absolutely essential for survival in most of the world. It's only been in the twentieth century that women have been needed to work outside the home, and guess what? Gender roles changed pretty rapidly to reflect that.

I'd like you to take a bit and consider that the only reason we have the agency to work outside the home is because we fought for it. We protested and we argued, and we made a stink about it... and we were only grudgingly given access to be financially independent. And at that, it's not even universal. Much of the planet, even in areas with plenty of wealth and reasonable development, women *still* don't have agency and freedom.

Is that true? The only reason you have agency to work outside the home is because you fought for it? It has nothing to do with industrialization and the fact that men's labor is no longer productive enough to support a family?

I honestly don't know where to start with this. Go learn about Women's Suffrage. At a bear minimum, please stop making up what you think is a reasonable thing to have happened, and then assuming that your imagined history is true.

 

[rousseau]

Is that true? The only reason you have agency to work outside the home is because you fought for it? It has nothing to do with industrialization and the fact that men's labor is no longer productive enough to support a family?

I honestly don't know where to start with this. Go learn about Women's Suffrage. At a bear minimum, please stop making up what you think is a reasonable thing to have happened, and then assuming that your imagined history is true.

Yes, it seems like you're not grokking many of my arguments. No fault of your own, they're unusual arguments. My point was that up until the twentieth century there literally was no avenue for woman's suffrage, human survival depended on a specific kind of family unit where women were in the home. Women's Suffrage was made possible because industrialization and technology made our species, as a whole, emancipated from harsh realities of the world. Yes I'll grant you that culturally there were issues with ideas over the role of women, but you glazed over the point that as soon as women were needed outside the home gender roles changed within about 100 years.

Basically, those who have an odd hang-up over the idea that instincts exist are projecting their values from a 2020 world on our past, which really isn't an appropriate interpretation. More than that, you've been trying to paint a picture that there's been ever-present war between genders, which I'm sure is a bit of a broad brush.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is that true? The only reason you have agency to work outside the home is because you fought for it? It has nothing to do with industrialization and the fact that men's labor is no longer productive enough to support a family?

I honestly don't know where to start with this. Go learn about Women's Suffrage. At a bear minimum, please stop making up what you think is a reasonable thing to have happened, and then assuming that your imagined history is true.

Yes, it seems like you're not grokking many of my arguments. No fault of your own, they're unusual arguments. My point was that up until the twentieth century there literally was no avenue for woman's suffrage, human survival depended on a specific kind of family unit where women were in the home. Women's Suffrage was made possible because industrialization and technology made our species, as a whole, emancipated from harsh realities of the world. Yes I'll grant you that culturally there were issues with ideas over the role of women, but you glazed over the point that as soon as women were needed outside the home gender roles changed within about 100 years.

Basically, those who have an odd hang-up over the idea that instincts exist are projecting their values from a 2020 world on our past, which really isn't an appropriate interpretation. More than that, you've been trying to paint a picture that there's been ever-present war between genders, which I'm sure is a bit of a broad brush.

16th or 17th century. Not exactly certain when mercantilism began. That's the stage at which women really weren't *required* to stay home so the family could survive. The last stages of pregnancy, and a fair bit after that, sure. But wet-nurses and governesses have existed for a really long time. And realistically, there's absolutely no reason at all that a man couldn't take care of a kid from about a year and up, depending on when the kid was weaned.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, it seems like you're not grokking many of my arguments. No fault of your own, they're unusual arguments. My point was that up until the twentieth century there literally was no avenue for woman's suffrage, human survival depended on a specific kind of family unit where women were in the home.

Really? Women had to stay home? Mothers (and fathers) never used caretakers to take care of children? Women never worked, they were just domestic housewives?

Let's look at a broader picture, here. Some animals have both parents or either parent take care of children. Some animals don't have children and males and females engage in getting food. Some social animals have different ways of tribal members who are not the parents taking care of tribe children.

You are arguing that technology has made such things feasible so that mothers don't have to take care of children as much and also both parents have to work, but you are failing to notice that technology is a separate dimension. There's always been daycare of a sort and both parents have always worked in one way or another, whether for the tribe, for the home, for the farm, for a factory, for a community, or for the self. Given that both parents have worked, it follows that either and both parents had the same theoretical opportunity time-wise to vote.

The historical problem of opportunity was not that women were busy working in the home as elaborated above, but instead that men specifically blocked women from voting. You seem to be pretending that patriarchy is not a thing historically or at present. Patriarchy isn't a thing that is different than either religion or the Republican Party. It consists of an elite class which tricks followers into thinking they're better off following the ideology and practice. The most elite men gain a big relative benefit and promise benefit to an underclass of men who have a relative benefit over women.

Just the other day a father cut off his daughter's head in India. He did this because he is stuck in a hierarchical system where children are forced to marry whom they are told and daughters especially lack freedom to make choices with their own bodies because they are the lowest sexual class. The father has relative benefit and status over others but would be better off in a different system entirely but the hierarchical system has a sort of stability that is hard to move into a different system, even over thousands of years.

There is an avenue for such young women voting or being political leaders but the very elite do not want to give up their benefits and the men under them do not want to risk their own statuses, even if it means murdering their own family members.

 

[rousseau]

Yes, it seems like you're not grokking many of my arguments. No fault of your own, they're unusual arguments. My point was that up until the twentieth century there literally was no avenue for woman's suffrage, human survival depended on a specific kind of family unit where women were in the home.

Really? Women had to stay home? Mothers (and fathers) never used caretakers to take care of children? Women never worked, they were just domestic housewives?

Let's look at a broader picture, here. Some animals have both parents or either parent take care of children. Some animals don't have children and males and females engage in getting food. Some social animals have different ways of tribal members who are not the parents taking care of tribe children.

You are arguing that technology has made such things feasible so that mothers don't have to take care of children as much and also both parents have to work, but you are failing to notice that technology is a separate dimension. There's always been daycare of a sort and both parents have always worked in one way or another, whether for the tribe, for the home, for the farm, for a factory, for a community, or for the self. Given that both parents have worked, it follows that either and both parents had the same theoretical opportunity time-wise to vote.

The historical problem of opportunity was not that women were busy working in the home as elaborated above, but instead that men specifically blocked women from voting. You seem to be pretending that patriarchy is not a thing historically or at present. Patriarchy isn't a thing that is different than either religion or the Republican Party. It consists of an elite class which tricks followers into thinking they're better off following the ideology and practice. The most elite men gain a big relative benefit and promise benefit to an underclass of men who have a relative benefit over women.

Just the other day a father cut off his daughter's head in India. He did this because he is stuck in a hierarchical system where children are forced to marry whom they are told and daughters especially lack freedom to make choices with their own bodies because they are the lowest sexual class. The father has relative benefit and status over others but would be better off in a different system entirely but the hierarchical system has a sort of stability that is hard to move into a different system, even over thousands of years.

There is an avenue for such young women voting or being political leaders but the very elite do not want to give up their benefits and the men under them do not want to risk their own statuses, even if it means murdering their own family members.

I'm not arguing that children are the sole reason women were in the home, but rather that children are the reason they have that role and not men. I'd have to find statistics but IIRC up until the 20th century almost the entire world was still agrarian, which still necessitated women taking the homemaker role. Yes this is a generalization and there has been a transition period which is still underway.

Culturally I'm pretty much on board with you but again we forget that these cultural ideas existed for a reason. People believed women should be in the home because that is literally where they were needed.

Similarly, Christian ideas of abstinence look pretty backward when you have birth control, but at the time these norms served a real function.

Perhaps women could have voted once parliamentary democracy was a thing but these norms take time to change. We can't expect monarchy to be overthrown in one breath and have universal human rights overnight.

Yes violence against women was and is still a problem. But like I mentioned to others this doesn't paint a full picture of the life of women throughout history. Many women were very likely in love with their partners, many women enjoyed child rearing, many women were fine with the situation as it existed.

It's fine to push for their rights but it's similarly easy to get the false notion that women were universally oppressed and universally didn't enjoy their lives. By not granting these women validity you take away their agency.

And this goes back to my original point: the interpretation that women were just helpless and powerless throughout history is an invalid interpretation of what history actually looked like. Yes to some degree men had more financial power but the reality is much more complicated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, it seems like you're not grokking many of my arguments. No fault of your own, they're unusual arguments. My point was that up until the twentieth century there literally was no avenue for woman's suffrage, human survival depended on a specific kind of family unit where women were in the home.

Really? Women had to stay home? Mothers (and fathers) never used caretakers to take care of children? Women never worked, they were just domestic housewives?

Let's look at a broader picture, here. Some animals have both parents or either parent take care of children. Some animals don't have children and males and females engage in getting food. Some social animals have different ways of tribal members who are not the parents taking care of tribe children.

You are arguing that technology has made such things feasible so that mothers don't have to take care of children as much and also both parents have to work, but you are failing to notice that technology is a separate dimension. There's always been daycare of a sort and both parents have always worked in one way or another, whether for the tribe, for the home, for the farm, for a factory, for a community, or for the self. Given that both parents have worked, it follows that either and both parents had the same theoretical opportunity time-wise to vote.

The historical problem of opportunity was not that women were busy working in the home as elaborated above, but instead that men specifically blocked women from voting. You seem to be pretending that patriarchy is not a thing historically or at present. Patriarchy isn't a thing that is different than either religion or the Republican Party. It consists of an elite class which tricks followers into thinking they're better off following the ideology and practice. The most elite men gain a big relative benefit and promise benefit to an underclass of men who have a relative benefit over women.

Just the other day a father cut off his daughter's head in India. He did this because he is stuck in a hierarchical system where children are forced to marry whom they are told and daughters especially lack freedom to make choices with their own bodies because they are the lowest sexual class. The father has relative benefit and status over others but would be better off in a different system entirely but the hierarchical system has a sort of stability that is hard to move into a different system, even over thousands of years.

There is an avenue for such young women voting or being political leaders but the very elite do not want to give up their benefits and the men under them do not want to risk their own statuses, even if it means murdering their own family members.

I'm not arguing that children are the sole reason women were in the home, but rather that children are the reason they have that role and not men. I'd have to find statistics but IIRC up until the 20th century almost the entire world was still agrarian, which still necessitated women taking the homemaker role. Yes this is a generalization and there has been a transition period which is still underway.

As I already argued, none of that necessitated women taking the homemaker role since in a tribe, groups can function across family units, but moreover, even IF IT DID necessitate a homemaker role, that is not mutually exclusive to suffrage. Therefore, your argument was and still is illogical.

Culturally I'm pretty much on board with you but again we forget that these cultural ideas existed for a reason. People believed women should be in the home because that is literally where they were needed.

Except that they were not needed to be sheltered inside a home, nor did the idea of women being less than men originate from agrarian societies--your unsubstantiated hypothesis. The idea was also present in nomadic and hunter gatherer cultures.

Similarly, Christian ideas of abstinence look pretty backward when you have birth control, but at the time these norms served a real function.

Except it is not about abstinence but instead using females as a way to ensure family status by selling them off. Abstinence is only a by-product, since men did not want a woman who already had sex/had diseases from other men/might be carrying another man's child.

Let's be real here and not make excuses. People would watch the bride and groom copulate to ensure the father was actually the father. Abstinence as an explanatory value is very lacking in explaining all these features of history.

Perhaps women could have voted once parliamentary democracy was a thing but these norms take time to change. We can't expect monarchy to be overthrown in one breath and have universal human rights overnight.

Monarchy has already been overthrown, but men are still demanding women be subservient. It's still happening. There are still groups in democracies trying to bring it backward. These are not people doing it for agrarian reasons.

Yes violence against women was and is still a problem. But like I mentioned to others this doesn't paint a full picture of the life of women throughout history. Many women were very likely in love with their partners, many women enjoyed child rearing, many women were fine with the situation as it existed.

My grandmother always spoke highly of working on the farm and of the cows. She was dropped off there on the farm when she was 3 to begin training as a worker. Her parents did not need to take care of her and probably couldn't. All of them were capable of voting upon adulthood. Just because my grandmother was happy at times doesn't mean there couldn't have been a better life for her or that there were not people who forced her into the life she endured. And those people had other choices they could have made.

It's fine to push for their rights but it's similarly easy to get the false notion that women were universally oppressed and universally didn't enjoy their lives. By not granting these women validity you take away their agency.

And this goes back to my original point: the interpretation that women were just helpless and powerless throughout history is an invalid interpretation of what history actually looked like. Yes to some degree men had more financial power but the reality is much more complicated.

You are exaggerating a position I did not take. Power is a continuum. No one claimed women were "powerless." They had power, just on average--less--on average. There historically have been many exceptions, such as female warrior leaders, political leaders, pirates, wealthy, educated, etc. You are the one in denial here of history--there was and is an actual physical, brutal, violent blocking of women's equality. Saying that truth is not some weird claim that women have no agency. It's just stating a fact.

 

[repoman]

It doesn't really matter, Google will sort it out for us