• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

I'd say Humans are wired for inertia. The majority of Human groups seem capable of enduring all sorts of stuff via ignorance, obfuscation, denial, resignation, bigotry. The small percentage in power take advantage of that, and target the weaknesses as needed to ensure continued status quo.
 
Lol. And now I am a chauvinist suddenly. What creative slander will you think of next?

The field has plenty of ideologicaly driven feminist crackpots who see what they want to see.

The irony runs deep with this one.

Lol. And now I am a chauvinist suddenly. What creative slander will you think of next?

The field has plenty of ideologicaly driven feminist crackpots who see what they want to see.

I kind of feel like we can all pretty much stop reading right there...

DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists". Egalitarianism I totally believe in. But not feminism. Because of the ideological crackpots who do claim feminism.

And I'm not just talking about the female feminists, the male feminists are often worse. They blend the worst of masculine dominance with the worst of feminist ideological b.s..
Tom
 
To expand on that, the republicans as a whole have only one element of their party that is against the rights of women, and that's in the very narrow field of abortion rights.

Beyond Trump's non-stop 4 years of assault on the most fundamental women's right there is, their reproduction, here is a few other things Trump and the GOP did to destroy women's rights:

Trump ordered the EEOC to halt the collection of data about men and women's pay, which is neccessary to enforce laws protecting women's rights not to be discriminated against.

Trump filed a motion to have the court rule against adopting the ERA as the 28th Amendment, without with women do not have equal rights under the existing Constitution.

Trump has weakened laws that protect women's rights against sexual assault and violence but narrowing the acts those laws apply to.

The most important legislation in US history regarding protecting women from violent assaults against their rights, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, is currently no longer in effect b/c most Republicans in the House voted against it's reauthorization, and the Republicans in the Senate have refused for 2 years to allow it to be debated voted on.
 
DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists".
So you don't identify with something because of radicals in said group? How can you identify with anything with that sort of standard?
 
You're really bad at googling, then, as you should have hit upon a basic description of Mosuo political structure within the first few pages the search engine suggested to you. All meaninglful authority in Mosuo society outside of the official Chinese govenrment is family based, and the head of the family is its eldest female member, called the Ah mi of her clan. All economic, social, and political control ultimately come back to her "office", symbolized by her ownership of a private room and the keys to the family larder, passed down matrilineally.

Your obfuscation about matrilineality is a red herring, as a society easily be both matrilineal and matriarchal. While not all matrilineal societies are matriarchal, some are. For that matter, patriarchal and matriarchal systems of authority can co-exist in the same society as well, though one usually ends up taking precedence over the other, almost always but not always the partriarchal system.

Your "general rule in anthropology" is fictional, there is no such general rule in anthropology. In anthropology, as an actual general rule, we derive terminology from descriptions of observed societies, rather than trying to impose our cultural assumptions on to them. I can't imagine a professional anthropologist finding such a rule useful even if it were true. There being so few well-known matriarchal societies, what woud be a credible data set to derive such a rule from, and who would we apply it to? A prescriptive rule never takes precedence over observation, and the known matriarchal societies are all well documented, so why would you rely on a "rule of thumb" rather than doing ten seconds of googling and learning the correct answer to your question?

This is the second time this week a gender chauvinist has tried to vaguely throw my own field at me as evidence for their ideological beliefs, without any credible sources to back up their statements. It's really starting to get on my nerves. Just saying "all anthropologists agree with me" is not a citation.

And accusing me of racial erasure, while accusing the mere existence of Mosuo society as a being some manner of fiction created by the "Leftists" of your own culture, is pretty fucking rich! Whatever else may be true, it is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Mosuo consider themselves to be matriarchal, and consistently describe themselves that way. If you are accusing them of not knowing the "Facts" about their own culture, or of putting on some sort of a show just to appease Chinese tourists or something, you are the one erasing a minority culture's agency, not your imaginary opponents. The mere existence of "Brown People" (as you insultingly call everyone not like yourself apparently?) is not a communist plot.

Lol. And now I am a chauvinist suddenly. What creative slander will you think of next?

The field has plenty of ideologicaly driven feminist crackpots who see what they want to see.

Feminism was historically a product of industrialism. For an anthropologist I'd say your ignorance on the matter is inexusable. If you truly are an anthropologist ������

I'd never heard of the Mosuo before today. I'm not in a position to draw a lance for any belief about them. But I get the impression that your understanding is about as deep as mine, yet you are so cocksure about them.

Yes, I think it's racism and egotism to treat them this way. I stand by that. I suspect they're much like tribal people everywhere. You know... because they human, and humans tend to share a lot of traits

I had, in fact, heard of the Mosuo before. Their situation is well known and a common point of conversation in the field whenever the concepts of gender, politics, or marriage come up. At least once a term, we chat about the Mosuo when we're discussing marriage across cultures, and I always take advantage of the moment to catch up on the current literature, as I would for any group whose story I bring in to the classroom.

I am not surprised that you have responded with personal attacks and racial dismissive racial epithets ("brown people"; "tribal people") rather than the requested citations, or that you are continuing to treat genuine conversation with people about who they are and how they identify as "racism" rather than (as would be more reasonable to conclude) the most direct and obvious way to learn about their perspective. "They" are indeed human, but you aren't treating them with basic human respect and decency, but rather as a means to and ideological end.
 
DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists".
So you don't identify with something because of radicals in said group? How can you identify with anything with that sort of standard?

Bog standard cognitive bias: Your radicals are representative of your group as a whole... but my radicals are just rare exceptions. Very common for humans.
 
Abortion is the most fundamental women's rights issue that exists....

Beyond Trump's non-stop 4 years of assault on the most fundamental women's right there is, their reproduction, here is a few other things Trump and the GOP did to destroy women's rights:

Trump ordered the EEOC to halt the collection of data about men and women's pay, which is neccessary to enforce laws protecting women's rights not to be discriminated against.

Trump filed a motion to have the court rule against adopting the ERA as the 28th Amendment, without with women do not have equal rights under the existing Constitution.

Trump has weakened laws that protect women's rights against sexual assault and violence but narrowing the acts those laws apply to.

The most important legislation in US history regarding protecting women from violent assaults against their rights, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, is currently no longer in effect b/c most Republicans in the House voted against it's reauthorization, and the Republicans in the Senate have refused for 2 years to allow it to be debated voted on.

Yep, republicans are bad for women. To counter that, the democrats put forth the Equality Act, which does not include sex as a characteristic at all.

As far as I'm concerned, as a woman, neither of the two major US parties are doing me any favors right now, and both are doing their damnedest to force me out of society and back into the kitchen.
 
I don't think there is any good evidence for this hypothesis. Sure you can find evidence that is consistent with it.

Also, I am skeptical of the following claim:

For tens of thousands of years, if not longer, men have played the role of leaders in society and women have been shunted aside.
Tens of thousands of years? We don't really have much in regards of history for tens of thousands of years, maybe 5,000 years. And it seems that once you leave the relatively new paradigm of settled, agricultural societies, it seems to me like women played much more of a role in the running of society. That's just my impression.
 
As far as I'm concerned, as a woman, neither of the two major US parties are doing me any favors right now, and both are doing their damnedest to force me out of society and back into the kitchen.

Seriously? In what ways, precisely?
 
DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists".
So you don't identify with something because of radicals in said group? How can you identify with anything with that sort of standard?

I find it very difficult. Mostly, I just don't.

Even simple ones like liberal or conservative, I just don't find nuanced enough to be suitable. So I don't. I'm too conservative to vote Republican. I'm too liberal to support feticide rights.

It's a problem in the modern western world.
Tom
 
As far as I'm concerned, as a woman, neither of the two major US parties are doing me any favors right now, and both are doing their damnedest to force me out of society and back into the kitchen.

Seriously? In what ways, precisely?

Whenever she sees a trans woman in a bathroom, she remembers she needs to go wash the dishes, apparently?
 
As far as I'm concerned, as a woman, neither of the two major US parties are doing me any favors right now, and both are doing their damnedest to force me out of society and back into the kitchen.

Seriously? In what ways, precisely?

Whenever she sees a trans woman in a bathroom, she remembers she needs to go wash the dishes, apparently?

Given that AI will unemploy most of us, all that’ll be left is servers, cooks, and dish washers.
 
DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists".
So you don't identify with something because of radicals in said group? How can you identify with anything with that sort of standard?

Picking an ideological label is picking a tribe. It's wanting others to assume things about you, because of your affiliation.

If a label has shifted in meaning over time and stops representing what you believe in it makes sense to stop using it, since others will assume things about you that aren't true.

I've reached a point where I call myself feminist sometimes depending on who I talk to. Because the word has shifted in meaning.

It used to mean just gender equality and letting women be unfetrered by the judgements and demands of others. Of letting women define their own lives and what they want to be. Which I do support.

Of late its increasingly associated with intersectionalism. Which I don't support. Because I think it's ultimately anti-feminist, racist and anti-intellectual. It's counter productive, to say the least.

I don't want others to think I'm for intersectionalism.

So I'm today only a feminist sometimes, depending on who is asking.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, Trump did not take action against women's rights, nor did he campaign on that issue, nor did he express such a viewpoint. He is an asshole with a lot of narcissism who doesn't respect women, and perhaps he counts as being actually sexist. But he didn't do anything against women's rights. To expand on that, the republicans as a whole have only one element of their party that is against the rights of women, and that's in the very narrow field of abortion rights.

Abortion is the most fundamental women's rights issue that exists. Abortion restrictions are an attack the most basic human right there is, the right to have control over what goes, stays, or happens within the confines of one's own body, and that attack is exclusively against women. All other rights only exist based upon the principle of bodily sovereignty. Trump ran heavily on destroying that right, was elected by evangelicals based mostly on that promise, and his SCOUTS appointments followed through and will most definitely greatly hinder and/or eliminate that right.

The fact that some women are happy to take away that right from all other women, b/c they don't ever plan to exercise that right themselves is irrelevant to the fact that it is an attack on a most fundamental right targeted exclusively at women. Women who vote to do so are similar to the women who opposed women's suffrage, or similar to slaves in history who opposed and end to slavery b/c they preferred their status and position over what they imagined it would be like with emancipation.

As for the Republicans as a whole, they are quite clearly opposed to women having the right of equal representation as evidenced by the fact that in 2020 they still only allowed 12% of the Congressional seats they control to be held by women. Meanwhile the Dems went from 12% to 40% in the past 30 years.

Yes, women have varying views. Some, just like some men, are mindless idiots who cling to tradition for it's own sake, even when that tradition was designed by immoral ignorant people who aimed to enshrine inequality with themselves at the top. And some people like to be dominated and abused, even if only b/c they know nothing else.

Its more insidious than that. Pro-lifers have been extremely good at getting to define the words we use and have created a false dichotomy.

There's no need to have any debate on it. Every woman can, in her own head, decide if she is for or against abortion and have her way, every time. Everyone wins.

Pro lifers aren't just against abortion. They're against basic freedoms and personal rights. All their slogans are designed to hide it, and couch it in caring about life.

I see it as nothing but a remnant from the oldey type intolerant and controlling form of Christianity. As they've gradually lost their grip on society they've had to move back the borders of what kind of fascistoid claptrap Christians are willing to put up with. This is now the limits of their power.
 
Last edited:
DrZ is no big favorite of mine. But I agree with him on this one.

The reason I don't identify as a feminist, but egalitarian, is the bigotry spewing from self identified "feminists".
So you don't identify with something because of radicals in said group? How can you identify with anything with that sort of standard?

I find it very difficult. Mostly, I just don't.
Then why did you call out feminists as if it were some special case?
 
I find it very difficult. Mostly, I just don't.
Then why did you call out feminists as if it were some special case?

Perhaps you have DrZ on ignore? I was responding specifically to his post.

But I have similar issues with other labels. Prolifer is another one. I oppose humans choosing death for other humans. But elective abortions are such a minor concern compared to preemptive war and environmental destruction and poverty and a raft of other concerns I don't get much excited about it. And self identified Prolifers are usually unconcerned about such things.
Tom
 
Gospel said:
An academic one at that.

Never to be trusted, those academic types. .. :horsecrap:

I was poking fun about the sexism in academia and men having the balls (pun intended) to hold an academic discussion about humans (which includes women-sort of) being wired for male leadership.
 
Whenever she sees a trans woman in a bathroom, she remembers she needs to go wash the dishes, apparently?
No, it's more that there's no way to determine whether the person is a transwoman or a man. The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter. And that increases the risk of assault to women, as well as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

If there were any reasonable way to identify who is a transwoman and who is a man with malicious motives, I'd have no real complaints about it.
 
Whenever she sees a trans woman in a bathroom, she remembers she needs to go wash the dishes, apparently?
No, it's more that there's no way to determine whether the person is a transwoman or a man. The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter. And that increases the risk of assault to women, as well as voyeurism and exhibitionism.
Has it?

It seems concealed carry permits didn't lead to an explosion of gun deaths.

Stand your ground laws have led to a marginal increase of needless killings.

Transgender restroom rules haven't led to an increase of sexual harassment or assault.

If there were any reasonable way to identify who is a transwoman and who is a man with malicious motives, I'd have no real complaints about it.
I'm just saying if I knew which blacks were entering the store to shop instead of shoplift, I'd have no real complaints about it.
 
The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter.

Do you have any evidence at all that trans people commit voyeurism 1. more often or 2. specifically as a result of trans inclusion or that voyeurism has increased as a result of trans inclusion?
 
Back
Top Bottom