Jim

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

They’re both dominance hierarchies.

Whenever I go on a date I often ask her if she is happy for me to pay. Almost always it’s “Let’s go Dutch”. Once, in a higher end restaurant, I heard the words “I will get it this time and you can pay the next time” and delivered with a smile. Great, I will even get a few extra sachets of ketchup so, I replied, returning the smile.

One of the constant intellectual needs we have is to always be ready think “Maybe I got it all wrong,” and for that we need iconoclasts to kind of slap us in the face with the unthinkable.

In the arena of this discussion, nobody can do that better than Camille Paglia. Here she argues that men are the weaker sex and that that basically (and…[Read more]

@ Simon

I’m still searching for that successful matriarchy. Patriarchy has a history of working. As for egalitarianism, that isn’t a system in the way patriarchy and matriarchy are. It’s a description of implementation. Both matriarchies and patriarchies can be  egalitarian or nonegalitarian.

When it comes to being civil and polite, I treat all people equally unless they have given me a reason not to do so.  I will hold a door open for any person. 99% of the time a thanks or a smile is offered in return.  The times neither is forthcoming are of no concern to me.  Good manners cost nothing.

Simon Paynton wrote:
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.

And yet, many women who think of themselves as feministic still yearn for the benefits of chivalry. The best of two worlds.

Reg and Simon,

Myself, I always make room, clear the way, give wide berth, and open doors for anyone with a load, regardless of sex, and offer to help lift if needed (certainly as part of my retail job, but also as a random stranger.)

However, if someone makes a snit about my generosity, there is no crime in the schadenfreude of pointing and…[Read more]

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:
Your argument reminds me of a book about Islam I read, by a (male) Islamic scholar.  He says that women like staying indoors, and not being able to go out, so “that takes care of the accusation that Islam represses women”.

Your arguments remind me of a guy interpreting shadows in Socrates’ famous cave.

You claim not to beli…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
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 model.

Women are physically a bit more vulnerable than men, esp…

[Read more]

That’s worse than the syntax. And that is saying something.

Then this rubbish is being taken seriously.

Davis,

Don’t get too down. I doubt any of us here are the bad guys and the very ones needing the lecture are the very ones who can’t be reached anyway.

Just a note in passing: Armed citizens are statistically and actually more able and more willing to help fellow citizens victimized by crime.

Reg,

Sinead O’Connor didn’t deserve the abuse she got, but she was a Flying Fish who went from the frying pan of Catholicism into the fire of Islam. Like Camille Paglia is, Sinead was a bag of mixed nuts.

Simon,

Apropos of something, the hottest sauce at Taco Bell is, after all, called “Fire.”
🥵

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]

jakelafort wrote:
Davis, if i did not know you and i credited you with being an intelligent guy i would be pretty sure you are goofing around.

Yeah, let’s just mischaracterize everything written, shall we? Apparently, the main focus of Western society is a giant conspiracy to enable the raping our beloved women, our mothers, sisters and…[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]

Davis, if i did not know you and i credited you with being an intelligent guy i would be pretty sure you are goofing around.