Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

On the Patriarchy"

jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:36:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The concept of patriarchy is fundamental to understanding human social organization. The first thing to understand is the universality of it. Patriarchy is found in every human society in history. The second thing is that patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. In many ways it does, but it does offer women many survival benefit over men.

Men evolved to be, on average, larger than women. This suggests that men have been, historically, both more prone to violence but also more likely to be the target of violence than women. You see, male violence is largely either intragroup violence over access to females or intergroup violence which is often motivated in part by a desire to either protect ones own females or gain access to new females.

Genetically, 80% of women, historically, have had an offspring. In comparison, only 40% of men have had an offspring. Polygamy has been the norm for a large part of human history. This has led to a surplus of men who have tended to be quite violent. This, by the way, explains rape. Contrary to feminist dogma about rape being about power, rape is likely a reproductive strategy for low status males.

The basic fact to understand patriarchy is male variation. Male achievement has a lot more variation than women. This is not hard to imagine in an age where men are radically overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, Presidents, prisoners, suicides, homicides (victims and murderers), etc. You see, male reproductive success also has a more inequitable distribution than female reproductive success. This is less true now than in the distant past (but more true than it was 50 years ago), but the reality remains.

This reproductive pressure creates a more violent and dominance seeking competition between males for access to females. This, and not some vast male conspiracy, explains why we both select men to rule our societies and men to die in order to protect our societies. Testosterone leads to better leaders and (potentially) more dangerous criminals (also more risk taking tendencies which is very important).

Gender dominance (in some cases female) is present in all sorts of animals in nature. It is important to understand that selection pressure and survival dictate the dominance structure. The idea that "patriarchy" somehow is a social construct is absurd. It is inaccurate. The idea that patriarchy necessarily benefits all men at the expense of all women is absurd. In fact, it benefits some men (the winners) over everybody else while hurting other men over everybody else (females included).
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...

Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.

And that view just popped out of thin air?

Beliefs usually have some explanation for why they originally came about.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:01:56 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.


And that view just popped out of thin air?

Beliefs usually have some explanation for why they originally came about.

I don't know the origin, and I don't have to in order to be certain of this fact. That vew has been the norm throughout history. Sadly, It's even held by most people today.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:07:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:58:05 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:01:56 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.


And that view just popped out of thin air?

Beliefs usually have some explanation for why they originally came about.

I don't know the origin, and I don't have to in order to be certain of this fact. That vew has been the norm throughout history. Sadly, It's even held by most people today.

Actually, men have been viewed as the more violent sex historically. So, it is a mixed bag for us boys. But, the thing is that men ARE the more violent sex. That stereotype is accurate.

At the same time, we're the leadership sex and inventor sex. Male dominance has a biological basis. And, male dominance does NOT equate with male advantage. Male dominance actually offers females many survival advantages.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:36:25 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
The concept of patriarchy is fundamental to understanding human social organization. The first thing to understand is the universality of it. Patriarchy is found in every human society in history. The second thing is that patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. In many ways it does, but it does offer women many survival benefit over men.

Men evolved to be, on average, larger than women. This suggests that men have been, historically, both more prone to violence but also more likely to be the target of violence than women. You see, male violence is largely either intragroup violence over access to females or intergroup violence which is often motivated in part by a desire to either protect ones own females or gain access to new females.

Genetically, 80% of women, historically, have had an offspring. In comparison, only 40% of men have had an offspring. Polygamy has been the norm for a large part of human history. This has led to a surplus of men who have tended to be quite violent. This, by the way, explains rape. Contrary to feminist dogma about rape being about power, rape is likely a reproductive strategy for low status males.

The basic fact to understand patriarchy is male variation. Male achievement has a lot more variation than women. This is not hard to imagine in an age where men are radically overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, Presidents, prisoners, suicides, homicides (victims and murderers), etc. You see, male reproductive success also has a more inequitable distribution than female reproductive success. This is less true now than in the distant past (but more true than it was 50 years ago), but the reality remains.

This reproductive pressure creates a more violent and dominance seeking competition between males for access to females. This, and not some vast male conspiracy, explains why we both select men to rule our societies and men to die in order to protect our societies. Testosterone leads to better leaders and (potentially) more dangerous criminals (also more risk taking tendencies which is very important).

Gender dominance (in some cases female) is present in all sorts of animals in nature. It is important to understand that selection pressure and survival dictate the dominance structure. The idea that "patriarchy" somehow is a social construct is absurd. It is inaccurate. The idea that patriarchy necessarily benefits all men at the expense of all women is absurd. In fact, it benefits some men (the winners) over everybody else while hurting other men over everybody else (females included).

I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?

Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?

Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 7:28:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:58:05 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:01:56 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.


And that view just popped out of thin air?

Beliefs usually have some explanation for why they originally came about.

I don't know the origin, and I don't have to in order to be certain of this fact. That vew has been the norm throughout history. Sadly, It's even held by most people today.

Off the top of my head, it's a product of higher testosterone levels (chemical) and females influencing psychological instincts of the male brain (wanting to attract). You should read into evolutionary psychology. Unless I am mistaken in accusation, your Tabula Rasa style argument does not account for these evolutionary tendencies.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:10:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 7:28:27 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:58:05 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:01:56 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:49:21 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:01:27 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:51:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:42:00 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:49:13 PM, SirCrona wrote:
I only have a few problems with OP's science; genders didn't evolve separately, that's an important mistake to not make. Testosterone does nothing for violence or leadership. It allows people with, ahem, testes, to become aroused. In men, unusually high or low amounts causes aggressiveness or mellowing, but that's only in unhealthy levels. Lasrly, "reproductive pressure?" You mean to say that men typically being advantaged in society because they want to make babies very hard? I don't think this theory is founded very solidly.

First. It isn't my theory. I've just adapted it from others. And, yes, men are "advantaged" because of their biological tendency for dominance. But, "advantage" may not be the right word. As I mentioned, men have, historically been the ones who rule, but they also tend to be in society's worst positions. Today, for instance, men are overrepresented among CEOs, inventors, prison inmates, and suicides. Men aren't so much advantaged as they have a much higher variability of life outcomes.

Men have no biological tendency toward dominance. Your explanations give nothing to explain why men have a wider range of status, or even if their tendency to be in power is related to their numbers among the impoverished.
You seem to have a lot to say of this. If you would like to take this to debate I would be more than happy to oblige. I could use the points.

You really don't think men have a dominance tendency. I direct you here:

http://www.amazon.com...


Also. If men don't have a dominance tendency, how do you explain male dominance? Please don't tell me its some vast male conspiracy.

Simple:
Some people in the past thought men were better. That view got popular. The rest is, quite literally, history. But like I said, if you can make a good case for your position I'd be happy to debate.


And that view just popped out of thin air?

Beliefs usually have some explanation for why they originally came about.

I don't know the origin, and I don't have to in order to be certain of this fact. That vew has been the norm throughout history. Sadly, It's even held by most people today.

Off the top of my head, it's a product of higher testosterone levels (chemical) and females influencing psychological instincts of the male brain (wanting to attract). You should read into evolutionary psychology. Unless I am mistaken in accusation, your Tabula Rasa style argument does not account for these evolutionary tendencies.

Really? That's quite interesting. I'll have to read up on that. I probably missed it when i slept through my biopsychology course, lol. Thanks for the info!
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:36:25 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
The concept of patriarchy is fundamental to understanding human social organization. The first thing to understand is the universality of it. Patriarchy is found in every human society in history. The second thing is that patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. In many ways it does, but it does offer women many survival benefit over men.

Men evolved to be, on average, larger than women. This suggests that men have been, historically, both more prone to violence but also more likely to be the target of violence than women. You see, male violence is largely either intragroup violence over access to females or intergroup violence which is often motivated in part by a desire to either protect ones own females or gain access to new females.

Genetically, 80% of women, historically, have had an offspring. In comparison, only 40% of men have had an offspring. Polygamy has been the norm for a large part of human history. This has led to a surplus of men who have tended to be quite violent. This, by the way, explains rape. Contrary to feminist dogma about rape being about power, rape is likely a reproductive strategy for low status males.

The basic fact to understand patriarchy is male variation. Male achievement has a lot more variation than women. This is not hard to imagine in an age where men are radically overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, Presidents, prisoners, suicides, homicides (victims and murderers), etc. You see, male reproductive success also has a more inequitable distribution than female reproductive success. This is less true now than in the distant past (but more true than it was 50 years ago), but the reality remains.

This reproductive pressure creates a more violent and dominance seeking competition between males for access to females. This, and not some vast male conspiracy, explains why we both select men to rule our societies and men to die in order to protect our societies. Testosterone leads to better leaders and (potentially) more dangerous criminals (also more risk taking tendencies which is very important).

Gender dominance (in some cases female) is present in all sorts of animals in nature. It is important to understand that selection pressure and survival dictate the dominance structure. The idea that "patriarchy" somehow is a social construct is absurd. It is inaccurate. The idea that patriarchy necessarily benefits all men at the expense of all women is absurd. In fact, it benefits some men (the winners) over everybody else while hurting other men over everybody else (females included).

I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?

Of course, natural doesn't equal right. But, when we say women take lower paying jobs, what we are really saying is that women take jobs that involve less stress, physical danger, responsibility, expectation to move, ability to take time off, etc. In other words, lower paying jobs that are lower paying because other aspects of the job are desirable. So, in many ways, I'd say that women have a better deal in that respect.

My larger point is that discussions of patriarchy talk about it as if it were some massive male conspiracy which is inaccurate.


Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?

Actually. There has never been a matriarchal human society. The societies that are often seen as matriarchal are, in fact, not matriarchal in reality.


Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?

First off. I never exactly said men were "better" leaders. Merely that men were more leadership prone. But, I do hold that, on average, men are better leaders.

Women are the more conformist sex, as others have noted. Men are more non comforist. We are also more likely to be extremely intelligent or extremely unintelligent. That means that there are a lot of men at the very top... or the leadership roles in society. That is how men are overrepresented among CEOs AND prisoners.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 1:25:10 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:36:25 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
The concept of patriarchy is fundamental to understanding human social organization. The first thing to understand is the universality of it. Patriarchy is found in every human society in history. The second thing is that patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. In many ways it does, but it does offer women many survival benefit over men.

Men evolved to be, on average, larger than women. This suggests that men have been, historically, both more prone to violence but also more likely to be the target of violence than women. You see, male violence is largely either intragroup violence over access to females or intergroup violence which is often motivated in part by a desire to either protect ones own females or gain access to new females.

Genetically, 80% of women, historically, have had an offspring. In comparison, only 40% of men have had an offspring. Polygamy has been the norm for a large part of human history. This has led to a surplus of men who have tended to be quite violent. This, by the way, explains rape. Contrary to feminist dogma about rape being about power, rape is likely a reproductive strategy for low status males.

The basic fact to understand patriarchy is male variation. Male achievement has a lot more variation than women. This is not hard to imagine in an age where men are radically overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, Presidents, prisoners, suicides, homicides (victims and murderers), etc. You see, male reproductive success also has a more inequitable distribution than female reproductive success. This is less true now than in the distant past (but more true than it was 50 years ago), but the reality remains.

This reproductive pressure creates a more violent and dominance seeking competition between males for access to females. This, and not some vast male conspiracy, explains why we both select men to rule our societies and men to die in order to protect our societies. Testosterone leads to better leaders and (potentially) more dangerous criminals (also more risk taking tendencies which is very important).

Gender dominance (in some cases female) is present in all sorts of animals in nature. It is important to understand that selection pressure and survival dictate the dominance structure. The idea that "patriarchy" somehow is a social construct is absurd. It is inaccurate. The idea that patriarchy necessarily benefits all men at the expense of all women is absurd. In fact, it benefits some men (the winners) over everybody else while hurting other men over everybody else (females included).

I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?




Of course, natural doesn't equal right. But, when we say women take lower paying jobs, what we are really saying is that women take jobs that involve less stress, physical danger, responsibility, expectation to move, ability to take time off, etc. In other words, lower paying jobs that are lower paying because other aspects of the job are desirable. So, in many ways, I'd say that women have a better deal in that respect.

My larger point is that discussions of patriarchy talk about it as if it were some massive male conspiracy which is inaccurate.






Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?



Actually. There has never been a matriarchal human society. The societies that are often seen as matriarchal are, in fact, not matriarchal in reality.




Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?



First off. I never exactly said men were "better" leaders. Merely that men were more leadership prone. But, I do hold that, on average, men are better leaders.

Women are the more conformist sex, as others have noted. Men are more non comforist. We are also more likely to be extremely intelligent or extremely unintelligent. That means that there are a lot of men at the very top... or the leadership roles in society. That is how men are overrepresented among CEOs AND prisoners.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you aren't very well versed in what you're talking about.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?




Of course, natural doesn't equal right. But, when we say women take lower paying jobs, what we are really saying is that women take jobs that involve less stress, physical danger, responsibility, expectation to move, ability to take time off, etc. In other words, lower paying jobs that are lower paying because other aspects of the job are desirable. So, in many ways, I'd say that women have a better deal in that respect.
I would have to question that. Can you prove that women in lower paying jobs are dealing with less stress?
My larger point is that discussions of patriarchy talk about it as if it were some massive male conspiracy which is inaccurate.






Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?



Actually. There has never been a matriarchal human society. The societies that are often seen as matriarchal are, in fact, not matriarchal in reality.
Prove that please. I've read a lot of textbooks and historical information that contradicts that.



Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?



First off. I never exactly said men were "better" leaders. Merely that men were more leadership prone. But, I do hold that, on average, men are better leaders.

Women are the more conformist sex, as others have noted. Men are more non comforist. We are also more likely to be extremely intelligent or extremely unintelligent. That means that there are a lot of men at the very top... or the leadership roles in society. That is how men are overrepresented among CEOs AND prisoners.
Two things on this. Firstly, it would appear that this is your justification for the idea that men are on average better leaders. I don't think simply saying we're smarter and more aggressive is sufficient proof. Studies show women to have higher emotional intelligence, and teamwork groups perform better the more women they have.

Second, do you think a wider range of IQ scores is the sole explanation for the number of males occupying societies highest and lowest roles, or are there other factors involved?
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:25:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 1:56:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:25:10 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:36:25 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
The concept of patriarchy is fundamental to understanding human social organization. The first thing to understand is the universality of it. Patriarchy is found in every human society in history. The second thing is that patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. In many ways it does, but it does offer women many survival benefit over men.

Men evolved to be, on average, larger than women. This suggests that men have been, historically, both more prone to violence but also more likely to be the target of violence than women. You see, male violence is largely either intragroup violence over access to females or intergroup violence which is often motivated in part by a desire to either protect ones own females or gain access to new females.

Genetically, 80% of women, historically, have had an offspring. In comparison, only 40% of men have had an offspring. Polygamy has been the norm for a large part of human history. This has led to a surplus of men who have tended to be quite violent. This, by the way, explains rape. Contrary to feminist dogma about rape being about power, rape is likely a reproductive strategy for low status males.

The basic fact to understand patriarchy is male variation. Male achievement has a lot more variation than women. This is not hard to imagine in an age where men are radically overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, Presidents, prisoners, suicides, homicides (victims and murderers), etc. You see, male reproductive success also has a more inequitable distribution than female reproductive success. This is less true now than in the distant past (but more true than it was 50 years ago), but the reality remains.

This reproductive pressure creates a more violent and dominance seeking competition between males for access to females. This, and not some vast male conspiracy, explains why we both select men to rule our societies and men to die in order to protect our societies. Testosterone leads to better leaders and (potentially) more dangerous criminals (also more risk taking tendencies which is very important).

Gender dominance (in some cases female) is present in all sorts of animals in nature. It is important to understand that selection pressure and survival dictate the dominance structure. The idea that "patriarchy" somehow is a social construct is absurd. It is inaccurate. The idea that patriarchy necessarily benefits all men at the expense of all women is absurd. In fact, it benefits some men (the winners) over everybody else while hurting other men over everybody else (females included).

I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?




Of course, natural doesn't equal right. But, when we say women take lower paying jobs, what we are really saying is that women take jobs that involve less stress, physical danger, responsibility, expectation to move, ability to take time off, etc. In other words, lower paying jobs that are lower paying because other aspects of the job are desirable. So, in many ways, I'd say that women have a better deal in that respect.

My larger point is that discussions of patriarchy talk about it as if it were some massive male conspiracy which is inaccurate.






Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?



Actually. There has never been a matriarchal human society. The societies that are often seen as matriarchal are, in fact, not matriarchal in reality.




Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?



First off. I never exactly said men were "better" leaders. Merely that men were more leadership prone. But, I do hold that, on average, men are better leaders.

Women are the more conformist sex, as others have noted. Men are more non comforist. We are also more likely to be extremely intelligent or extremely unintelligent. That means that there are a lot of men at the very top... or the leadership roles in society. That is how men are overrepresented among CEOs AND prisoners.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you aren't very well versed in what you're talking about.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you are projecting your own lack of knowledge onto me.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:32:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:04:30 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I agree with most of what you're saying, I just have a few questions.

Obviously the way society is today formed out of male and female attributes, but do you think women are happy where they are? Do you think it is moral because it is a result of what's natural? True, male and female wages are virtually the same if you actually look at the data correctly. However, in general, women take lower paying jobs. Do you think that they're happier that way, it being an offshoot of what is natural?




Of course, natural doesn't equal right. But, when we say women take lower paying jobs, what we are really saying is that women take jobs that involve less stress, physical danger, responsibility, expectation to move, ability to take time off, etc. In other words, lower paying jobs that are lower paying because other aspects of the job are desirable. So, in many ways, I'd say that women have a better deal in that respect.
I would have to question that. Can you prove that women in lower paying jobs are dealing with less stress?

Check out this:

http://human-stupidity.com...

My larger point is that discussions of patriarchy talk about it as if it were some massive male conspiracy which is inaccurate.






Also, how do you explain the various matriarchal societies that exist? Why is a country like America different in societal structure compared to, say, an African tribe? Do African males have lower testosterone levels? Are they less competitive?



Actually. There has never been a matriarchal human society. The societies that are often seen as matriarchal are, in fact, not matriarchal in reality.
Prove that please. I've read a lot of textbooks and historical information that contradicts that.

The BoP is on those asserting matriarchy has existed to prove that it has. But, despite that, I'll direct you here which deals with claims that matriarchy has existed:

http://www.debunker.com...




Finally, you talked about leadership a lot. You basically said men are better leaders more often because we're more competitive and domination-prone. How do you know that we actually are better leaders? What if our domination simply led us to create a structure that allowed us leadership roles that we generally were not the best for?



First off. I never exactly said men were "better" leaders. Merely that men were more leadership prone. But, I do hold that, on average, men are better leaders.

Women are the more conformist sex, as others have noted. Men are more non comforist. We are also more likely to be extremely intelligent or extremely unintelligent. That means that there are a lot of men at the very top... or the leadership roles in society. That is how men are overrepresented among CEOs AND prisoners.

Two things on this. Firstly, it would appear that this is your justification for the idea that men are on average better leaders. I don't think simply saying we're smarter and more aggressive is sufficient proof. Studies show women to have higher emotional intelligence, and teamwork groups perform better the more women they have.

Right. This is actually supporting my point. Women ARE better team players. They are also easier to get a long with and better at following rules. This is why women are doing better in jobs in like nursing, secretarial work, etc. Work that involves a lot of interacting with people and a lot of rule following.

On the other hand, men are better at jobs like engineering, military stuff, and leadership roles in corporations and government. This reflects men's greater tendency for dominance, greater tendency to like mathematical work or working with ones hands, and the tendency for men to be non conformist, non rule followers who other people follow (also known as leaders).


Second, do you think a wider range of IQ scores is the sole explanation for the number of males occupying societies highest and lowest roles, or are there other factors involved?

No. IQ is one of many factors. But, the greater male variability in IQ is a good proxy for greater male variability in many areas across the board. This does explain the CEO/prisoner paradox I've been talking about.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have the sneaking suspicion that you are projecting your own lack of knowledge onto me.

http://www.google.com...
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.