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

I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic. If our size and a deep voice does not help us get our way, we need to figure out another way to get what we want. On the other hand, if everyone submits to us because of our size and a deep voice, we might gain the confidence to rule we might take charge because that seems to be what is expected of us. If a man cries, the response to him may be different than if a woman cries. But bottom line- if a male is ranging with testosterone, something is going to happen because he isn't going to be passive.

deleted and a correction was posted.

It would be great to have two of 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. — Athena

Dinner is definitely the key word. You wouldn't need to be careful what you say. And, as Virginia Woolf said:

One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.

:smile:

The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. — Athena

I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated ....

I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated .... — Apollodorus

Some tribes were/are matriarchies because we can be sure who the mother is, and the earth is our mother so it makes sense the women inherit the land and the man's role is to defend her.

A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with source. A man's highest calling is to protect woman so she can walk the earth unharmed. — Cherokee proverb

What do you think Afro-American culture is? I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. It will enable them to have their traditional life purpose and we all can benefit from their care of the land.

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? — Apollodorus

:lol: :rofl: :love: :lol: I need to catch my breath. I have not laughed this hard for a while. Your first line is hilarious!

What you said about our democracy is sobbering. It is not funny at all. I will not believe the US is sincere about democracy until it replaces autocratic industry with the democratic model and I think doing this is as urgent as counteracting the manmade part of global warming. I am struggling with the effort to be philosophical instead of political. Do you realize the timeline of the US is almost identical to the timeline of Athens? Thanks to the spread of Hellenism and it being picked up by Christians and others interested in government and philosophy, Athens lives on, but the city/state did not. The US used the Athenian model for education until 1958 when that was replaced by education for technology but get this, Athens also replaced its education with education for technological. Not technology as we think of it today, but more along the line of doing things by the rules versus being educated to figure out what the rules should are and should be. That is a change in authority and the citizens' relationship to authority.

Oh my god! you just caused my heart to stop! "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. " An institution can not do for a child what a family can. I am talking about the complexity of our feelings, behaviors, and relationships. Owning our children as we own pets that wait for our return home, may come with a danger. Making the family meaningless may resolve some social problems, and create others. Please, avoid speaking the truth when it regards children because my heart can not take the stress. I am afraid we take our human goodness for granted. Which one of the paid caregivers will be with the child they raise for life, always ready to support that individual as they manage the trials of life? How much can they really care about the child and his/her future? Do we want teachers to believe they are the most fit to raise our children? If we institutional our children, what will happen to our liberty?

About patriarchy or matriarchy, both have good and bad points. Democracy is not either one. All the gods and goddesses play an important role in a democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods and I think this opens our human potential. I think family and property ownership are very important to democracy and our liberty. But we have to raise our awareness before we have enough knowledge to democracy. Right now our knowledge is so lacking we can not defend democracy anywhere, not even at home.

I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic. — Athena

All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter.

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?

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 condemning 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. — Cheshire

I am strongly in favor of your first sentence and it is concern about the negative effect that working outside of the home, can have on parenting and society at large, that motivates me to write. Further what you said about the demands of the competitive force on children is why I am opposed to leaving children in daycare centers for too long.

It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. I am not saying matriarchy is better, but that a patriarchy that is not balanced by the female force is a threat to the world and is not the democracy we defended. What we have become is an enemy to humanity. So much so, people argue we would be better off if computers were in control. That is very anti-human.

I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.

It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. — Athena

I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.

I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution. — Athena

I'm pleased to agree. We have professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.

Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant.

I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.

I'm pleased to agree. We have a professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.

Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant. — Cheshire

:grin: I was swept up in women's lib just like everyone else and had it not been for a recession ravaging my life and plans, I may still be cheering for women's liberation. But thanks to the recession lasting a very long time where I live, I got to experience jobs and employers from hell. With some satisfaction, I can say the really bad employers are no longer in town. The practice of exploiting cheap labor and going through employees very fast is self-destructive, especially when you need your employees as customers but you have pissed off so many of them you no longer have customers. Bad management of employees leads to them thinking of ways to sabotage the company. This can mean breaking things, stealing things, working very slow, telling everyone how awful the company is, and of course walking off the job.

Then you have the Deming model which is democratic industry. Everyone learns all the jobs and is prepared to advance. Everyone has a say in how things are done. Supervisors are trained to take responsibility and if someone goofs, the supervisor checks to be sure the employee understood the directions and then acts as a coach, supporting the employee in doing better. I would bet if we experienced the democratic model, many more families would be doing very well! I do not blame male hormones for bad male behavior, but the Autocratic Industry that has been terrible to all employees. Some ass hole demanding what he wants and thinking bullying and punishing people is the best way to get it and completely undermining families by not allowing family concerns to interfere with the job.

In the past, not enough dared raise their voice because when you live paycheck to paycheck you don't dare displease the employer. But as we gain security we might gain some power and demand industry use the democratic model and families get the consideration humanity requires. Then our democracy might have some meaning. While we are seeing changes, this follows women sitting in the seats of power because those in the seats of power before were not thinking about the women and children. Abigail Adams told her husband to think of the women when he worked on the constitution, but unfortunately, men were not ready to do that nor to be firm about ending slavery.

:cool: :up: Might not work but I'm all for running that sexperiment.

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. — James Riley

Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).

I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally.

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.

All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter. — Michael Zwingli

Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?

Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).

I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally. — darthbarracuda

This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. We know in times of war women are stolen, raped, abused. And the behavior of Americans in the prison camp holding Muslim war prisoners was absolutely shocking and certainly should be considered a war crime. I also received a letter from a Black convict that was sexual and seething with hatred directed at White women. I don't think a date rape is equal to a rape motivated by intense anger and the intention to abuse and victimized someone. One of my women lib. alarms went off when the word "mother", flipped from meaning a wonderful, loving person to quite an offensive meaning. Do you all want to go down this path or should we move away from it? I think this path is risky but also has merit.

I am willing to go down this path because another thread I started is a question of if the Taliban can succeed in making Afghanistan a civilization that can be admired. It also has merit because the US mobilized for WWII with pin-up girls and personally I think the metal and leather uniforms of Romans are very sexy. It is well-known women find men in uniform attractive and war escalates our mating instinct. Hum, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I am by what seems a pretty strong connection between sex and war. And this subject is directly and strongly related to patriarchy taking over matriarchal societies.

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action. — Outlander

To tie your post into the subject of this thread, what should the ruler achieve?

Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate? — Athena

Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing.

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

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all. — Christoffer

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.

Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing. — Michael Zwingli

I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.

“ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.” So wrote Aristotle, more than 2000 years ago, in his classic work The Art of Rhetoric.Feb 6, 2013

Do get mad: The upside of anger | New Scientist — Aristotle

I am working on trying to figure out when to be angry and how to express that in a way that gets the result I want. When raising my children, I realized I can be a real tyrant and that does not mean being a bad person, but a lack of a good balance of power. It is not easy being human and our best hope is working together.

Nietzsche had some strong thoughts opposing Christianity and slave mentality. I like pagan values and Greek arete. I am out of time, but perhaps you can say something about what reason has to do with being civilized? At some point in time, when city living meant living among strangers, we became self-reflective and experienced ourselves as separate from nature and everyone else. We filled our newly discovered loneliness with a God and imagined a different reality.

Matriarchy-Patriarchy In The Animal Kingdom (BBC)

New research has found that of the more than 5,000 known species of mammals, just a handful are led by females. — From the above article

Some of the "...handful..." are hyenas, elephants, and bonobos.

Anyway, mother nature is the wisest of us all; 3 billion years of perfecting every single organism, solitary and social, must mean something, right? She, sorry girls, prefers patriarchy and we all know better than to mess with mother nature.

What do you think Afro-American culture is? — Athena

No idea. I'm assuming it's got to do with music styles, etc.?

According to the UN Gender Inequality Index 2020, African countries rank among the worst in the world:

Uganda 131
Sudan 138
Tanzania 140
Cameroon 141
Congo 150
Niger 154
Sierra Leone 155
Central African Republic 159
..........

On average, Africa is on par with Pakistan (135) or worse.

Compared with US (46), UK (31), and OZ (25), Africa seems to be miles behind the West.

Gender Inequality Index (GII) | Human Development Reports

Is African-American culture less male-dominated? And if yes, why?

I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. — Athena

Sounds good to me. However, I think another interesting question is why there has never been a Native American president? What is the cultural, social and political mechanism that prevents this?

I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species. — Athena

Oh, absolutely. Anybody who considers questions of human sociology without including the facts of biology by giving primacy to the sociobiological aspect, is quite remiss, in my view. This is particular true because we humans are animals who have largely ceased to behave like other animals, a fact which tends to obscure the importance of the portion of our human mind which we share in common with other animals: the primal mind, the "Id". Even so, that primal aspect lies at the core of our mental complex, and recognition of it's power over us is necessary to understand how men can sometimes be so brutal, so savage. Truly, we have evolved, but we have by no means left "the beast within" by the side of the evolutionary way. Rather, said beast continues being tenuously repressed by the Super-ego, the higher man, and remains thinly covered with a veneer of civility.

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best. — Athena

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.

I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

Well, you are not wrong about that, and it is a valid and important point that you make. It is true that these two are, indeed, concepts...particularly political and sociological concepts; in that way, they differ little from such as "democracy", "monarchy", "socialism", and "Bolshevism". None of these words describe natural phenomena. This recognition serves to demonstrate that such socio-political concepts as the forementioned, though they are not natural phenomena, yet have the power to exert a profound influence within human societies.

Save in the human realm, neither "patriarchy" nor "matriarchy" exist in nature per se, since the concepts of government and the body politic do not exist among the animals apart from ourselves. What does exist in nature almost universally among mammaliam species, is the phenomenon of male dominance, based upon physical power and the hormonal differences between male and female mammals. While patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, this phenomenon of male dominance among mammals is a biological fact.

Attendant to these considerations, it should be recognized that patriarchy in human societies naturally evolved and grew directly out of the male dominance experienced by our non-sapiens hominid ancestors. This is why virtually all human cultures throughout history have been patriarchal, and why that status mundi has been so seldom questioned until the modern era. Moreover, the argument in favor of patriarchy, among those who would so argue, is based largely in natural male dominance. I feel that in expressing our own opinions regarding these socio-political concepts, we should take into consideration that, because male dominance is natural, it is (both naturally and understandably) found difficult by some men to be subordinate to a woman, whether in the business or political environment; it engenders a vague resentment within them. Should we just tell these chaps to ignore millions of years of their own evolution, and to "get over themselves"? I would argue that such advice could only be given with blinders firmly in place...not to say that I have an answer for them, either. The difficult fact is, that our human cultural evolution has been so acceleratorily rapid that our physical evolution has been "left in the dust" by it. So, all that babble is by way of noting that, while it is true that both patriarchy and matriarchy are simply socio-political concepts, it is equally true that the concept of patriarchy seems to have a basis in the natural world not shared by the other, and that such conceptualizations do have an effect upon real human societies.

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

The first data would be the hormonal difference between males and females. Next is zoology a study of animal behaviors and physical reasons for them. Then anthropology and cross-cultural studies. Also, archeology and geology can give us important information. Where the climate is mild and it is easy to grow food, commonly there are signs of matriarchy and then a switch to patriarchy. Where life is hard and the main source of food comes from hunting, and where raiding and wars became common, there is patriarchy. I have read nothing of a patriarchy becoming matriarchal however, this might be happening today. Why? Because as in the valleys where the climate was mild and food was abundant, we once again are experiencing the good life of physical and food security.

How many women went with the men to burn the Blacks out of town, or were in the cloaked mob to linch a Black person? Women supported this behavior and at times instigated it, but I think the behavior is lead by men and those who engaged in that behavior were men. But if they were Bonobo instead of humans or chimps, it would be the females maintaining social control.

Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops. — PubMed

Matriarchal, Patriarchal, it's the same!