Urban v's the Commentariat

[tbtommyb]

Bit of a generalisation that. Some men have done that yes, but not every single man ever has dominated all women he knows through the threat of physical violence.

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about patriarchy.

 

[el-ahrairah]

and you think that is a natural state of affairs, predetermined, and inevitable?

 

[equationgirl]

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about patriarchy.

And within the patriarchy not all men make women do things through the threat of physical violence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about patriarchy.

You were making a generalisation about 'human nature', no? And the inevitability that if males are physically bigger they will dominate.

Our two closest relatives (very close - we're closer to each other than to any other ape) are chimps and bonobos. Both chimps and bonobos exhibit similar size differences between the sexes to humans. Chimp society can be said to be broadly patriarchal, while bonobo society is broadly matriarchal, despite females being smaller than males.

You can't generalise just from size differences.

 

[tbtommyb]

and you think that is a natural state of affairs, predetermined, and inevitable?

No, and this is where I think the intersectionalist approach falls down.

For example, a woman may experience sexism in the workplace but it is fairly unlikely that she faces actual physical threat. She is being belittled or whatever because she lives in a patriarchal society, which ultimately derives from the exploitation of force. But as in many circumstances it is now split from physical strength then there is an opportunity for change (hence attacks on patriarchy).

But the point is that the inequality here didn't derive from class.

e2a: but my example of workplace sexism being not linked to physical strength does not mean that violence is no longer used against women.

 

[tbtommyb]

And within the patriarchy not all men make women do things through the threat of physical violence.

Yeah, obviously.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, and this is where I think the intersectionalist approach falls down.

For example, a woman may experience sexism in the workplace but it is fairly unlikely that she faces actual physical threat. She is being belittled or whatever because she lives in a patriarchal society, which ultimately derives from the exploitation of force. But as in many circumstances it is now split from physical strength then there is an opportunity for change (hence attacks on patriarchy)..

Explain bonobo society using this thinking.

 

[equationgirl]

Yeah, obviously.

Except you said that wasn't the case a few posts above. So which is it?

 

[tbtommyb]

Explain bonobo society using this thinking.

An exception to the rule. There are also human matriarchal societies. And?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

An exception to the rule. There are also human matriarchal societies. And?

If there are exceptions, then it isn't a rule.

I think you are right that there have been many times and places (and still here and now in many instances) where male physical domination of women has been reflected in wider society. But you did make some rather grand statements earlier on about it being a general rule. It's not, and there are more complicated things going on, which you seem to be acknowledging.

 

[tbtommyb]

Except you said that wasn't the case a few posts above. So which is it?

Show me where I said that?

 

[equationgirl]

Show me where I said that?

In this exchange within the last 20 minutes.

I'm not advocating anything.

I'm saying that men have historically dominated women through the threat of physical violence.

Bit of a generalisation that. Some men have done that yes, but not every single man ever has dominated all women he knows through the threat of physical violence.

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about patriarchy.

And within the patriarchy not all men make women do things through the threat of physical violence.

Yeah, obviously.

 

[tbtommyb]

If there are exceptions, then it isn't a rule.

According to whom?

 

[tbtommyb]

In this exchange within the last 20 minutes.

Yeah, still don't see how you're getting confused. I'm saying that men, as in the group that is half the population of the human species, not each individual man, have historically used violence and the threat of to dominate women. This does not mean that literally every man ever has used violence against a woman. The control became codified in a patriarchy so that violence was no longer used, but the fundamental asymmetry lies underneath.

e2a: I'd also point out that you're the one who has reinterpreted a general statement to refer to every instance ever, so please back up your reasoning for that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

According to whom?

You and I clearly understand something different from the word 'rule'.

You're normally onto a loser when you try to state some general rule of 'human nature'. Incest taboo is pretty universal across societies (as it is in many other species) . Male domination of women isn't. Neither is war, fwiw.

 

[tbtommyb]

You and I clearly understand something different from the word 'rule'.

Well, clearly. I have never seen a definition of 'rule' that meant it couldn't have an exception.

You're normally onto a loser when you try to state some general rule of 'human nature'. Incest taboo is pretty universal across societies (as it is in many other species) . Male domination of women isn't. Neither is war, fwiw.

So what percentage of societies are matriarchal?

 

[equationgirl]

Yeah, still don't see how you're getting confused. I'm saying that men, as in the group that is half the population of the human species, not each individual man, have historically used violence and the threat of to dominate women. This does not mean that literally every man ever has used violence against a woman. The control became codified in a patriarchy so that violence was no longer used, but the fundamental asymmetry lies underneath.

e2a: I'd also point out that you're the one who has reinterpreted a general statement to refer to every instance ever, so please back up your reasoning for that.

Because that's the definition of a generalisation. I haven't misunderstood anything.

 

[equationgirl]

Yeah, still don't see how you're getting confused. I'm saying that men, as in the group that is half the population of the human species, not each individual man, have historically used violence and the threat of to dominate women. This does not mean that literally every man ever has used violence against a woman. The control became codified in a patriarchy so that violence was no longer used, but the fundamental asymmetry lies underneath.

e2a: I'd also point out that you're the one who has reinterpreted a general statement to refer to every instance ever, so please back up your reasoning for that.

I think you're the one that is confused. Violence has not become codified within the patriarchy to control women as you claim.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You said this:

50 men and 50 women spawn on to God's green land. All else being equal, the men will tend to dominance because they, as a rule, are stronger and can physically force the women to do what they want. I contend that this will hold true regardless of cultural preconditions of the people. That is, whether they are a group of people plucked from 1990s Britain or a pre-agrarian, pre-capitalist tribe.

A society of 100 people will go to hell very bloody quickly if one half starts trying to push the other half around. Cooperation and mutual aid may see a division of labour that reflects physical abilities, but it by no means follows that this will mean domination of one sex over the other. In such a thought experiment, I would suggest that any man who tries to physically force women to do stuff will end up being excluded from the group if he doesn't stop.

 

[rioted]

So what percentage of societies are matriarchal?

Matriarchy or Patriarchy? There must be more choices than that, surely?

 

[tbtommyb]

Because that's the definition of a generalisation. I haven't misunderstood anything.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't see how you're interpreting it in this way. Some men may not have (partly due to codification of structures I mentioned above), but that doesn't change the statement that men as a collective group did. An example: 'the British in the 19th century exploited people in other countries'. Doesn't mean every single British person did, but the British as a collective group did.

 

[tbtommyb]

I think you're the one that is confused. Violence has not become codified within the patriarchy to control women as you claim.

What's your argument for that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't see how you're interpreting it in this way. Some men may not have (partly due to codification of structures I mentioned above), but that doesn't change the statement that men as a collective group did. An example: 'the British in the 19th century exploited people in other countries'. Doesn't mean every single British person did, but the British as a collective group did.

The British ruling classes exploited people in other countries. And they exploited other British people in Britain. The British as a collective group doesn't work in this case.

 

[tbtommyb]

A society of 100 people will go to hell very bloody quickly if one half starts trying to push the other half around. Cooperation and mutual aid may see a division of labour that reflects physical abilities, but it by no means follows that this will mean domination of one sex over the other. In such a thought experiment, I would suggest that any man who tries to physically force women to do stuff will end up being excluded from the group if he doesn't stop.

And I would suggest otherwise.

 

[tbtommyb]

The British ruling classes exploited people in other countries. And they exploited other British people in Britain. The British as a collective group doesn't work in this case.

At first I thought it was a bad example but actually it's not so bad. The point I'm trying to make is that a group can have a behaviour that is not reflected by each and every member of it. So 'men' is more than just a collection of males, it is the gender.

This is basically another example of when someone says 'we live in a society where men dominate' and someone pipes up with 'oh, well I'm a man and I don't dominate anyone!', completely missing the point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And I would suggest otherwise.

Ok. You appear to have a very dim view of people, and men in particular. Do you have any evidence to back up your view?

I think Kropotkin was a bit idealistic in some of what he thought, but he makes some very valid points in Mutual Aid. As a species our success is based on our ability to see the value in cooperation, at least in defined 'in-groups'. If there were just 100 people on Earth, there would certainly just be one 'in-group'. They'd all know each other and be very aware that their individual survival depended on the success of the group.

 

[equationgirl]

What's your argument for that?

Where's your evidence that it has?

 

[tbtommyb]

Ok. You appear to have a very dim view of people, and men in particular. Do you have any evidence to back up your view?

I wouldn't say it's dim, as I think that we have come a long way from it. The thought experiment I gave was very extreme. I think in practice actual violence would be rare, but it is the social structures that build up around it. Just as I, now, would not intentionally assert dominance over a woman, but I probably do without meaning to in many ways that trace themselves back very very far. And men previously would have exploited a social order that privileged them that goes right back.

I think Kropotkin was a bit idealistic in some of what he thought, but he makes some very valid points in Mutual Aid. As a species our success is based on our ability to see the value in cooperation, at least in defined 'in-groups'. If there were just 100 people on Earth, there would certainly just be one 'in-group'. They'd all know each other and be very aware that their individual survival depended on the success of the group.

Yes, but groups can split, meet other groups etc. Maybe one group found that using domination was effective for a time that allowed them to take over another group etc etc.

Where's your evidence that it has?

Well, for a start violence is still used as a method of control of women in many different ways. The patriarchy is about controlling women's behaviour in a way that men want (I should stress, given the car crash that we had above, that not every man ever has always wanted to control every woman). The most basic method of control is violence. The control just got a lot more subtle.

Anyway, I am off to bed. This has been very interesting.

 

[el-ahrairah]

actually i completely see what tommyb was saying now, i misunderstood initially thinking he was making some evo-psych argument that men dominating women is nature's way, but actually he's just saying that the patriarchy exists and is a real thing.

 

[smokedout]

and this "will hold true regardless of cultural preconditions of the people."