@Banno

I have a proposition for a clean and fair argument.

I propose the topic “To what extent do differences in biological gender affect society’s hierarchical structures, and what is the reason for biology’s effects on those power structures?”

Each of us will write two posts.

The first post will consist of an opening statement (3 sentences max), an argument paragraph discussing the extent (7 sentences max), and an explanation of the reason for it (5 sentences max) citing a tertiary source.

The second post will consist of a rebuttal (10 sentences max) and a closing statement (3 sentences max).

I am proposing this to you because our first argument had an unsatisfying end. I would like to finish our argument, giving both of us an equal and fair chance to voice our own arguments, keeping focus on the main ideas and having productive discussion.

I am open to amendments and additions to the rules. As the rules are written now, they are meant to give each of us a fair chance; however, fair also means giving you equal say on the rules. Let’s discuss and do this right.

Yes, management.

Again, I didn’t say nuclear family. There could be another solution, a new family unit.

One issue that causes lots of this hardship is the pressure on women to have a full career, that is, dedicate most of their life to professional work. That is pretty much impossible if you have children, as during pregnancy and early care of the children, you will be set back years compared to male counterparts. So, I believe that a good change could be more support for mothers to have children, maybe paid maternal leave or something like that. Also, very importantly, your family will absolutely be the most important thing to you in your life. Nothing at work is going to fulfill you like your family will. Society has its values in the wrong places.

Humans. Not felt what they needed to do, literally what they needed to do.

Like, protect your society through fighting or let yourself, your wife, your children, and your community be raped slaughtered and killed. I don’t know if this is “pragmatic necessity” or what else. Just seems like necessity to me, I don’t know if you can justify knot fighting a war and instead allowing such things to happen to people.

I mean that if a society did not have a military, in that time of raping, pillaging, looting, indiscriminate killing, and fighting for resources to survive, then that society would be destroyed.

Military was necessary for society —> society would have been destroyed without a military, other militaries would destroy them

So your example is a society in the future that does not exist yet. Wow. Deep. Insightful.

Read this article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

Hierarchy is the natural way we organize society, and is the only way to organize modern society. What alternatives do you suppose? No leaders? No elites? No social structure?

Do you not know what “necessary” means? Rephrase your question.

I mean that for that society to exist, a military was necessary, and because the military determined the state’s existence, access to resources, prosperity, etc., men had claim over wealth and power in society.

I believe that Just War Theory will uphold a society’s right to defend itself and provide for its people. There are special scenarios, and as a whole the Theory is not airtight, not even close yet. It is all tied into the ideas of upholding the Common Good, as an act of Social Justice.

No I do not mean it is “God’s plan.” That is almost a secular saying, that the events in our world happen because of God. Definitely not Catholic, though I am sure some Catholics say it, but that is usually a term used to give kids some sort of reason so they can deal with trauma, like a grandma dying.

Not sure what physical determinism is, but it does not sound like what I am arguing.

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?" — Banno

Sadly, yes that is what I am arguing, that men were necessary for protecting society because of the constant war, rape, looting, killing, conquest. Obviously the world is much different now, but patriarchy did not arise in the modern world.

There are alternative views, but not many alternative realities. Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji). Hierarchy is necessary for society.

Look up “Catholic teaching on Just War Theory”.

I am not taking a Catholic stance on this, the necessity of patriarchy in past societies. Even at Catholicism’s height in Europe, society wasn’t Catholic in many ways.

Wow dude, great. Seriously, you didn’t offer me any genuine feedback or information. I don’t even have the information to rethink my position because you were too lazy to cite evidence for your claims.

Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? It is also quite clear that you’re not religious, get over my religious beliefs.

It doesn’t need to be the resurrection of the nuclear family, but something needs to be done. There are too many single mothers, struggling their entire life, and too many fatherless children, suffering from the psychological effects of fatherlessness. It’s causing major problems, and unfortunately it is extremely difficult for modern families to raise children.

So I see the naturalistic fallacy, saying that if you naturally do something, then it ought to be done. Again, I am arguing that the rise of patriarchy was not an exercise of power with the main purpose of controlling/oppressing women. I would say that it was necessary many times for many societies around the world because of the need for a military. Take for example Europe in the Middle Ages. Constant war. Vikings ravaging, raping, and looting. Mongols indiscriminately slaughtering entire cities. Was it not necessary for a military to protect society? And would that military, because of its protection of its own society, not be rewarded with wealth and power? Governmentally, or organizationally, I don’t necessarily believe that a man was required for that. Take for example many queens throughout history, and especially Queen Tamara, the greatest ruler in Georgian history. I would say that the biological difference that naturally caused men to hold power in society was strength and efficient hierarchical organization.

The military was only good because it was necessary, not because it was natural. The example for this would be the modern day. America maintains a formidable military, but this does not even necessarily require physical strength as with such advanced technologies, like drones. Still requires hierarchical organization. But I would not argue that patriarchy is necessary or good in America because it is not necessary. But imagine if America lived in a historical time where we were a small nation, surrounded by other nations, who were constantly fighting wars with us. I would say that patriarchy would arise in this version of America because of the necessity of men, to fight wars and protect the society.

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions. — Banno

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged.

For example, on the hierarchies point, is there a modern society that doesn’t have any hierarchy at all? And every nation has a military, because practically, more or less, a military is necessary for a nation, disregarding special cases like the Vatican City or Fiji, one a religious institution and the other an island with no motivations for any other nation to invade. Every military is hierarchical. So isn’t hierarchy, even if not necessary in society, necessary for society?

I am mainly attacking the notion that patriarchy rose out of a power grab by men, with the sole or main goal of controlling and oppressing women. I would argue that the power grab was not a grab, but it was a necessary filling of a power vacuum: the military. Without a military, a society would be looted, its women raped, its people and children slaughtered. Was it not necessary for men in these times to be the ones wielding power, in a time of constant war, rape, looting, and indiscriminate killing? This also means that in modern society today, without the threat of constant war and with institutions working for peace, we can move towards a more egalitarian state. I really want to argue the rising of patriarchy.

Sorry, I am not familiar with the term “OP.” My apologies.

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one.
— ButyDude
No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap. — Banno

Well, you haven’t seriously considered my argument in whole at all. You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society, and that male biology did not cause the patriarchy, but there is substantial evidence to prove that your claims are false. The only piece of evidence you provided me was a website explaining introductory anthropology. Other than that, all you have done is nitpick certain parts of my argument, and I continue to prove your small criticisms to be untruthful.

First, you should make your position clearer. Do you believe that the interpretation of society as a hierarchy of power structures, with men as oppressors and women as oppressed, is correct? Do you believe that the power structures are inherently oppressing women? — ButyDude

I ask you again. What is your stance on my original argument? Give me genuine feedback on my argument.

You can’t find even one. Thank you for acknowledging that you attacked my personal ethics in a completely unreasonable manner to change the topic of discussion. Extremely petty and unbelievable.

Please, quote me and show me one exclusively ethical claim that I have made, that is not tangential to ethics or only partially ethical.

Present them for inspection. — Banno

What are you, the Philosophy Forum police?

I agree that this is a place that ethics can be openly discussed, but if I personally object, you shouldn’t press me into sharing them unwillingly. By the looks of it, we are going to disagree miserably. I would rather contain such a conversation to private message for that reason.

Both sources support the notion that gender differences in strength allowed men to seize power, because they were the sole protectors of property through the military, which in turn, allowed them to control wealth and power in society.

You are either misreading or disregarding my evidence entirely. I gave you two reliable and credible sources.

All you have done to attack my argument is to say that I must use tertiary sources, and to divert from the topic by moving to my personal views on the topic.

It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable. — Banno

Attacking my personal ethics in an impersonal debate is uncalled for. You didn’t add to the knowledge on the topic. You didn’t put forth an argument. You didn’t engage me, and you did not dissuade me. I was hoping to have genuine dialogue that produced real knowledge and learning, but instead you simply attack my sources, and finally, you attack my personal ethics.

If you want to know, go research yourself.

If you want to talk ethics, message me. I’m more than willing, but I am not comfortable publicly discussing them with you specifically, judging by how our dialogue has gone so far.

And you have yet to address ↪wonderer1's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity? — Banno

This is quite a different discussion. For a discussion like this, I would rather you message me privately. Not that I have some like really extreme views, but this is dipping more into the personal, political, and religious sphere.

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology. — Banno

Here is a quote from an article, Analysis: How did the patriarchy start - and will evolution get rid of it?, written by Professor Ruth Mace from UCL Anthropology. UCL is the University College of London, named University of the Year 2024, rated 2nd in the UK for research power, ranked 9th in the 2024 QS World University Rankings, and has graduated or staffed 30 Nobel Prize laureates. Professor Ruth Mace is a well respected anthropologist herself, being elected President of the European Human Behavior and Evolution Association. She focuses on the evolutionary ecology of human demography and life history.

“The origin of agriculture, as early as 12,000 years ago in some areas, changed the game. Even relatively simple horticulture necessitated defending crops, and thus staying put. Settlement increased conflict within and between groups. For example, the Yanomamo horticulturalists in Venezuela lived in heavily fortified group households, with violent raids on neighbouring groups and “bride capture” being part of life.

Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of warfare. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending.

As population sizes grew and settled, there were coordination problems. Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in warfare or serving the public good in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had.

As farming and herding became more intensive, material wealth, now mainly controlled by men, became ever more important. Rules of kinship and descent systems became more formalised to prevent conflict within families over wealth, and marriages became more contractual. The transmission of land or livestock down the generations allowed some families to gain substantial wealth.

Wealth generated by farming and herding enabled polygyny (men having multiple wives). In contrast, women having many husbands (polyandry) was rare. In most systems, young women were the resource in demand, because they had a shorter window of being able to produce children and usually did more parental care.

Men used their wealth to attract young women to the resources on offer. Men competed by paying “bridewealth” to the family of the bride, with the result that rich men could end up with many wives while some poor men ended up single.

So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters.

This lead to wealth and property being formally passed down the male line. It also meant women often ended up living far away from home with their husband’s family after marriage.

Women began to lose agency. If land, livestock and children are the property of the men, then divorce is almost impossible for women. A daughter returning to mum and dad would be unwelcome as the brideprice would need to be returned. The patriarchy was now getting a firm grip.

When individuals disperse away from their natal home and live with their new husband’s family, they do not have as much bargaining power within their new household than if they had stayed in their natal home. Some mathematical models suggest that female dispersal combined with a history of warfare favoured men being treated better than women.

Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.”

Apologies for the length of the quote.

Here is another quote from an article written by Angela Saint, and published on BBC. Angela Saini is a science journalist, who teaches science writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a Logan Nonfiction Program Fellow, a fellow of the Humboldt Residency Program, and a successful author of several books.

“Rather than beginning in the family, then, history points instead to patriarchy beginning with those in power in the first states. Demands from the top filtered down into the family, forcing ruptures in the most basic human relationships, even those between parents and their children.”

It seems that the patriarchy stems from men’s physical ability to fight wars. As Professor Ruth Mace writes, “As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending,” showing that men having the ability to protect society as a whole led to their success in the ensuing social hierarchy. Social hierarchy at the time would place the military at the top of social ranking, because the military actively protected society. This fact led to almost exclusively men being at the top of the social hierarchy.

Interestingly, it seems as if that the gender-specific stabilities of hierarchies may be an effect of a social structure that prioritized the military, as Mace writes, “Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.” This is certainly possible, though I do not see how the social dynamics of a “boys’ club” would not have been developed during hundreds of thousands of years of mostly exclusively male hunting groups. Hunting is also a skill that more or less requires physical ability, so this claim seems dubious to me, especially considering only 10,000 years for a major social evolution across most societies is simply too short of a time period.

Thank you for the quite well-written response.

That is definitely a shortcoming of my argument. Although across the averages, there is evidence for a more stable hierarchical structure for men than women, thus explaining the early exclusive use of men in government and authority positions, it does not touch upon the extreme differences within gender that actually applies to leaders and the true organizers of society.

My claims about gender differences were quite flat and blanketing.

So it would be correct to say that, at the extremes of males, there are the leaders of society who will organize hierarchies under them, and the average male biology supports that hierarchical structure? And the similar line of logic for women?

there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy. — Banno

I don’t see any evidence backing this claim. My evidence refutes this, see the Stanford Article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

that there have been successful egalitarian societies — Banno

Yes, mainly hunter-gatherer societies, which still held an implicit hierarchical structure among its members. Read the Stanford article. Read the tertiary source, that is not a primary source, but is a tertiary source. You obviously did not read either of them.

I have to “cherry pick”, I can’t copy and paste the entire article!

It’s clear that you are responding to my arguments but not my evidence. I know well enough that my sources back me up.

Your certainty is of little interest here. — Banno

Haha thanks. The evidence is certain of a male disposition.

It is acceptable if you don’t want to argue this point with me. But it is unacceptable to ignore the evidence as a whole.

there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy. — Banno

I don’t see any evidence backing this claim. My evidence refutes this, see the Stanford Article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

Hmm. Another primary source. — Banno

This is a tertiary source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members

How is young Jordan, I wonder? Still persecuting his colon, I presume. Too much hunt, not enough gather. Needs some greens to keep him regular. — Banno

I would prefer you keep off-topic conversations out of the public thread, thank you.

Noooooo!!! Lol.

Catholicism as a faith does embrace science quite strongly, and unlike most other faiths. Seriously, Catholicism may hold answers to any questions you have. They have about 2000 years of recorded theology which could definitely answer questions better than other faiths.

Thanks for the conversation.

I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. In other words, I don't know whether or not there are gods, however I see no good reason to believe. — Tom Storm

This makes you an agnostic that is not concerned with God (does not care). “I don’t know… I see no good reason to believe.” I hesitate to say “don’t care”, because you obviously have given this an immense amount of thought. It does not make you atheist, because atheist entails that you actively believe that there is no God. Lots of people say they are atheist when they are not actually, because they don’t know the difference, and this has changed the popular meaning of what atheist means.

There are lots of good reasons to believe in God. Belief in God is necessary for moral realism and objective morality, and human dignity. I would hope that you are not a moral relativist. Also, it is very important to note that belief in God should entail a community, or Church. It is extremely difficult to be a single, individual person and believe in God. The role of the Church is to organize the followers of God in prayer, community, and action. It is through organization only that great charities and Churches across the world provide food, clothing, shelter, vaccines, medicine, and even surgery, to the billions of people around the globe.

This website can answer questions about faith: https://www.catholicscomehome.org/your-questions/catholic-resources/

Thank you for the response.

First, you should make your position clearer. Do you believe that the interpretation of society as a hierarchy of power structures, with men as oppressors and women as oppressed, is correct? Do you believe that the power structures are inherently oppressing women?

Second, hierarchies are absolutely necessary to a functional society. This is simply too fundamental to argue. “Importantly, the organization of social groups into a hierarchy serves an adaptive function that benefits the group as a whole. When essential resources are limited, individual skills vary, and reproductive fitness determines survival, hierarchies are an efficient way to divide goods and labor among group members. Thus, an important function of the hierarchy may be to define social roles (Halevy et al., 2011) and allocate limited resources (Sapolsky, 2005).” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members.

Societies must be organized in order to be functional. The hierarchy is the social organization of humans. Hierarchy is especially important in large societies, as there are more members of society to manage, more resources to distribute, and more social roles to be defined.

Furthermore, hierarchies are less stable among women: “Same-sex female hierarchies are somewhat less stable, showing more frequent fluctuations in rank among mid-ranking and top-ranking members compared to male groups, yet the salience and function of the hierarchy is comparable across genders.” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members.

I don’t believe that “more frequent fluctuations” refers to mobility within the hierarchy, such as an soldier being promoted. I believe it refers to more drastic changes in the hierarchy not based on an explicitly defined systematic order.

(Those are from the same article, which is a tertiary source.)

Looking further into the cited source for this claim, I find that, “Three findings point to the greater instability of the female hierarchy: the greater frequency of fluctuations in dyadic interactions, the disagreement on relative rank among girls on the dominance sociometrics, and the lack of a temporal decrease in the frequency of observed dominance encounters.” - https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/15901917/Child_Dev_1979-libre.pdf?1390864551=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DDominance_hierarchies_in_groups_of_early.pdf&Expires=1696994183&Signature=c1ksksgQnblzucOyaf0XGvMRYoGchP7Vt~ujpjUg2b~7DC~JZ~hatrAczpvuqnQstXjAyzpqlD4gVf1zl9D441E~HRhfSIsEnACDYlQHld3ea4a1Ui-XCEj4FU6HdUY0CGvZ~QpyFuYl-yK4yXXXyS5u7iSv4bGjaraC~uLBx-hL3MjLRVOy6FzRV0GzSAKFKFU~fSlep4M~HBxTvsbgkTOyylyfDJDv18rrmCytyA3Q2xFqQ0PNZ4iNBAiBs6768ULwdGfm-tJpwrK7ZvXdPLX6qSZefcRZ64ZcFLgL4jLvzTGD-2qNAIXftBWNaHBX18cDdInQG-a1GE-LVBIzUg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.

This may show why men tend to be the organizers and participants of hierarchies that structure society. A stable hierarchy is necessary for a stable society. Another quote from a Stanford website says, “Hierarchy is inevitable. As our Stanford colleagues Deb Gruenfeld and Lara Tiedens show in a detailed review of research on hierarchy, although the forms it takes vary wildly, it is impossible to find groups or organizations where all members have roughly equal status and power. Whether researchers study people, dogs, or baboons, hierarchies are evident after just minutes of observation. And when strangers meet for the first time, a hierarchy of leaders and followers begins to emerge immediately. This rapid development of pecking orders is seen, for example, in groups of college students who meet in psychology experiments and when strangers start chatting on the street corner — leaders, followers and other signs of status differences nearly always emerge (along with more subtle roles such as “joker,” “hero” and even “scapegoat”). Gruenfeld and Tiedens conclude: “When scholars attempt to find an organization that is not characterized by hierarchy, they cannot.” - https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/.

This appears to directly contradict your view of a male genetic disposition, which is certainly not offered as one of the options. — Banno

Third, I am sure that there is a male disposition, but I am not sure if it is genetic, social, or some other factor. While it is important to understand why the male hierarchy would be more stable than the female hierarchy, it does not specifically pertain to my original argument: men are the members of human society that organize society into a functional state.

Yes, everything has a cause, and every cause has an effect. That is the basis of the argument, and this was discovered long before this argument was created. Everything in the universe has a cause, but what caused the universe?

I also like to think about the property of Conservation of Energy, stating that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How could energy not be created or destroyed, but the universe also be finite? It implies that something outside of the universe caused energy to exist.

These arguments aren’t meant to show that God must exist, especially because they don’t. Nothing will empirically prove God to exist. But it shows that belief in God is rational and reasonable, and is a huge step towards faith for non-believers.

I generally like, "I don't know," as my go to answer. — Tom Storm

So you are agnostic, more or less. There are two types of agnostics: those who don’t know and those who don’t care. I would assume you care somewhat, as the existence of God certainly affects your life. Within not knowing, you can say that you don’t know, or that it is impossible to know. However, these are actually indistinguishable from each other, because we can not be fully certain of anything. It will always be impossible to objectively know, so it is more a matter of, Do you know God? That is, do you believe there is a god or not? And the answer to that has an objective effect on your life and how you will live it.

If you are interested in the Fine-Tuning argument:
Look up “fine tuning argument” and find the Stanford page. Should be plato.stanford.edu or something like that. It holds a very detailed account of the argument. Having looked at that website, I know that your simple refutation is not enough, as well as my simple explanation is not nearly enough.

From an academic article referenced in your article: “A broadly parallel picture emerges with regard to gathering and collecting wild foodstuff. There are two aspects to this: firstly, it has been pointed out that in terms of food quantity, nutrition, and food security, gathering undomesticated plant food is much more important to hunter-gatherers than the hunt, even though ideologically there is commonly an emphasis on game meat. Scholarly preoccupation with the hunting aspect of the hunter-gatherer way of life may therefore be biased, since at least in terms of quantity, gathering is in many settings the main means of survival. Since it is mostly women who concentrate on gathering, the old picture of ‘man the hunter’ (Lee & DeVore 1986) began to be complemented by that of ‘woman the gatherer’ (Dahlberg 1981). This is an oversimplification, since even men who go out hunting often return with gathered fruits (rather than meat) while women’s gathering may include capturing small animals such as lizards and birds. The line between what constitutes ‘hunting’, and who is involved in it, thereby becomes more blurred than anticipated (Kästner 2012). Without the keen observations of women reading animal tracks and movements, many hunts would not be successful. Moreover, collective hunts in forest areas often involve the whole camp, regardless of gender. Despite cases in which some of the meat may be reserved for men (or to particular relatives of the hunter), women in many hunter-gatherer societies enjoy equality that compares favourably with most other societies (see Leacock 1998). This includes their access to resources, but also their social standing and status, their autonomy in making decisions (for instance, in cases of infanticide) and their room for agency. Men, on the other hand, often engage in what may be considered ‘female’ activities, not just gathering but also looking after children (see Hewlett 1991). Despite a frequently observed division of labour, women and men are often equally involved in relevant practices, including economic decisions, politics, healing, and ritual affairs.”

One thing this article says is that the line between “hunter” and “gatherer” is blurred. Women can hunt, as it says, and men can gather, as it says. My specific point about gender relations in society is that men construct the hierarchical structures that are necessary for large, functional societies.

From your article: “ In another example, Gilbert Herdt (1996) describes boy-to-man ritual practices among the Sambia of New Guinea in which boys as young as seven years old are taught and compelled to perform fellatio on older boys. When these same boys become adolescents themselves, they are fellated by younger boys. When they are a few years older, they marry young women and, according to Herdt, never resume sexual relations with boys or men. Among the Sambia, the belief was at the time of study widespread that this practice enabled boys to develop their adult sense of masculinity.”

This is clearly an example of a male hierarchical structure, in which the senior males are of a higher status than the junior males. These rituals of manhood found throughout hunter-gatherer societies are an example of male hierarchical structure.

Here is a scholarly article providing evidence for my claim, men are more associated with hierarchy than women are: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marianne-Mast/publication/232548102_Men_Are_Hierarchical_Women_Are_Egalitarian_An_Implicit_Gender_Stereotype/links/02e7e5165b23b0e6b4000000/Men-Are-Hierarchical-Women-Are-Egalitarian-An-Implicit-Gender-Stereotype.pdf

“The present investigation sought to provide evidence for the existence of an implicit hierarchy gender stereotype. Results showed that indeed such a stereotype exists. Men were associated with hierarchies and women were associated with egalitarian structures more than vice versa… Men, for instance, prefer inequality in status/power among social groups… and men are more motivated to lead in hierarchical organizations than women.”

nice witty quote, I see your point

I’ll get back to you on this piece

Can you prove that everything in the universe has a cause? — Banno

Yes, slap yourself in the face. You will quickly see cause and effect. Seriously, you are questioning logic itself.

Article: https://www.opencollege.info/law-of-cause-and-effect/#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20cause%20and,cause%2C%20an%20original%20starting%20point.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation#:~:text=7%20External%20links-,As%20axioms%20of%20causality,an%20equal%20and%20opposed%20reaction.

That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example in "The boundary conditions of the universe". — Banno

From the website, “[Hawking’s paper] was an attempt at explaining how the Universe could arise out of nothingness, applying quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle at the beginning of time.” Space and time emerged at the same point, so if this is saying that quantum mechanics’ uncertainty principle was applied to space that was there before time, this notion is outdated. If he is saying that quantum mechanics existed before the universe itself, then logically, that could be “our god.” Or, how is there quantum mechanics with no universe?

Finish the argument. — Banno

Fine Tuning has three answers. One, there is a fine tuner, who is God. Two, there are many universes. This attempts to explain the extremely low chances of the fine constants allowing life, by saying there are infinite chances. Imagine flipping a coin, and trying to get heads fifty times in a row. If you flip a coin for an infinite amount of time, you will get there. Third, it should not even be answered. Some have said that as life living in the universe, we can not reasonably answer this question. Article: https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning

What is one anthropology text I should read?

When an argument so badly misrepresent a whole field of knowledge — Banno

Tell me why. I am here to learn.

Back to the topic. Do you have an argument for religion and science being incompatible? What is your stance?

I am not aware of scientific arguments for gods. But I am aware of people using gaps in science to assert gods. — Tom Storm

Fine Tuning argument - the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. There is simply no explanation for this. Infinite universes and bounce-back universe are disproven.

Cosmic Argument (Cause and Effect) - the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, must have been caused by something outside of the universe. Everything in the universe has a cause. The causes go all the way back to the Big Bang. The Big Bang itself can’t be the un-caused cause because it is inside the universe. Therefore, there must be an un-caused cause beyond our universe. This doesn’t assert that the un-caused cause is a loving God or a hateful God, but that simply it is sort of “god” in the logical sense that it is beyond the universe itself.

again, not a literal interpretation. The meanings are symbolic. They don’t align perfectly with each other. It is a story, God wasn’t literally sitting up there just like clueless.

Fine Tuning, Cosmic Cause and Effect, etc. It’s a quick Google search

Tom, I appreciate the genuine response.

I will look at the evidence on this claim and get back to you.

I don’t think this debate is useless. The post-modernist influence on society is extremely important. There are many people who believe that the study of these power structures is the correct way to analyze society, and I would argue that it is incorrect. You’re right, there are probably tons of errors in my argument that I am not aware of because I am not an anthropologist or historian.

Wow I just wanted genuine feedback. Please, at least entertain my argument. If it is that bad, it should be easy to disprove.