Sunday School

[Belle RoseParticipant]

@simon that graph is interesting, where is it from?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Kaufman, Scott Barry; David Bryce Yaden; Elizabeth Hyde; and Eli Tsukayama – “The Light vs. Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting Two Very Different Profiles of Human Nature”: Frontiers in Psychology, 10:467, 2019

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467/full

It was 1518 people, not 1800 as I stated.  I think it’s interesting how some data points are jammed up against the top of the scale, suggesting that they’re much more good than the study allowed for.

Scott Barry Kaufman does a lot of stuff in this vein.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

It reminds me of the story of two wolves:

The story of the two wolves
An old Cherokee Indian chief was teaching his grandson about life.

He said, “A fight is going on inside me,” he told the young boy, “a fight between two wolves.

The Dark one is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The Light Wolf is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you grandson…and inside of every other person on the face of this earth.”

The grandson ponders this for a moment and then asked, “Grandfather, which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee smiled and simply said, “The one you feed”.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

The grandson ponders this for a moment and then asked, “Grandfather, which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee smiled and simply said, “The one you feed”.

I think that’s very true.  There’s even a precise definition of light and dark: achieving one’s goals to mutual benefit, or achieving one’s goals at the expense of others.  It’s all too easy to do the latter.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen – you seem to be thrashing around somewhat in your efforts to say that patriarchy doesn’t exist, or that women like being oppressed, or something.

“…or something.” So, you admit at the start that you are arguing strenuously against something you don’t really understand.

The patriarchy we have, such as it is, is through the assent of the citizenry. Women now have the vote and tend to slightly dominate voting. For starters, there are at last count (2022), there were 7.4 million more women than men registered to vote (source)

If the GOP represents patriarchy to a greater extent than the Democratic Party, it’s interesting that white women tend to lean toward voting GOP. (source) I guess you would characterize that as “liking to be repressed.”

The word patriarchy in the sense of “a society dominated by men” has the same suffix, “archy,” as monarchy, but there’s a crucial difference. A monarchy is a system of government where as a patriarchy a much looser concept. It may be imposed by a government as in Saudi Arabia, it may be there due to social inertia, or it may simply reflect, in a democracy, voting patterns. What the people want, given the choice, in other words.

I submit that what we have in the U.S., to the  extent it’s a  patriarchy, is a combination of the last two. Your apparent concept of democracy seems to be that if people don’t want what you want, there’s something wrong with them.

As I said elsewhere, a certain amount of baggage comes along with whether one gets and X or a Y. The Y’s may naturally look to the X’s for protection and thus may defer to them and accept certain disadvantages. If so, it’s YOU not me who see this as liking to be oppressed. It’s your characterization and it portrays them as inferior. That doesn’t follow from my analysis.

[UnseenParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

My biological Mom died today 😢

So sorry. Staying active and interested is always the best way to keep from going off the rails.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

The patriarchy we have, such as it is, is through the assent of the citizenry. Women now have the vote and tend to slightly dominate voting. For starters, there are at last count (2022), there were 7.4 million more women than men registered to vote (source)

But the patriarchy isn’t voted in.  It’s actually a fundamental orientation of males, given the male-female reproductive differences where the male gives up millions of cheap sperm while the female carries a few costly babies.  So, the male reproduces by finding as many females as possible, and the female by finding as much resources as possible.

Now, I think it exists for two reasons: 1) it’s an easier and surer form of mate retention than the alternative, of making oneself attractive; 2) it mainly thrives in (male-male) unequal societies, where it exploits societies’ inequality to exclude and repress females.

So, it’s not voted in or out, it’s a biological reality, but not an inevitable one, since the alternative is more fun although more difficult.

Unseen wrote:

it’s interesting that white women tend to lean toward voting GOP. (source) I guess you would characterize that as “liking to be repressed.”

You’re right, that is a funny one.  I guess they just like conservative ideas.  Many of them take it on willingly as a choice.  A healthy person doesn’t want to be actually dominated by a bully.

It may be imposed by a government as in Saudi Arabia, it may be there due to social inertia, or it may simply reflect, in a democracy, voting patterns. What the people want, given the choice, in other words.

But it’s only really what men want.  Even the conservative women don’t want to be pushed around.  If they want to be submissive and obedient – they’re just a drip, or damaged.

The Y’s may naturally look to the X’s for protection and thus may defer to them and accept certain disadvantages.

Yes, it’s part of the classical (Barbara Smuts) model of evolutionary patriarchy that the dominant male gorilla provides for and protects “his” group of females.  Aside from that, we see female chimpanzees having male friends who protect them.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

If the GOP represents patriarchy to a greater extent than the Democratic Party, it’s interesting that white women tend to lean toward voting GOP. (source) I guess you would characterize that as “liking to be repressed.”

Another reason might be the way in which patriarchy gets confused with pair-bonding, since both are general methods of mate retention – the first by coercion, the second by consent.  Conservatives believe strongly in families and marriage.  So patriarchal ideas about how women should behave, can be given a gloss of legitimacy by their association with family values and monogamy.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

FYI – I posted an article in this week’s Long Reads about patriarchy.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Belle Rose,

Kindest thoughts to you and yours at your time of loss.🥀

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

But the patriarchy isn’t voted in. It’s actually a fundamental orientation of males, given the male-female reproductive differences where the male gives up millions of cheap sperm while the female carries a few costly babies. So, the male reproduces by finding as many females as possible, and the female by finding as much resources as possible.

The patriarchy exists, not because it’s voted in, but because it isn’t voted out. Women have the vote. And don’t argue (as you seem to have been doing) that they are too dumb or brainwashed by sinister males to do anything about it.

Men gain power when they get sex. (And I’m talking about ordinarily, not a sexual assault or rape kind of situation). Women gain power by withholding sex. Sometimes men take sex, which is rightly against the law in laws passed by what you’d call the patriarchy. Women often withhold sex in marriage or boyfriend/girlfriend situations, and use that for the power to get their way. Women have a different kind of power.

Now, I think it exists for two reasons: 1) it’s an easier and surer form of mate retention than the alternative, of making oneself attractive; 2) it mainly thrives in (male-male) unequal societies, where it exploits societies’ inequality to exclude and repress females.

You’re arguing that men (individual men) retain their mates via the patriarchy (which you characterize as unconscious) rather than through making themselves more attractive (which would be conscious, presumably). But I don’t think women marry men they don’t find attractive somehow. Do you have evidence that they do, or is that just another one of your impressions or due to what you’ve observed firsthand in your rather bizarre social circle where females are raped on a regular basis?

So, it’s not voted in or out, it’s a biological reality, but not an inevitable one, since the alternative is more fun although more difficult.

But you haven’t really made the case that its a reality they would even want, since the current patriarchal situation apparently offers a risk/benefit ratio many are comfortable with.

Are some changes needed? Sure. No situation is perfect. But who can be sure that a satisfactorily perfected situation wouldn’t also be largely patriarchal? I’m pretty sure you can’t.

Maybe many women prefer being treated like ladies over being treated as equals. Having doors opened for them, being wined and dined as part of building up a pair bond, of feeling protected.

Maybe they feel such trade offs are worth it. Maybe such trade offs are worth it. That’s for them to decide, not me or y0u.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Unseen.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

You’re arguing that men (individual men) retain their mates via the patriarchy (which you characterize as unconscious) rather than through making themselves more attractive (which would be conscious, presumably). But I don’t think women marry men they don’t find attractive somehow.

What men try and do, and what women want to do, are two separate and distinct things.  Even in the non-human primate world, when the alpha male tries to dominate all the available females, these females often sneak off to have sex with lower-ranking males, risking punishment for them both.

But you raise an important point – what’s the link between patriarchy’s ultimate (evolutionary) reasons, and everyday life?  Patriarchy is a tendency for society to repress females to the benefit of males.  It does this because of deep evolutionary motivations that are unconscious.

Yes, women can go along with it because they’re brainwashed – wouldn’t you, if all of society was telling you what is right and wrong?  But I would imagine that most women resent it.

is that just another one of your impressions or due to what you’ve observed firsthand in your rather bizarre social circle where females are raped on a regular basis?

1 in 4 women have been sexually assulted as adults.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Your statistics are bogus:

She is a conservative feminist (not an oxymoron). Don’t pull a poisoning the well on me by rejecting the source out of hand. Instead, tell me how she’s wrong.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Instead, tell me how she’s wrong.

She doesn’t actually come up with a figure for lifetime sexual assaults and rapes.  She comes up with a figure for one year, from the crime survey.  This crime is vastly under-reported according to the Department of Justice.

The lifetime rape figures for the US (1 in 6 to 1 in 5) aren’t too different from the UK statistics of lifetime rape/sexual asssault (1 in 4).

I applaud the fact that she’s trying to be more accurate and direct resources where they’re needed.  But I think she might be misguided.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

Her point, since you missed it, is that there are no gold standard statistics and yet these 1 in 4 or 1 in 6 “statistics” are bandied about as if they are true.

Also, what is a rape is a matter for definition. In the movies of the past, men often grabbed a woman and kissed her. Some advocates today would call that at least a sexual assault and possibly kind of “rapey.”

In New York State, the law is that penetration by a penis is rape but a finger at most an assault. And if an inanimate object is used…good question.

My point is hers: People use possibly faulty statistics and guesses or surmises as though they are facts. Which they are not.

And what about the girl who consents the night before but experiences regret the morning after? and is encouraged to report it as rape?

When I hear “rapes are underreported” it’s intellectually dishonest for an advocate to pull some random figure out of their ass and pass it off as fact.

I’m not denying that rapes and sexual assaults happen, but with the definitional problem and the vaguely conjectured “underreporting,” neither one of us has a reliable statistic to go on other than actual rapes reported and substantiated, which is why rapes must be reported, as painful and humiliating as I’m sure it is.

[Author]

Posts