You tease me. I am not sure of what you intend to communicate. — Athena

Not at all, I simply mean that I am glad when my comments make somebody happy.

Absolutely! thank you so much for that post. That is not the full extent of what a homemaker does because there are all the relationships to think about and one's position in the community, and what can be more important than raising the children well when there are children.

How much I wish I had someone to take care of everything when I thought it was my time to work outside of the home. I am quite sure my mother would have gotten into the movies as this was her goal when she moved me and my sister to Hollywood, California but child care plus having to support the family robbed her of that opportunity. A woman with children is not a liberated woman unless someone is will take on the family responsibilities.

I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender? — DingoJones

Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons.

Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same?

When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role?

When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World?

Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers? — Athena

Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.

What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers? — Athena

Let me see if I can follow the logic train to emotionally loaded question town.

If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condeming a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.

The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.

Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents.

If you consult The Golden Bough, or better yet, The White Goddess, you will hear of an ancient normality of matrilineal descent - there is no question of who the mother is, when the question of who the father is is not even considered. In such matrilineal societies, there would typically be a King, who would reign for a year and then be sacrificed. An excellent system that should be brought back asap for all politicians.

At some point the king managed to survive and eventually managed transform the system to a patrilineal one. This involved of necessity, strict control of the female sexuality in order to ensure the patrilineal purity of the offspring.

And that is the essence of patriarchy - the control of female sexuality. I have to say that this is not even controversial in anthropology, and it is rather sad that by page 4 it has not even been mentioned.

Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons. — Athena

Im not sure your point here. It doesn't seem like any of that is controversial but neither does it seem relevant….I thought you were asking a question regarding which is better not for a history of either.

.

Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same? — Athena

No of course not, but male/female gender roles are not the same as leadership roles.
It seems like we have different ideas of what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. I take it to mean something like “when society is ruled or governed based on one gender”. I would call gender roles a sub category of society. If the society is modelled after one gender role or another then my criticism would be the same. Gender roles are not good metrics by which to build a society, rather they are components within a society.

When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role? — Athena

Im not sure who you imagine would disagree with this. Not me.
Im saying it is foolish to insist a society “act like men”, where we disagree perhaps is that I also think it is foolish to insist society act like the homemaker as well. As others have mentioned, it is the “insisting” part that is problematic in the two “archy”’s.
If your going to insist, insist on people being responsible, productive members of society which isnt the purview of gender but rather the individuals within the society.

When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World? — Athena

Again the relevance is lost on me. You’ll have to provide a better trail of logic for me to follow cuz Im not seeing the connecting tissue.

Like, is your main point “patriarchy bad”? Cuz yes, it is. So is a matriarchy. Men and women bring different tools, we should use all the tools at our disposal not one set or the other. Right?

I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer. — DingoJones

This is very true in the modern world, but in my opinion was less true in the distant past. If you lived in late fifth century BCE Athens, a polis which was under constant threat of being besiegad by a Spartan or Persian army, then one might prefer to have men in control (of course, when Cornelius Sulla marched his army on Athens during the Mithridatic War, it didn't matter who was in control there...the Greeks had never seen anything quite so brutal as a Roman legion, and at that time, Athens was going to bleed profusely regardless of who was in command of the city). In a world of brutality and unchecked agression, I might be inclined to argue that the naturally greater (testosterone induced) agression of men as compared with that of women, renders male leadership preferable, for the sake of survival and independence, if nothing else. There were exceptions to this. The Kartvelian Queen Tamar seems to have been quite an effective leader in the distant past (though a much more recent, and assumedly less brutal, past than the Archaic or Classical periods). Even so, that is an exception, and not the rule. The world is a much different place today than it once was; I might even say that the mass consciousness has been much improved. In the milder, more thoughtful, more technologically advanced climate of the present, women can lead a society just as effectively as men.

One could argue that the brutality of the time was the symptom of patriarchy just as easily. We wouldn't need to have the warriors in charge if the other tribes had less warriors to. To the less enlightened of the before times might made right. We’ve grown up. Sorta.

We’ve grown up. Sorta — DingoJones

Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive.

Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting! — Athena

That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?

I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.

What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.

Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. — Athena

I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:

But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.

And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.

But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?

Maybe I missing something, Athena. Which "tradition" are you referring to when you say "traditional family values"? — 180 Proof

When I read those words, the first thing that came to my mind was Ralph Ellison wondering at how strange the life of a white supremacist must be after being raised by Black nannies.

The practice of alternate motherhood is bound up with visions of class and privilege.

Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive. — Michael Zwingli

Chicken and the egg.

Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. — Athena

So what?

Why should gender determine one's role?

You're just being you usual gadfly self, nipping and biting without adding much. Whether or not I agree with him, what Apollodorus is saying is pretty clear. — T Clark

Then, since you bothered to interject, you might bother to set out clearly @Apollodorus's argument.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy?
— @Athena

...as brute force trumps all other virtues.
— @Michael Zwingli

why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days?
— @Noble Dust

The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.
— @darthbarracuda

...patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women.
— @Apollodorus

...so male violence, then.

Another great unspoken. — Banno

None of you came back to this.

Curious. Why not?

We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment. — Michael Zwingli

What tools are you talking about here?

None of you came back to this.

Curious. Why not? — Banno

Was camping.

I agree.

Cheers.

None of you came back to this.

Curious. Why not? — Banno

Well, as far as I am concerned, I did suggest to @Athena to be a bit more specific:

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented? — Apollodorus

Otherwise it's just a free-for-all and we won't get very far IMO.

Also, I don't know how many participants here are female, but I think it may be useful to have a balanced representation from both sides.

We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.
— Michael Zwingli

What tools are you talking about here? — darthbarracuda

I refer to the various abstracted ideals: ethicality/morality, individual liberty, equity, justice, and the like, which provide us with a framework for the conception and achievement of an egalitarian society. However, the state of technology, the necessity of the nation state to foster and employ that technology in various ways (civil, medical, military, etc) means that we by needs have too complex societies for the fostering of the egalitarianism which demands full and equal participation in non-heirarchical social structures. This means that like it or not, heirarchy is going to be with us for the long run, forced on us all by pressures both external and internal.

Oh yeah definitely I agree, especially wrt the technological factor. Technology is no longer a tool, but an environment with an imperative of its own, requiring large bureaucratic organizations and programmed human behavior. Libertarian and egalitarian ideas are not dependent on technology to exist and are actually stifled by it.

. Technology is no longer a tool, but an environment with an imperative of its own, requiring large bureaucratic organizations and programmed human behavior. — darthbarracuda

Well said!

It is not exactly gender that should determine our roles, but the needs of the family and the community and things like democracy and liberty. Thank you so much for asking!

It is not exactly gender that should determine our roles, but the needs of the family and the community and things like democracy and liberty. — Athena

And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role.

I've speculated that the wide-spread, highly accurate and realistic VR combined with sex dolls/robots (ala West World) would be a net positive to humanity and the Earth. For those who think it would result in a lack of social intercourse, civics, empathy and the rise of a dystopia, you might have a point. Those are minor bugs to be worked out.

Once sex is taken off the table, though, (i.e. men and women are "spent") I think they are more rational, empathetic, civic minded, kind and caring. Further, I don't think it would adversely impact the good things that could be the result of aggression. Other, lesser drives would still exist and aggression would still exist, but it would be tempered somewhat. I think men would start to view women more as fellow travelers in life, humans, animals, worthy of dignity and respect, as opposed to some*thing* to be had. Women, likewise, might better access some of their non-maternal energies. Playing fields would be leveled.

Hell, there might actually be a greater inclination toward real interhuman intimacy and loving sex.

I find the idea of the "comfort girls" for Japanese troops to be abhorrent. But I understand the thinking of the Generals and leaders. On the one hand, you want to maintain aggression in your fighters, but you also want to keep them happy during down time, with something to look forward to. But all the "red in tooth and claw" boardroom bullshit just creates a culture of greed, gain, screwing people over to create the best plumage to intimidate other males and get the girl. It's a contributor to our intra-specific political and other division, and the rape of the Earth.

I think many women just want to feel safe. They might feel like prey in a world of predators. Men likewise don't want to worry about submission to Beta status, or bound to maintaining Alfa status. They predator/prey relation is there, too.

If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business of progress.

I know some religious folks would zealously object. But they can be marginalized. After all, we all know they would be jumping in, feet first, if only behind closed doors. You be able to spot them, with that afterglow on their faces as they futilely tried to work up a rage. At least they wouldn't be molesting children and whatnot. Yet another benefit, I'd say. Rape would drop too, I'd imagine.

I don't necessarily believe anything I just said. I'm just throwing it out there in the spirit of the forum.

Matriarchy and patriarchy are social orders that meet different needs under different circumstances and they go with notions of the creator. Is the creator or patron deity a male or female? Is there peace or is life threatened by invaders and a scarcity of food? We might note the US became a military-industrial complex before women were liberated. That is a change in the social order, with social, economic, and political ramifications.

I do not have the feeling that the patriarchy of Christian nations was a good thing, nor do I think it has changed in a good way, now that females are to be as males. That is why I opened the discussion.

That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?

I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.

What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.
— Apollodorus

Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. — Athena

I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:

But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.

And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.

But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?

No, all native Americans did not have the same social organization, and especially important, they did not rear their children the same.

The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. They had a beneficial effect on the development of democracy in American. Our literate forefathers had classical/liberal education based on Greek and Roman, but they had no experience with democracy so their understanding of it was incomplete. The Greeks are a better example than the Romans because the Greeks had different city-states but when we read of Rome it appears to be a huge civilization under one power. In the new land were people who were living the separate city/state reality and came to forming a federation and a notion of reasoning ruling just as the Greeks did.

Man, I am out of time- I will have to get back to you. It would be great to have two or me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences.

If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business or progress. — James Riley

Haha, yes, our naturally-selected characteristics do stand in the way of "progress", don't they? An additional benefit of your suggestion would be that our species might stop overpopulating. The polar bears would surely applaud...

Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive.

Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive. — Michael Zwingli

Yeah, you are probably right. On the other hand, I bet it would remove several contenders from the mix. :grin:

And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child-rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role. — Michael Zwingli

I agree and disagree. It depends on the age of the child. Here is where we have made a huge mistake! The industrial revolution took men and women out of their homes, separating them from the children left at home.

The greatest success of our civilization was freeing the mothers to stay at home and be homemakers. That advanced our civilization. But the downside has been cutting men out of the children's lives. Men are as important to the development of children as mothers are. Until about age 3 the mother is the best person to care for a child, and then it is very important the father take an increasing role in preparing the child for life. Each parent has a different effect on the development of the individual personality and it is best for children if they have both parents working together to raise a child. Then grandparents play an important role and children who have grandparents in their lives are advantaged and statistically do better. By the way, next Sunday is Grandparents' Day.

And as for men feeling uncomfortable with a child, mothers do too, until they grow into the role. Female hormones help us a lot, especially if we breastfed the baby. And for hormonal reasons, we respond differently when a baby cries. But when the first baby is put in our arms and we are expected to do everything a mother does, a woman may wonder when the mother instinct is going to kick in and suddenly she knows how to be a mother. It does not work that way. Books and classes and calling another woman, are all part of becoming a mother. Here is where the socialization aspect comes in. As men and women, we try harder to do what we think society, or our peers, expects of us. But it is not all about socialization. Hormones play a very important part in how we react to children.