Why has male domination worked so well?

Great Debates
21

Most developments of scientific nature have come from men/the occasional woman, who were well off and educated, which has been a tiny fraction of humanity. You cannot prove a negative one way or the other.

In one he makes an assertion, supported by zilch facts, in the other just tries and fails to be witty.

Birth control has existed for thousands of years, some of the earliest medical treasties deal with it. Modern birth control is reliable in the sense it works, is easy to use, safe and well-understood mechanism of action. Earlier methods of birth control, often did work, but rarely were safe or easy to use, and the mechanism of action was rarely understood as well. Yet we know people used it, from all walks of life, the Romans basically caused silphium to go extinct because of its touted properties as a contraceptive (or in modern usage a morning after pill).

The second bit that you states, really displays your ignorance and sounds like something out of a UKIP propaganda leaflet. Fertility rates are dropping all over the world and the fall in developing countries (aka the “Third World”) is extremely marked

Pakistan fertility rate: 2.68

Bangladesh: 2.19.
India has a lower fertility rate in its cities than most developed countries.
Indonesia fertility rate: 2.13
Iran fertility rate:1.92

22

Male dominance (patriarchy) is a corollary to survival-under-threat, control-centric, scarcity-and-starvation modes of being in the world.

Modern males (and some females) who dislike feminism often say that the existing inequalities do not strictly favor males or disadvantage females, and that males suffer from the situation as well (and that therefore feminists are being quite unfair in their assessment). Feminist, meanwhile, often say that the existing inequalities do not benefit males better than a post-patriarchal world would, and that males suffer from the situation as well (and that therefore males who defend patriarchy are being rather short-sighted).

It’s a different understanding, perhaps, than you’re used to if you’ve only thought of sexual inequality in terms of men’s jackbooted feet on women’s throats, but consider patriarchy as the response of the species to certain forms of stress, and consisting of a complicated set of tradeoffs between the sexes, one that controls (therefore removes freedom from) women more severely — but which manipulates and coerces males and controls everybody pretty tightly.

Control is what people (individually or collectively) tend to value over other things when there is a threat.

Control is very costly in terms of enjoyment of life. It tends to be an aggressively violent, sacrifice-making, unpleasant-decisions-embracing way of being in the world. Does it (did it) serve a purpose? Yeah, probably — it’s roughly coterminous with agrarian civilization.

(Our previous mode of existence, hunter-gatherer society, may appear at first glance to be a more impoverished one, but that’s simply not true. It’s how people are able to live when there is enough to go around picking what grows without having to plant and cultivate it, or kill and eat what roams wild instead of penning and feeding and herding it; and the latter modes of existence require defense of “what is ours” because there is an investment of time and resources into making food happen).

We’ve outgrown the need for that way of being in the world and we are moving away from its viewpoints and priorities. Slowly, because the species as a whole changes directions more like the Queen Mary II than like a speedboat, but we’re becoming post-patriarchal.

23

What does that empty platitude even mean?

What about it? Are you arguing “democracy” has somehow “won” in some Darwinian struggle of ideas? Which “democracy”? And even if so, do you think that’s where it ends? Are you familiar with Red Queen Theory?

24

A load of tosh. Yes, in some ways hunter-gatherers had it better individually than settled peoples (they ate a more varied diet), however the scales are heavily weighted towards agriculture being a benefit for both genders. Hunter-gatherers had a lot more person on person violence than we see today, rapes and murders were extremely common, starvation was a regular feature and so was dying of accidents or diseases. Even today, nomads tend to be more violent than settled folk.

And you cannot seriously be lumping all agriculture into one, societies which live on subsistence agriculture are very different from ones with an excess of food production, allowing many not to be employed in agriculture.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

No, that’s how they define “matrilineal”, and it’s a poor anthropologist, Western or otherwise, who confuses one for the other.
[/QUOTE]

Matrilineal relates to lineage (as the name suggests), i.e what group you belong to, an important question in early civilization. While lineage might (and often does) link to the transfer of property, its not always the case. Judaism, you are a Jew if your mother was one, but property is inherited through the male line.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Never the majority or even a real status-quo challenging amount, though. And I should note I’m talking real (state-level) political power here, not family- or tribal-level stuff.
[/QUOTE]

Quite a few women have exercised political power and often were involved formally in the decision-making process; the Romans were actually an outlier in this regard.
The very first female ruler in attested history in Merenith

25

As others have noted, there are several flaws in the OP.

First, we can’t know if male domination has worked well unless we are able to compare it to something else. For all we know, we’re far behind where we would be if women had been running things.

Second, Darwinism applies to biological species not social groups.

Third, even if Darwinism did apply, it doesn’t assign moral values. A species that survives is just better at surviving. It’s not necessarily a better species in general.

26

Interestingly, while patriarchy appears universally in state-level societies, it is awfully difficult to pin down exactly why.

Men tend to be, on average, stronger than women? Not a good explanation: young people tend to be stronger than old people, yet they also tend to have less status or power. We don’t, except in the case of Arnie in California :wink: , usually make body-builders into Governors (or Presidents).

Men tend to be more aggressive, make better warriors? True - but being a common soldier (even the most aggressive) is usually not the route to political or social dominance. Often, they are treated little better than cannon fodder. In most premodern armies, there was a strict discrimination between the noble class, who gave orders, and the soldier class, who did the killing and dying. No reason why an effete Duke could be a general, but not a Duchess.

Women spend more of their time on average making babies, and so had no time for amassing political power? True - but that’s on average. On average, pretty well everyone in premodern agricultural societies spend nearly all of their time in back-breaking labor. Those who accumulated political power were the exceptions. There are all sorts of men who give up child making to seize social or political power (for example: Catholic Bishops, the Pope, clergy in general; in premodern Turkey and China, eunuch bureaucrats and officials); this was not a problem for patriarchy. Why not rule by nuns, if baby-making was such a concern?

27

And right there in your words is the implicit acceptance of my point, “occasional woman”.
Is it your belief that throughout history women have had an equal opportunity to be part of the development of science, art, philosophy, architecture, music etc.?
Brilliant women exist today, unless evolution took a serious jump just recently there must have been brilliant women into antiquity. Why are they not better represented?
I suggest that the mainly patriarchal societies made it so, you…well I confess I don’t know what your explanation is.

I didn’t expect you to actually listen with an objective ear but I hope you agree that it is a good thing to give women control over their own fertility yes?

but not safe, cheap, accessible and reliable until fairly recently. Nothing of what you say contradicts my own points. Throughout the thousands of years of human history such luxuries were not widely available to women.

That’s the first time I’ve ever had any of my views compared to that of UKIP. In what possible way can what I said be misconstrued? Also, of course the fertility rates are coming down fastest in the places where they are historically higher. What would you expect?
Now you threw out a glib statement

which rather belittles the struggle than women have around the world to access birth control. The struggling mother of 9 in Rwanda has far more hurdles to clear than simply coming to that realisation above and then popping down the chemist. Those struggles are the same shared by many women across the world right now and by pretty much all women until relatively recently in human history.

Which again just adds weight to my argument. Giving women control over fertility is a good thing. It is happening more widely** these days** and it coincides with** modern** women being given a wider say and a more equal part in society. A long way to go in some places but overall it is to be applauded. However it is not happening fast enough or widely enough in many parts of the third world where it is most needed due to cultural, religious, educational and economic issues.

And in any case, my whole point was that, for the vast majority of recorded time (i.e. the part of history that I’m discussing) reliable control over reproduction has not been available to the average woman and nor was equality of opportunity. They were mostly tied to babies and not given equal status. Now unless you think they never had any potential in the first place, or that female intelligence and capability is a recent phenomenon, it follows that society missed out on much that their unfulfilled talents could bring forth. None of your points have directly addressed that.

28

Nm

29

Because the ultimate motivator for people is self-interest, and the ultimate self-interest is not getting your ass beat and/or killed.

There’s a lot of layers on top of that, but it’s one of the core pillars of existence.

30

It worked out “well” because the talent pool wouldn’t have increased much in size. We don’t really have a comparison to make. Is this supposed to compare to a world ruled by women, or a world with no sexism?

Once a society grows beyond a certain size, only a tiny percentage of the population have access to leadership positions, if you have some sort of feudal society. If you are being put into a leadership position because your parent held it and their parent held it, etc, there’s no guarantee that you the ability to be a good leader. Many dynasties failed for just this reason. This does not apply to a meritocracy. Many non-hereditary positions became hereditary over time (eg guild membership), so again the talent pool in such a “meritocracy” shrank.

In a modern democracy, the talent pool is much larger, so doubling the potential talent pool should really have a positive impact. But in practice some positions still only have a few people going for them. There were 17 or so “serious” Republican candidates, an abnormally large number, but pretty small considering the size of the Republican Party. Alas, far less than 50% were female. There are no official barriers to women running for leadership positions in the modern western world (at least not most of the time) but there clearly are many still there.

31

No, I’m afraid it’s an excellent explanation and the only one that makes sense. Prior to the industrial revolution ( and even to a lesser extent afterwards ) greater strength and aggression allowed men to always dominate women. And all modern societies descend from the patriarchal traditions that were created when this was true. Partial exceptions like societies where perhaps religious tradition might have created more egalitarianism ( Minoans? ) or where women leveraged control of crop production ( Iroquois ) were very much partial and rare exceptions, at least where ever we’ve been able to actually suss them out.

Patriarchy isn’t necessary and it has only ‘worked well’ in a null sort of way - we have nothing solid to contrast with it. But it has been the norm because at the end of the day until relatively recently might made right.

32

As opposed to all the alternatives.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon, Marine Le Pen, Gabriela Michetti, Christina Kirchner, etc, etc. To say nothing of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, etc.

It’s good that we have progressed beyond the era of male domination in the West to equality and are making good progress elsewhere.

33

I don’t see raw strength (or raw aggression) as being as sensible an explanation as you do.

We do not use boxing matches to determine who should be Pope. Or, to put it another way - the human species has always relied on superior guile and social cohesion for its relative power. It is the ability to organize the brute force that is key, not the hand that personally wields the weapons. That’s why older (and so, presumably wiser and more experienced) people are more likely to be “chiefs” even in primitive societies, and not of necessity the strongest.

If your theory were correct, and the strongest always dominated the weakest, why isn’t society in all times and places run by people in their early 20s? They are the “strongest”, not the 50 or 60-somethings that usually dominate.

The notion that Patriarchy was simply a traditional hold-over from more primitive times makes no sense, anthropologically. If one studies “more primitive peoples”, one soon discovers that, the more “primitive” (and thus, the more likely to rely on one’s individual prowess), on average, the more egalitarian - up until modern times, when egalitarianism rises once again. Thus, hunter-gatherers tend to be rather egalitarian (on average); tribal peoples, less so, but still have room for female leaders of various sorts; Chiefdomships, less egalitarian - more likely to be patriarchal; and finally, state level societies - universally patriarchal. Finally, modern states reverse that trend and tend sharply towards egalitarianism once again.

This is directly contrary to what one would expect, if patriarchy were a primitive holdover from “patriarchal traditions” created in the olden days.

34

No argument. But superior guile only avails you of opportunity relative to system you’re in and a system where men are always biologically the stronger, they are almost always going to be the ones rigging the system. It’s not that women can’t ascend to power, it is that it is much more difficult when you’re coming from a permanently inferior starting point. And I think that inferior position starts with the near-monopoly of serious physical threat by one gender. The strongest doesn’t always dominate the weakest, but the strongest has a huge leg up in the competition.
And you don’t have to go back to primitive societies to trace patriarchy - the 1950’s will do :D.

35

Again, this fails to explain the observed facts. Until modern times, the most primitive human societies - and so the ones one would reasonably expect ‘individual raw strength and aggression’ to count for the most - are the most likely to be egalitarian. It is only when you get to state-level societies - where individual raw strength and aggression could be expected to count for the least - where patriarchy becomes universal.

After all, in a state-level society it isn’t as if one can personally kick the ass of the ruler and take their place! I mean, I could probably kick Queen Elizabeth’s ass - she’s an elderly woman - but if I did, I would probably not be rewarded by being made King (I am willing to bet the same held true throughout history).

Going back to primitive times - the origin of classes appears to be based in individual differences all right - but it is individual differences in ability to organize one’s fellows (look into the development of the “Big Man”). A “chief” or “noble” was eventually solidified as the kin of those successful at organizing one’s fellows - for both peace and war.

You got me there. :smiley:

36

I’m not sure this holds up too well.

Being strong may well have been useful for securing power in the first place however; earning the fear and respect of other males. Or just dispatching your enemies.

Once you have power of course it’s no longer about whether you as an individual can defeat any other individual, or else what is the point of power? At that point it’s about managing allies, and plots against you etc.

37

[QUOTE=Novelty Bobble]
which rather belittles the struggle than women have around the world to access birth control. The struggling mother of 9 in Rwanda has far more hurdles to clear than simply coming to that realisation above and then popping down the chemist. Those struggles are the same shared by many women across the world right now and by pretty much all women until relatively recently in human history.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should up read up about a country before “glibly” using it as an example. Rwanda is one of the countries in sub Saharan Africa where the fertility rate has gone down significantly over the last decade. Where contraceptive use is over 50% of all women.. Where men are generally supportive contraceptive use.

[QUOTE=Novelty Bobble]
Which again just adds weight to my argument. Giving women control over fertility is a good thing. It is happening more widely these days and it coincides with modern women being given a wider say and a more equal part in society. A long way to go in some places but overall it is to be applauded. However it is not happening fast enough or widely enough in many parts of the third world where it is most needed due to cultural, religious, educational and economic issues.

[/QUOTE]

Err, no. The examples I have given are of countries which are all Third World. 4/5 are muslim, the fifth, India has a heavily Muslim influenced culture. All of them are seeing birth rates and fertility rates fall dramatically, despite cultural and religious issues over contraception. Women’s development is stunted in all. Yet fertility rates have gone down markedly. Unless you suggest that people there have suddenly decided to have less sex, it gives lie to your claim.

And you did not bother reading what I linked to; I have given historical examples of wide spread birth control

38

It’s ridiculous to claim we’ve progressed beyond the era of male domination in the West.

90% of the people in the Japanese House of Representatives are men.
84% of the people in the Irish Dail Eireann are men.
83% of the people in the United States House of Representatives are men.
83% of the people in the United States Senate are men.
83% of the people in the Australian House of Representatives are men.
81% of the people in the British House of Commons are men.
74% of the people in the Canadian House of Commons are men.
73% of the people in the French National Assembly are men.
73% of the people in the Israeli Knesset are men.
69% of the people in the Italian Chamber of Deputies are men.
63% of the people in the German Bundestag are men.

Rather than go on like this, I’ll skip ahead to the end of the list. There are exactly two national legislatures which do not have a majority of men; Bolivia’s Chamber of Deputies and Rwanda’s Chamber of Deputies.

39

Excellent post. This is part of it but we need to discard our modern viewpoint and go back even further to the hunter/gatherer days. And to recognize basic biology.

In primitive societies women became pregnant as soon as they were physically able, and kept producing kids until they were no longer fertile or died in childbirth. Very generally, men were the hunters and women the gatherers because the gathering/foraging was able to be done while watching children. Women were also able to do much of the creative work, basket weaving, weapons making, all the maintenance tasks. Much of the myth creation and story telling needed to bind the societies.

Until quite recently, say the last 100 years or so, this child rearing was still a most valuable asset to any tribe/family. Before industrialization you needed the extra farm hands (kids) in order to make the family unit successful. My own grandmother had 13 kids over a span of years (the other one had 7) where the oldest never met the youngest. The males worked the farm until they could get a little stake of their own and left with it. The women stayed to help until they found an opportunity with a young man to start on their own. It just wasn’t that long ago that these roles were set in society.

The historical family unit is much like a modern corporation where all parts work toward success or it fails. We now tend to look back at history through the prism of modern thought, and that prism is only 60-100 years old.

40

Furthermore, the physically strongest cohort of society; young men are also generally its most expendable, made to undertake the most dangerous of tasks, often under duress.

Look at lists of rules of various Kingdoms, Empires and countries. In Kingships, you will regularly see women rulers in their own right, significantly less than 50%, but still unremarkable., going back all the way to the Egyptian Old kingdom However, in systems with either an oligarchy or approaching representative rule (like the Roman republic). female leaders are (outside of religious roles) unheard of.