Author Topic: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous  (Read 2117 times)

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2017, 08:09:02 AM »
This is one of those questions to me that is so difficult to argue, partly because the facts are somewhat unclear - for example if you have a Macbeth situation where a woman is pulling the strings from behind the scenes, what does that count as?

I'm no evolutionary biologist. My armchair guess is (if you assume the premise) probably something along the lines of what globalfinancepartners mentioned.

Of course the underlying question here is what are the implications of this. Is this the "best" way to run a society, simply because that is how it evolved? If so, does recent progress of women's sexual, political, etc. independence indicate that a patriarchy may no longer be the "best" (or most evolutionary advantaged) way?

So we can talk about why patriarchies have existed in the vast majority of historical cases, but the real question is what should we do going forward, and why.

+1.  Can we use our brains to make conscious decisions to override our instincts?  That is the question.... on this and in many other areas of life/society as well.


rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2017, 08:33:32 PM »
Your arguments against brute strength being the explanation are poor in my view.   Both your arguments relate to fully developed societies where much more than strength determines outcomes.   (For example, plenty of slaves could beat up their masters and some did, but society had them shot for it, which deterred others.)   But patriarchy may go back to much simpler societies where brute strength was probably a key factor.   Man rules woman because man can punch woman when she's annoying.

This doesn't imply men ruling women. It implies stronger people ruling weaker people. For instance if a person is old and annoying you can also punch them in the face. Therefore the young (20-30 year olds) should rule the old. Yet we don't observe this ever in human history. In almost all societies leaders are not in their physical prime.

And what of India where scrawny priests ruled over the warrior caste. Make a list of leaders throughout history...very few of them where physically strong and for even the ones that were (e.g. Alexander the Great) its pretty clear that strength was NOT the deciding factor in their rise to leadership. Alexander the Great did not physically wrestle with every man in Greece to gain power.

Humans are a social species and to be a leader you must have social power...not physical power. The strongest man in Rome could probably beat up Julius Caesar but Caesar didn't need to be strong himself...he had an army. Julius Caesar gained power by using his social connections, being generous with his troups, political maneuvering and savvy and winning battles. This required time, energy, ambition and intelligence. The time factor is why leaders are often old. But it did not require brute strength. Even in very primitive societies like the Native American ones...most leaders were not physically strong...they were old men.

So I regard the brute strength argument as a ridiculous one.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 09:56:26 PM by rukawa »

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2017, 08:36:56 PM »
Ever try to have your wive and daughters plow the fields without the help of petro based farm equipment?

Ever hear of Africa or the Native Americans? In Africa there are many societies where women work the fields. Among Native Americans, there was a time when white people tried to get Native Indian men to farm and the Native males basically they said something like: "BUT THAT IS WOMEN's WORK!!"

There are many societies where farming is actually considered women's work. So I don't have to guess, I know as a cold hard historical fact that women ONLY can farm without petro based farm equipment.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 09:58:28 PM by rukawa »

Aberhound

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2017, 05:40:03 PM »
We Picts were a matriarchy for good reasons. Society was led by Priestesses whose power was similar to the Druids in that they had the power of banishment. Their main responsibility was to pick the leader and remove him and if the leader violated natural law severely, the woman ceased to be a head priestess. The priestess came in sets of three like the Irish and Frisians. These priestesses reputably had powers much like Jedi mind control and it is reputed they could put a man to sleep with a touch of the finger. Women conferred "Shakti" to men which was partly wisdom and partly enhanced spiritual energies. You do not get these types of energies if you drink alcohol or fail to conserve your sexual energies at the right times and use it to build spiritual energies which are related to energized cerebral spinal fluid which depends mostly on drinking good water like you find in mountain springs and your sexual practices. In Egypt, men with "Shakti" was symbolized by the snake coming from the forehead and if you did not have Shakti you were not considered worthy. In regards to conserving sexual energies I imagine it was like in Dune by Frank Herbert where the Fremen were free because the women would not have sex with them unless they learnt to have intercourse without ejaculation. Presumably it did not take long to learn given this motivation. Perhaps the practice builds both their energies like the Daoists suggest. They almost certainly had "Bock" practices like described in the Bock Saga as they came from the same kin as the Finns and Laplanders and Estonians and likely children were carefully planned and produced to maximize their spiritual energies with practices as described in the book Masterplan about the Bock Saga with conception timed to be on Summer solistice. The soul was considered to be immortal and to reincarnate and the quality improved by living by natural laws. These practices were encouraged as this produced superior progeny and is why the Romans could never defeat the Picts. The Romans used to joke about the highborn Pictish practice of allowing their women to sleep with other Pictish high born. (Which practice makes sense only if the practice was like in Dune where the sex was for the purposes of spiritual advancement, not procreation and since all the children were born nine months after the summer solistice the shame of having a child at the wrong time would be avoided.) The Pictish response was reputed to be that it was better that they sleep with a nobleman then to have nobleman sleep with the slaves like the Romans. The Picts believed that the spiritual ties of those you have sex with endure and that you exchange spiritual energies so if any of your past partners suffer, you suffer and you would never sleep with a degenerated person as that would cause a spiritual drain which drain would endure so long as the degenerate suffers. Picts were a tribal society so there originally was no marriage and instead the women moved in with the man and left without shame if they so desired. 

The Pictish Matriarchy worked and was a more stable and successful society until it was corrupted by Dionysius and betrayed by the Celts who were tricked then enslaved by the English and the Papacy. History would be far different if the Celts had accepted the Pictish offer of peace and mutual protection against the English and the Papacy and had the Celts not tried to carry out the genocide sought by Romans and then the Papacy. The Picts had also degenerated as according to their myths they came from the North Pole which was paradise where the Picts reached their greatest achievements. I believe the North Pole used to be located in the far north of Canada based on the compass made from the Alais alignments and I wonder if that was where the myths of the inner world came from. After a long search I only found a single academic reference to the thousands of stone tablets left behind by the Picts or their ancestors in North America. I can think of few advanced tribes whose history has been so carefully hidden by the Romans, the English and the Papacy. Had the wisdom been shared history would be entirely different as we would more usually enjoy spiritual advancement each generation instead of the degeneration and moral decay which too often we see.


boilermaker75

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 840
Re: Why is patriarchy ubiquitous
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2017, 05:12:43 AM »