Are there dangerous ideas?

[UnseenParticipant]

Many of the themes in the previous video but taking only about 20 minutes. Capitalism may not be the friend of democracy we are told it is.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@unseen – I’ve done some research into why rape and coercion of females was unlikely in our prehistoric past.  It seems that patriarchy may have a U-shaped history: present in great apes, absent in most of human history for a number of reasons, and present again in modern settled humans.  Patriarchy, or the dominance of females by males, is the lowest-cost male reproductive strategy.  The alternative is to offer women what they need (in classical theory) to help them to raise children, and this is costly for males, who would rather impregnate as many females as possible at the lowest cost.

Here are some factors that work against male domination, in small-scale nomadic hunter-gatherer societies: the same as those that promote egalitarianism in general.

• independent economic security and access to sharing network
  Both women and men are able to procure their own food directly, without necessarily having to rely on others; and are freely provisioned by the sharing network of the group.
• non-dependence on specific people
  An individual may depend on the group as a whole, but does not have to depend on specific people.
• free movement of people
  If two people are in conflict, one may easily move to live away from the other.
• dispersed authority
  There is no institutionalised authority: each person is recognised as an authority in a particular sphere by virtue of their skills and experience, but nobody is in overall charge.  The head man or woman is simply a kind of wise guide for the group who can persuade others through tact, intelligence and experience.

Where there are institutionalized statuses of authority, men can use the threat of physical coercion to pave the way to exclusive male access to these positions.  It is where these positions are not institutionalized that being male does not provide an advantage over being female.

Karen Lampell Endicott – “The Conditions of Egalitarian Male-Female Relationships in Foraging Societies”

• culture of non-violence.
  In Batek society [Malaysia], the culture of non-violence means that women cannot be coerced by force.  In some “simple” societies, such as the Hadza [Tanzania] as reported by Woodburn (1982), there is no culture of non-violence.  However, this also works against patriarchy, as it tends to reduce male-male competition, since any male has the opportunity and means to inflict lethal violence on any other, usually without punishment.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I think there’s a flaw, or a bind, inherent in these ideas.  If women need men to provide them with resources – this makes them dependent, and this dependency can be exploited by men.  However, in the “simple” nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, this doesn’t seem to happen, probably because of all the other levelling factors.

This kind of suggests that patriarchy is entrenched in modern society, which is full of power structures.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The traditional idea that only men were the hunters is not correct. Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture. Another article on this assumption here.

Paper is here.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Thanks.  It’s interesting that they come to the same conclusions as me.  I think that sexual equality is a by-product of egalitarianism in general.

Even if women don’t hunt very much in hunter-gatherer societies, this doesn’t mean they’re not valued.

[_Robert_Participant]

There is some irony in that as the planet continues to heat up and and conditions become extreme, the super wealthy capitalists will probably feel like they have the most to loose. Sucks to die super-rich. No wonder they are so very interested in space travel and cryopreservation.

[DavisModerator]

the super wealthy capitalists will probably feel like they have the most to loose

They have the most in financial terms to lose in the long run in the name of short term gains, but in terms of absolute suffering, the poor have the most to lose.

Conservatives have created the narrative of being the “party of family values and responsibility” but things like global warming have shown that it is without the slightest doubt the “very short term gain at long term cost” party and the “individual profit with little regard for others including my grandchildren who will inherit a planet on fire” party.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

the super wealthy capitalists will probably feel like they have the most to loose

They have the most in financial terms to lose in the long run in the name of short term gains, but in terms of absolute suffering, the poor have the most to lose. Conservatives have created the narrative of being the “party of family values and responsibility” but things like global warming have shown that it is without the slightest doubt the “very short term gain at long term cost” party and the “individual profit with little regard for others including my grandchildren who will inherit a planet on fire” party.

I really underestimated the desperation of so many American white xtians..as they continue to be abandoned or screwed over by corporate employers as they get scammed by their churches. They looked to a fascist for salvation.

[DavisModerator]

They looked to a fascist for salvation.

It’s truly fascinating looking at it from the outside, but I am certain that it is not pretty if you live in a state like Alabama or Mississippi which is already economically stagnant, lacking in social assistance and social programs and has a mentality of “people facing hard times deserve it”. Their lives are clearly worse after 4 years of their saviour though they overwhelmingly voted for four years more. Do you think that their churches or enriched corporations will save them?

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

the super wealthy capitalists will probably feel like they have the most to loose.

Few people, rich or poor, look far beyond how circumstances affect them. Add onto this the capitalist notion that whatever people wealth someone accumulates, they somehow earned it all. The idea that after a certain point, wealth generates more wealth and the factor blind luck plays are lost on them. The former they’ll attribute to wise foresight and the latter to mythology.

[Author]

Posts