Thom Harrison and "Visions of Glory"

[blazerb]

I'm wondering if there is a connection to Thom Harrison here. We have seen that Harrison has some sort of influence with the church in recommending therapists, and we have seen that his preferred therapists appear to be oriented around the Visions of Glory movement. Also, Owen seemed to be doing a similar thing to what happened in some of the church-recommended conversion therapy providers, where the counselors found all kinds of ways of getting their own suppressed gay rocks off in the guise of helping clients adjust to supposedly healthy male touch, with zero results in changing anyone's sexual orientation, but excellent results at inducing trauma.

At this point I just kind of assume there are connections between all of these wacky sex-obsessed Mormons and organizations. I haven't seen much to disprove it.

Much of the gay conversion or gay denial practices and performers have some kinky gay sexual aspects and have done for a long time. This is most strongly true for gay male situations. Lesbians just ignored in a lot of this.

If nothing else, the church connects them. Owen may not have gone to the EternalCore conference or even have read Visions of Glory. But these ideas are everywhere at church. Members want to pretend that there are just a few wackos, but the church has been unequivocally anti-LGBT+. The church is thoroughly millennialistic. Doomsday is built into the teachings.

I also bet that there aren't more than 2 steps of separation from all of these therapists. He probably knew someone who knew Harrison, at the very least.

[Hagoth]

Lesbians just ignored in a lot of this.

Yeah, that's interesting. No preisthood, not such a big deal.

[alas]

Lesbians just ignored in a lot of this.

Yeah, that's interesting. No preisthood, not such a big deal.

Homophobes never have gotten as bent out of shape over lesbians. I think it has to do with the fear many men have of being “unmanly”. There is so much misogyny already in our culture, where it is insulting to call a guy anything even closely related to being feminine. “You throw like a girl” is an insult. Yet a woman would feel complimented by “you throw like a guy.” It is mainly men fueling the homophobia, so lesbians get ignored because they are already female, while a gay guy is male acting like a female. Basically, the insult is “you do sex like a girl.” And to a woman. “You do sex like a guy,” is just not the terror inducing equivalent.

So, one of the few advantages of being female. Homophobes don’t care how we do sex.

[Jeffret]

Lesbians just ignored in a lot of this.

Yeah, that's interesting. No preisthood, not such a big deal.

It's an aspect of patriarchy, which is certainly abundant in Mormonism. It's hard to say exactly why, but there are certainly some forces driving it.

There have never been as much effort in converting women from lesbianism as there has been gay men. There have been large, ongoing conferences to support gay men in not being gay. By all accounts these were hotbeds of gay hookups. There have been many practices and therapies developed to help gay men become more in touch with their manly side to stop being gay, all of which are imbued with a lot of homoeroticism. (A lot of gay men are very stereotypically manly and there are plenty of gay men that are attracted to them.) And there have been far more male therapists accused of sexually abusing their gay male clients than of woman-on-woman. On a small scale there have certainly been efforts to forcibly convert lesbians, but it has never been the big industry and concern as it has been for men.

Mormon polygyny was extremely patriarchal and generally bad for the women, but there were some women who navigated it to some advantages. There were some who liked a disattentive husband, who was never in their way. Some who found it possible to accomplish things without as many restrictions of being a housewife. And certainly some who found their needs well-met by having sister-wives. The lesbians just hid under the covers.

There is a substantial amount of porn targeted at straight men featuring lesbian encounters. There seems to be something in our society that develops the unexamined idea that lesbian sex is titillating and arousing for many men. It's certainly not reciprocal as many straight men find the idea of gay male sex unattractive. (It's not my persuasion, but I haven't heard that the same level of interest exists for straight women.) That's true to a very heightened degree for men who are not at 0 on the Kinsey scale, who find themselves enticed by gay male sexuality, by are repulsed by their own desires.

Much of it is due to the factors that alas describes. Patriarchy inculcates a lot more pressure on the men to be men. A tom-boy has long been at worst an oddity and often even celebrated and rewarded. A tom-girl is still generally quite derided and considered lesser.

A lot of it is because in the patriarchy women are fundamentally other -- they are considered lesser. They're not involved in climbs through the primary ladder of hierarchy. Women are ignored, except as they prove interesting or desirable to to the men of the patriarchy. It's not about the priesthood, as any form of the power of god (which women would be more than adequately qualified for), but, it's heavily aligned with the priesthood as practiced by the Mormon Church, the hierarchical structure of power and control.

[alas]

Do straight women find gay sex erotic, in the way straight men find lesbian sex erotic, no, I have never heard the idea and in a few of my social work or psychology classes we actually discussed such issues, and the studies say no.

There are a few differences in male sexuality compared to female. Women don’t equate the control and domination of their partner with eroticism, so women don’t sexually abuse near as much, and when they do, it is usually motivated by different things. Men rape to feel powerful. Women seduce boys to feel loved. Men kill to feel powerful. Women kill most often in self defense. Women, killing for the thrill? not nearly as much. Men have fetishes, objects that turn them on, such as shoes. Women don’t. The sexual deviancy in the DSM is much bigger chapter than sexual deviancy for women. Men are more visual. They get turned on with pictures, women not as much. Women get turned by the man desiring her….so in a weird way women are turned on by their own attractiveness. Why they primp so much and love compliments, I think. So, there are actual reasons that men get turned on watching lesbian sex, while women would just be bored by gay sex. Those men are not interested in her. Why gay men are good friends for women. And, yes, in high school my best friends were on girl and one gay guy. Of course, there are exceptions where some women are more like men in their sexuality. But it is about the same percentages as any LGBT thing, with less than 10% of the population, however, I don’t remember any actual studies because men just aren’t interested in studying women’s sexual deviancy anymore than they are bothered by lesbians.

I’ll take my psychology hat off now and let y’all get back to your discussion.

[Jeffret]

Women don’t equate the control and domination of their partner with eroticism, so women don’t sexually abuse near as much, and when they do, it is usually motivated by different things.

This is pretty clearly driven by patriarchy. Men pursue control and domination because the patriarchy tells them that's what they need to do. Of course, there is the whole nature vs. nurture argument. Are men inherently like this, outside patriarchy? It's a bit difficult to know because the patriarchal system we live in flavors everything around these sorts of things. We can readily assume that at least a part of this is caused by patriarchy.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just musing on how much these differences might be caused by the patriarchal system. It would be interesting to understand if these differences between men and women would be reduced in a society fully lacking in patriarchy. I wonder if there are cross-cultural studies that could prove enlightening in these ways.

(Much of my previous comments come from a consideration of Mormonism, which is clearly very hierarchical. I do observe some differences in some things between what I wrote and other sub-parts of USA or Western European society.)

[Linked]

Women don’t equate the control and domination of their partner with eroticism, so women don’t sexually abuse near as much, and when they do, it is usually motivated by different things.

This is pretty clearly driven by patriarchy. Men pursue control and domination because the patriarchy tells them that's what they need to do. Of course, there is the whole nature vs. nurture argument. Are men inherently like this, outside patriarchy? It's a bit difficult to know because the patriarchal system we live in flavors everything around these sorts of things. We can readily assume that at least a part of this is caused by patriarchy.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just musing on how much these differences might be caused by the patriarchal system. It would be interesting to understand if these differences between men and women would be reduced in a society fully lacking in patriarchy. I wonder if there are cross-cultural studies that could prove enlightening in these ways.

(Much of my previous comments come from a consideration of Mormonism, which is clearly very hierarchical. I do observe some differences in some things between what I wrote and other sub-parts of USA or Western European society.)

Interesting thoughts all around. My childhood home was closer to matriarchal than patriarchal, my mom was the dominant personality and my dad was fine with that (my dad was an adult convert and not raised mormon). And I find control and domination a huge turnoff personally. Therefore you are right, congratulations! But seriously, I wonder if it's related to my less patriarchal upbringing.

[alas]

Women don’t equate the control and domination of their partner with eroticism, so women don’t sexually abuse near as much, and when they do, it is usually motivated by different things.

This is pretty clearly driven by patriarchy. Men pursue control and domination because the patriarchy tells them that's what they need to do. Of course, there is the whole nature vs. nurture argument. Are men inherently like this, outside patriarchy? It's a bit difficult to know because the patriarchal system we live in flavors everything around these sorts of things. We can readily assume that at least a part of this is caused by patriarchy.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just musing on how much these differences might be caused by the patriarchal system. It would be interesting to understand if these differences between men and women would be reduced in a society fully lacking in patriarchy. I wonder if there are cross-cultural studies that could prove enlightening in these ways.

(Much of my previous comments come from a consideration of Mormonism, which is clearly very hierarchical. I do observe some differences in some things between what I wrote and other sub-parts of USA or Western European society.)

Interesting thoughts all around. My childhood home was closer to matriarchal than patriarchal, my mom was the dominant personality and my dad was fine with that (my dad was an adult convert and not raised mormon). And I find control and domination a huge turnoff personally. Therefore you are right, congratulations! But seriously, I wonder if it's related to my less patriarchal upbringing.

Putting psychology hat back on. Sorry, but I majored in psychology because I find it fascinating.

I had one really fun class called “comparative psychology” where human psychology was compared to animal psychology. All species where polygamy is practiced (deer, walruses, apes) have this thing where males find dominating other males and their females erotic. Think about deer where the bucks try to kill each other and the winner gets all the watching females. (Question I should have asked, do females find the male’s fighting sexy? In animals it looks like they do. In humans??? Definitely true that women go for powerful men, but do they find the competing itself sexy.) OK, so humans are both, with some societies being polygamous and others being monogamous, but probably more polygamous. Now, like I said about female deviancy, this is something that varies between individuals. Some men don’t like the competition and are turned off by subservient females, while others go for children because they are easy to dominate, while some men really get off on male competition, while others like more mental contests, or earning the most money. Humans have lots of variations in how we gain power, as well as the need for power or the eroticism of power. It is not a fluke that powerful men sexually abuse both women and children. Harvey Weinstein kind of men, or Joseph Smith kind of men.

So, no, men are not dominant because of patriarchy. We have patriarchy because men like to dominate. Some much more than others. The need for domination will be a spectrum. Think the difference between alpha males and normal (why don’t we call them beta males?) in chimps and gorillas there is your dominant guy. All the females are supposed to mate with him. But when they run genetics on the troop, the beta males have offspring because some females sneak off into the bushes to mate with the betas. But the can’t get caught by the boss. So it is in humans. Some females don’t like the alpha males, and some males don’t want to be an alpha.

So, it is individual personality, not being raised in a patriarchy or even polygamy that makes some men less aggressive, less dominant. There may be some heredity to it, and some learning, because some societies teach the men to be more macho. Mormons are weird in that males are not taught to be macho, but they are taught to dominate, but softly. Feminists call it chicken patriarchy where the man has to be in control but they pretend equal.

It can also have to do with birth order. My son has a dominating controlling wife. She is the oldest of brothers and he is the youngest of sisters. They are a good match because he has little need to control at home, and he competes intellectually at work. See, like I said above. Humans have multiple ways of gaining power or competing to see who is best.

[Jeffret]

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.

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.

[alas]

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.

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.

[Jeffret]

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.

This is well outside my area of expertise or anything I've studied, but I have read that there have been matriarchal societies, or societies ruled by women. So, yeah, I don't know. It's also hard for me to accept the absolute that nothing has ever existed in all of human history. (It certainly depends on how you define a matriarchal society, but I've read that anthropologists consider some to qualify.)

We do know that some animal societies are matriarchal. Why should it be impossible that the human animal should have no such societies?

So, my questions when you say patriarchy *causes* men to want power, is which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, yes. Roughly speaking, this is the nature vs. nurture argument and it's really tough to resolve it. But it's also a reductionist approach to the argument, as asking which came first isn't really the question. Even with the chicken and the egg, it distorts the argument into something that doesn't have a meaningful resolution.

[alas]

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.

This is well outside my area of expertise or anything I've studied, but I have read that there have been matriarchal societies, or societies ruled by women. So, yeah, I don't know. It's also hard for me to accept the absolute that nothing has ever existed in all of human history. (It certainly depends on how you define a matriarchal society, but I've read that anthropologists consider some to qualify.)

We do know that some animal societies are matriarchal. Why should it be impossible that the human animal should have no such societies?

So, my questions when you say patriarchy *causes* men to want power, is which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, yes. Roughly speaking, this is the nature vs. nurture argument and it's really tough to resolve it. But it's also a reductionist approach to the argument, as asking which came first isn't really the question. Even with the chicken and the egg, it distorts the argument into something that doesn't have a meaningful resolution.

Yes, England was “ruled” by a queen for 70 years or so, and before that we have Egypt with Cleopatra. But those are temporary, the exception and not the rule. Then we could debate just how much real power a figure head like Queen Elizabeth I or II really had. There were men in parliament with power that could overrule Elizabeth I. While II was more figurehead than leader let alone ruler. And in the homes, it was still the fathers. We are not really debating a matriarchal society, but a less patriarchal one. And I am sure we could find at least one woman, somewhere in history who really ruled….most likely she took over after her husband died. But as a rule, there has never been a truly matriarchal society. Sure, we have mythological legends of the Amazons. But according to my anthropology teacher, and most feminist anthropologists, there has never been the a matriarchal society to come close to the kind of “ruling over” of our common patriarchal societies. Look at modern Afghanistan. Now tell me there has EVER been a society where men were treated as women are currently being treated there.

The “matriarchal” societies that some anthropologists try to name are like the native Americans. Where women have some real power to say divorce her husband, but the tribe has a male chief and female healer. Or maybe it is a society that is matralinial, but the men control the government. Or maybe it is like Ancient Egypt where a queen takes the throne but women as people are the legal property of their husbands and the queen has to have a “deal” with Rome’s ruler for her to maintain power. Thus you have a “love affair” with Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Those societies have been primarily patriarchal and been less than totally patriarchal. So, less than totally patriarchal is then defined as “women are taking rights away from men! They are ruling over us!” Bah humbug.

So, yes there have been less than totally patriarchal societies. We live in one and this woman was allowed an education.

[alas]

Oh, that bit that sounds like the male rights people, yeah, I am being sarcastic. But that was close to what some male anthropologists did in declaring that there were matriarchal societies. They saw something close to egalitarian and declared it matriarchal, because they couldn’t believe all the power that women had. “Look, the babies are named after their mothers! That must be matriarchal.”

Perhaps if we go back prehistory where the biggest gods were female we could find matriarchy, but I don’t know because there is no history and statues of Venus don’t tell us much.

[Red Ryder]

I find this conversation extremely fascinating. As if sitting at dinner just listening in.

Please continue.

[Hagoth]

I find this conversation extremely fascinating. As if sitting at dinner just listening in.

Please continue.

I also find it fascinating how conversations can veer off in unexpected directions that take them miles from the original topic. I also confess to being one of the worst perpetrators of said veering.

[alas]

I hope I don’t scare off Jeffret. I am only willing to get into this kind of discussion with someone I trust and respect how he thinks. But most people don’t take my arguing with them as the complement it really is. I don’t discuss things with stupid people—-boring. And I don’t discuss things with mean people—-dangerous. And I don’t discuss with people who are not curious about the world. And I often play devils advocate to make people think through their point.

See, jeffret is correct that patriarchy teaches men to be domineering, because somehow some men start thinking that bossing people around, controlling them against their will, always getting your own way, is strong and manly. Being a dictator is what Trump and his followers think is strong and manly. And patriarchy helps teach that. So, combine the teaching with the innate nature of humans, especially the males of many species, and society produces men who will kill the woman they love for “honor” which really equals his manhood ideal that he gets to control her. And there isn’t much difference between OJ who even said that if he did kill her, it was because he loved her, and honor killings. The woman defied him, or broke his rule, so she deserves to die.

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated. Only the egg has to be a chicken egg that has been fertilized, so it is more that one leads to the other, which leads to more of the first. It is more like insulin resistance causes the body to make more insulin. Extra insulin, especially with insulin resistance causes weight gain, and weight gain causes insulin resistance…..so, being fat causes diabetes, or does being pre diabetic cause obesity. Yes. Being prediabetic causes obesity as Ozempic is proving. And Ozempic won’t cause weight loss in some people because their obesity or overweight isn’t related to what Ozempic fixes. It fixes something related to diabetes, and if you don’t have it, you won’t lose weight unless it is just because Ozempic causes nausea. It is no accident that a medication the fixes some of the underlying metabolic symptoms of diabetes causes weight loss. Diabetes causes obesity. And even in people who are not genetically likely to be diabetic, horrid diet causing obesity will cause diabetes. So, does obesity cause diabetes, or does the underlying problem that is diabetes cause obesity as the first symptom.

Men (and to a lesser extent women) have an innate desire for power. Men don’t want their woman mating with other men. Leading to patriarchy because men are physically stronger, so it won’t often go the other direction with matriarchy. Patriarchy leads to men being more power obsessed, and directing the control to women.

And we have a vicious spiral.


Edited to add. Posting in the middle of the night because of loud snoring. I’m going back to bed now and maybe hubby will not be snoring so bad

[Hagoth]

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated.

TANGENT ALERT!!!
I know a guy whose company does a lot of the painting in new temples, as well as paint touch-ups, Moroni re-goldleafing, etc. in older temples. He told me the Salt Lake temple's Creation Room mural once had a nest in a tree until one of the Top Men (pretty sure he said it was BKP) made them paint it out, literally to sidestep the chicken-and-egg problem. And while he was at it, he made them paint a mane on the lioness, to make it a lion. You can't make this sh*t up.

[alas]

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated.

TANGENT ALERT!!!
I know a guy whose company does a lot of the painting in new temples, as well as paint touch-ups, Moroni re-goldleafing, etc. in older temples. He told me the Salt Lake temple's Creation Room mural once had a nest in a tree until one of the Top Men (pretty sure he said it was BKP) made them paint it out, literally to sidestep the chicken-and-egg problem. And while he was at it, he made them paint a mane on the lioness, to make it a lion. You can't make this sh*t up.

Well, yes, if there was no procreating before the fall while still in the garden of Eden, there would be no mating with eggs in the nest. We can’t have hints of evolution. And BKP was a bit of a misogynist, so no surprise about him preferring a male lion. And how dare he think he knows more than the artist who painted it? But yeah, no surprise that he did.

[Jeffret]

I also find it fascinating how conversations can veer off in unexpected directions that take them miles from the original topic. I also confess to being one of the worst perpetrators of said veering.

Eh ... I'm one of the biggest offenders at that. I know it really bugs some people, so I try not to do it so much (often unsuccessfully) on threads started by other people, but I'm happy enough to follow where the conversation flows.

I hope I don’t scare off Jeffret. I am only willing to get into this kind of discussion with someone I trust and respect how he thinks. But most people don’t take my arguing with them as the complement it really is. I don’t discuss things with stupid people—-boring. And I don’t discuss things with mean people—-dangerous. And I don’t discuss with people who are not curious about the world.

Nah, it's just that I've about run out of things to say on this topic. As I said, we're at the edge of my expertise and knowledge. One of my daughters has a lot more studies and expertise in these areas and it's fun to get her going on topics like this.

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated. Only the egg has to be a chicken egg that has been fertilized, so it is more that one leads to the other, which leads to more of the first.

That was one of my points -- the chicken and egg problem is presented as a simple dichotomy, when the reality is much more complex and the consideration has to be much more finessed.

And we've reached the point where we're essentially in agreement on the primary ideas. And I don't have any more tangents handy to veer off on.

[alas]

I also find it fascinating how conversations can veer off in unexpected directions that take them miles from the original topic. I also confess to being one of the worst perpetrators of said veering.

Eh ... I'm one of the biggest offenders at that. I know it really bugs some people, so I try not to do it so much (often unsuccessfully) on threads started by other people, but I'm happy enough to follow where the conversation flows.

I hope I don’t scare off Jeffret. I am only willing to get into this kind of discussion with someone I trust and respect how he thinks. But most people don’t take my arguing with them as the complement it really is. I don’t discuss things with stupid people—-boring. And I don’t discuss things with mean people—-dangerous. And I don’t discuss with people who are not curious about the world.

Nah, it's just that I've about run out of things to say on this topic. As I said, we're at the edge of my expertise and knowledge. One of my daughters has a lot more studies and expertise in these areas and it's fun to get her going on topics like this.

So, it really is kind of a chicken and egg thing, but more complicated. Only the egg has to be a chicken egg that has been fertilized, so it is more that one leads to the other, which leads to more of the first.

That was one of my points -- the chicken and egg problem is presented as a simple dichotomy, when the reality is much more complex and the consideration has to be much more finessed.

And we've reached the point where we're essentially in agreement on the primary ideas. And I don't have any more tangents handy to veer off on.

I can ask one more question on this topic. I have kind of been thinking about this, and got fascinated by this likely interaction. But not being male, I don’t have the perspective to answer.

So, What parts of this vicious cycle are chicken and which are egg, or which ones are nurture and which ones are inherent. More specifically, what does patriarchy teach men?

So, let’s say some men are born with high need to dominate and others are at the opposite end of the spectrum, like all bell curves. And there is a lot of overlap on the bell curve for women, but women on average are lower. I think that is kind of what studies show. Now, given this basic nature, of desire to dominate in his chosen field (fields being money, knowledge, politics, brawn, social popularity, skill, and so on) men strive for success.

I can tell you what patriarchy teaches women, but I lack the experience of what it teaches men. Which is probably why I was leaning so heavily toward nature.

My mother calls men who are very heavy in this need to dominate and have power as suffering from testosterone poisoning. And too much testosterone does increase aggressiveness. So, see why testosterone poisoning. This effect of testosterone is the nature. And it has been studied. But I have never seen any studies about what patriarchy teaches men. And feminist speculation is going to be inaccurate. So, I have always distrusted the discussions among women and never heard of seen any discussion from men.

So, guys, what did patriarchy teach you. Good lessons like protect women and children, and bad ones.

Probably should be a new thread, but the mods can split it if they want.