Jeffret wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 13, 2023 4:40 pm
alas wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 13, 2023 3:53 pm
So, no, men are not dominant because of patriarchy. We have patriarchy because men like to dominate.
I remain unconvinced that patriarchal structures have no influence or that we can wholly exclude patriarchy from any causality. My observation is that some of these behaviors and desires are greater in heavily patriarchal societies.
alas wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 13, 2023 3:53 pm
Think the difference between alpha males and normal (why don’t we call them beta males?)
They do. Those who obsess over these sorts of things heavily lean into and obsess over the term Beta. They're terrified that they might be a Beta and might not live up to their true Alpha potential. (A related term is Chad.) These things are a subject of constant discussion and concern among MRA (Men's Rights Activists) or MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way, though they never seem to get right down to it and go.) These "activists" are terribly concerned about maintaining the patriarchy and achieving their rightful position, though they never seem to get around to doing any activism, but just whine about it online. (There's a strong overlap with these folks and PUA (Pick-Up Artists)).
Part of the problem is the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. From the very foundation. The idea of an alpha is borrowed from the term "alpha wolf", but the whole idea of an alpha wolf comes from an academic paper that was wrong in so many ways. Wolf society is generally organized around families, where the parent wolves are in charge. The "alpha", to the degree there is one, could as well be a mother. For example, when my wildlife biologist daughter visited the center that assists with wolf studies in Yellowstone, the researchers explained that one of the reasons a particular pack was settled into Yellowstone was because the female leader (a mother), had figured out how to bring down a bison.
I'm not familiar enough with primate or monkey societies to know if they actually have any "alpha", but I also don't know how that informs us about human societies.
Just comparing humans to any one primate group teaches us nothing. You have to compare to things that are common to more than one species. And a general rule in the whole animal kingdom is where there is polygamy, there is strong competition between males. In monogamous animals the males will compete for territory, grow a pretty tail, or build pretty nests to attract a female. So, humans being more polygamous than monogamous, there is heavy competition between males. Bonobos the only monogamous chimp species, is very peaceful, with little to no competition between males.
But to learn about humans you also look at differences in individuals and how different cultures of humans function.
Having a patriarchal society doesn’t cause men to be more dominant. In all human societies, the men compete with each other for control. Humans have never had a society where the men didn’t compete for power, so how really are patriarchal societies different than patriarchal societies??? All human cultures have been ruled by men. In human history we have never had one where the ruling power was held only by women. We have more patriarchal and more egalitarian. But we don’t have even a history of one where men do not compete for power. But the more patriarchal the society, the more it allows those traits to come out in men who already have that tendency to want power and control. And since humans have never really had a matriarchal society, we have nothing to compare to. The best humans have is less patriarchal/more egalitarian and matrilineal. Matrilineal societies trace linage through the mother. Usually the inheritance comes from her brothers. But those societies still have male chiefs and are led by men. Men have the power, they just pass it down to their nephew instead of their son. So, not really having any human society that has been ruled by women, we have more or less patriarchal. I just think that is a human trait, that some men want power and will do anything to get it. For other men, it is less important.
The customs may differ, say in that a king might pass his kingdom to a daughter, but mostly daughters only get it if there is no son. Or the king might pass the ruler ship to his sister’s son. Or, there may be a big fight with the men killing each other, or the people might even vote. But look who holds most of the power. In every human culture it has been men.
So, my questions when you say patriarchy *causes* men to want power, is which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think more of what happens is that in an egalitarian society, the men are forced to share power and they do so reluctantly. Patriarchy means they don’t have to share power with women and can just compete with other men. It doesn’t change their desire to have power. Just narrows the playing field. So, I don’t think the human nature of men changes. And in families, it is also a matter of degrees. In more patriarchal societies, men are taught more to rule in the family, and you get crap like honor killings. But in a more egalitarian society, those men are the one beating their wife behind closed doors, so it changes what men get away with but does it change the nature of men? I don’t think it changes the nature of the man. Even in those strongly patriarchal societies, you have men who loves their wives and try to keep them happy. And in our more egalitarian society, you have men who go see Stormy Danial while their wife is pregnant, men that beat and murder their wives. And the percentages are not too different. It is just that a man won’t be punished for an honor killing in one society, and in a different society will get ten years for beating their pregnant wife to death. It is a matter of degrees, and human society has only had various levels of patriarchy. So, there are loving men in the most patriarchal society, and tyrants in the most egalitarian. So, does the nature of men change across those societies?
If Mormon leaders could force the women into burkas, would they? They sure try to control everything, even the number of earrings. So, if they thought they would get away with it, would they do it? I think they would, because I think the nature of men is the same across societies.