Lexicus
Deity
Yes? Obviously?
[RD] Feminism
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
- Status
Yes? Obviously?
I will chime in here with another perspective:
Men who sent men to war may have been sending men to war most of whom would rather be there than their wives, sisters, mothers, etc. Is sexism an "objective" measure based on the outcome, or does how people feel about things matter at all?
Men who sent men to war may have been sending men to war most of whom would rather be there than their wives, sisters, mothers, etc. Is sexism an "objective" measure based on the outcome, or does how people feel about things matter at all?
aelf
Ashen One
Err, historically, military service is seen as a man's duty and something to take pride in. That men would go to war rather than women is probably the most obvious example of the patriarchy working at the expense of (some) men and women.
If people are going to refuse to accept this, then I really don't see the thread going anywhere (not that I'm optimistic to begin with).
If people are going to refuse to accept this, then I really don't see the thread going anywhere (not that I'm optimistic to begin with).
Lexicus
Deity
Relevant to the thread:
Senethro
Overlord
Mmmm. Its not quite relevant to discuss right now but quite a lot of homophobia against men looks like it has crossover with misogyny/sexism. Maybe a sort of example of men being sexist against men.
Lexicus
Deity
Men insulting men by comparing them to women? Sounds sexist toward women, just like white people insulting white people by comparing them to black people is racist against black people.
civver_764
Deity
You wanna explain the relevance?
This is funny from one perspective.Relevant to the thread:
Is it patriarchy that is the cause of this, though - or are patriarchy and war a symptom of something else? War inevitably seems to come knocking on your door wherever you are living if you happen to be human. What was the driving force in the formation of such traditions as men being kings and men going to war? Should the alternative to patriarchy be matriarchy or anarchy? Under what conditions could matriarchy or anarchy be sustainable? What kind of a matriarchy would it be - a more compassionate one? If so would the sex of the person in power still matter?
I fear this topic might be a little too broad to fit under a discussion of feminism/sexism. I defend my position of creating much milder, non-competitive environments free from dogma for such woes of humanity as sexism, racism, and greed to go away, regardless of our ability to realize and sustain such an environment. I also believe when we address these issues one at a time on their own, we are just trying to address the symptoms of a much bigger problem.
aelf
Ashen One
What is life? Life happens whatever you do. What is the driving force behind life? Should the alternative to life be death? Under what conditions is death acceptable? If so, would life still matter?
One can ask a great many 'fundamental' pseudo-philosophical questions to derail any meaningful engagement with a topsy-turvy argument where the understanding of anything is a free-for-all. While that might not be your intention, I have to say it's not a productive mode of inquiry if you want to discuss any specific topic, as you seem to have intuited yourself.
One can ask a great many 'fundamental' pseudo-philosophical questions to derail any meaningful engagement with a topsy-turvy argument where the understanding of anything is a free-for-all. While that might not be your intention, I have to say it's not a productive mode of inquiry if you want to discuss any specific topic, as you seem to have intuited yourself.
You cannot fight sexism without understanding what it is and where it comes from. "Patriarchy is bad" is a very simplistic position to defend when many world cultures seem to have evolved into it. Unless you are suggesting this was some big conspiracy, understanding under what conditions it manifests is crucial to coming up with a solution to it, and more importantly for gauging if your solution will work and what needs to be sacrificed for it. Just because you believe the x=good y=bad rhetoric, this does not automatically make other perspectives irrelevant.
Lexicus
Deity
I am rather confused by this question. Do you actually believe these are the only alternatives? You realize anarchy is not describing the same thing as patriarchy or matriarchy right?
Devolved, more like.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Isn't it obvious why it was men who were sent into war? Men were the hunters and warriors, women sometimes dabbled in this but historically speaking it was men who fought wars. Just made sense to send men, why would you send all women into war instead, when it was the men who were ready to fight? Classic gender roles, they've been with us since the dawn of time.
My train of thought: Patriarchy and matriarchy describe a hierarchical societal organization where power is held by either sex, whatever that power is. Anarchy is the absence or absolute distribution of such power.
Evolved, devolved, sure. Why do you think patriarchy was a thing at all?
Lexicus
Deity
Well, patriarchy historically refers to the power of fathers, ie, male heads of household, while matriarchy refers to mothers, or female heads of household.
It appears to have arrived along with the war-slavery complex that defined the early civilizations.
aelf
Ashen One
As far as I know, nobody said "patriarchy is bad" and left it at that. My post certainly wasn't saying that. So I don't know who you're arguing with.
Patriarchy is like capitalism in that it's a description of an overarching concept that sits above multifarious practices and conditions that nevertheless have a pretty singular effect - that of molding social relations in certain ways that are peculiar to the respective concepts: Capitalism by mediating them through market forces and patriarchy by mediating them through the male lens. Under the latter, the male is the default. They're "the hunters and warriors", they're "ready to fight", so of course the glory of war (and of a career, marathons, etc.) were theirs (the suffering associated notwithstanding - a bit like martyrdom, I suppose, a sweet and glorious suffering); and these notions were normalised into "classic gender roles" so that they become 'natural' and unquestionable.
Seeing and accepting the patriarchy as a description of how society has historically behaved is distinct from fighting it by tackling its underlying causes. You can't try and use the latter as some sort of reason to deny the validity of the former.
Last edited:
There's an even more basic gender role: In times of war, you don't send the childbearers off to be killed by the enemy.
We do not differ that much in opinion - I do not understand why you quoted my post and argued that I was derailing the topic with my "pseudo-philosophical" questions in the first place. It looks like you just did not see the relevance. Capitalism is a human construct that creates a harsh environment for people by concentrating power in the hands of a few. It reinforces competition. Competition creates a hierarchy. The natural trajectory of Homo sapiens seems to have gone from egalitarian tribes to tall, hierarchical empires where people are in constant competition with one another and other empires. The rise of patriarchy correlates with the formation of such hierarchical entities as @Lexicus pointed out - because the created resources and wealth had to be protected from outsiders and more of it needed to be acquired from rivals. The fact that men were the prevalent sex to safeguard such a construct is only logical because of their non-child-bearing detachment and physical superiority. It was, and still is to this day a harsh environment where competition for resources rules the day.
This is what I said earlier:
Is it patriarchy that is the cause of this, though - or are patriarchy and war a symptom of something else? War inevitably seems to come knocking on your door wherever you are living if you happen to be human. What was the driving force in the formation of such traditions as men being kings and men going to war? Should the alternative to patriarchy be matriarchy or anarchy? Under what conditions could matriarchy or anarchy be sustainable? What kind of a matriarchy would it be - a more compassionate one? If so would the sex of the person in power still matter?
What I am trying to say here is that war, patriarchy, slavery, tall-hierarchical empires all correlate with and stem from our evo/devolution from hunter-gatherers to people who use other people to create resources and wealth for themselves. I am also saying that under such conditions, it does not matter which sex is in power, as long as there is "power" to be in.
I fear this topic might be a little too broad to fit under a discussion of feminism/sexism. I defend my position of creating much milder, non-competitive environments free from dogma for such woes of humanity as sexism, racism, and greed to go away, regardless of our ability to realize and sustain such an environment. I also believe when we address these issues one at a time on their own, we are just trying to address the symptoms of a much bigger problem.
You probably noticed that the solution I propose above is basically communism. I am not a communist, however. Instead, I propose every single human meditate x hours a day to collectively stop this evo/devolution.
Not going to happen, of course. Hopefully AI and automation of everything will do something positive in terms of creating less competitive, more truly egalitarian societies.Trying to find a solution to these and a host of other problems created by the competition and the hierarchy while trying to exist within that hierarchy creates other problems. The United States is trying to create an artificial "equality" with the power of law, while remaining competitive, which creates these results:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-States/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate#2010
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030507080958.htm
This doesn't make sense to me. The validity of what do I look like I am denying, exactly?
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
I don't agree there is a 'natural trajectory,' in the sense of an overarching teleological progression of history.
Except that this is false - no correlation has ever been demonstrated between war and resource scarcity. War and patriarchy are cultural and thus can be ended by culture.
I did not mention resource scarcity. I am coming from a greed angle - i.e. what prompted colonialism and imperialism. The powerful wanting more power.
- Status
