Simon Paynton

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The extraordinary Life and Work of Frans de Waal.

I was sorry to hear of the death of Frans de Waal.  He was much more than a primatologist.  He gave me several fundamental insights into moral philosophy as well, about natural normativity and the evolutionary basis of competition.  He was kind enough to reply to on…[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
It reminds me of the story of two wolves:

I think this article by Scott Barry Kaufman is really well put together and has some interesting theories.  It seems that SBK really knows what he is talking about.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01006

jakelafort wrote:
But what do you think of the litmus test if you will of some of my best friends are…?

I don’t think a White person who genuinely loves their Black friends can be racist towards them except out of ignorance.  All of us are still discovering how racism works.

jakelafort wrote:
Curious to know the impression of others here on that chestnut…some of my best friends are blank.

I have a friend who is mixed race (Welsh (I think) & Black American airman) and she was involved with a group of Labour party activists (left-wing, supposedly anti-racist).  They used their anti-racist virtue-signalling as a co…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
A look at Moral Foundations Theory (with video).

I like Moral Foundations Theory, it’s been influential, but I think it suffers from not having a theoretical basis to explain it.  It’s put together ad-hoc, which is fine, but has no theory, beyond promoting cooperation that promotes survival and reproduction.  C…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Men and women tend to be quite different in fundamental ways, some cultural for sure but others seem to be genetically predisposed or hardwired.

I would agree with that.  I’m not sure what they are.

Frans de Waal says young female chimps and bonobos have been observed carrying around sticks cradled in their arms as if they were…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
They’re both dominance hierarchies.

I think they operate through a mixture of coercion and consent.

Unseen wrote:
Both matriarchies and patriarchies can be egalitarian or nonegalitarian.

They’re both dominance hierarchies.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Then this rubbish is being taken seriously.

It goes against the ethics of care.  A man would presumably help another man who was in a difficult situation.

To buy a woman all her drinks or an expensive dinner puts her under an obligation.  She might prefer to pay for them herself to avoid that.

Simon Paynton wrote:
It comes as part of the package of the classical model.

Also, (the hypothesis is that) that is what monogamous egalitarian pair-bonding is for: for the man to help the woman raise children.

Unseen wrote:
Free from feeling protected and provided for? I don’t see it.

It’s true that in the classical evolutionary great ape patriarchy model, females are protected and cared for by the alpha male.  But biologically, this is for the purpose of keeping them safe for reproduction.  It comes as part of the package of the classical mod…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Where, outside academic echo chambers, are women crying out to be free from patriarchy? Free from feeling protected and provided for? I don’t see it.

It’s all over women’s media like women’s magazines.

Your argument reminds me of a book about Islam I read, by a (male) Islamic scholar.  He says that women like staying indoors, an…[Read more]

Gigantopithecus was a much more recent one, that presumably was not part of the lineage that self-domesticated and became egalitarian: not “one of us”.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
Nacholapithicus

Yes, he was very fierce.

Unseen wrote:
I think, as a general rule in nature, animals that work cooperatively in groups are either matriarchies or patriarchies, are they not?

Social animals nearly always live in some kind of dominance hierarchy, it’s true.  Ants and bees I’m not so sure.  They’re a special case of everything, socially.

Why should humans be any d…

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
You can’t have it both ways.

I can see your point – “double standards” works both ways.

However, there’s no getting away from biology.  All organisms experience a pressure to reproduce.  Bateman’s Principle states that while females’ reproductive success depends on resources, males’ reproductive success depends on access to fem…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
If I were to take the position that “There is no such thing as patriarchy in a democracy” as long as women are free to participate in the process, what could you offer as proof I’m wrong?

I could offer the argument that patriarchy isn’t voted in or out.  It’s a cultural phenomenon.  It has to be defeated by cultural means, not dem…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Let’s not call out asshole individuals for their crimes and separate them from females. No, it’s a “cultural” fault. No individual is ever responsible.

You’re right, it’s a good question, what’s the link between culture (when every culture condemns rape) and behaviour?  Rape used to be a crime of theft against the man, in Western…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
“Throughout this protracted and disgraceful assault on American womanhood the clergy baptized every new insult and act of injustice in the name of the Christian religion, and uniformly asked God’s blessing on proceedings that would have put to shame an assembly of Hottentots.”

I think that the Church provides power…[Read more]