2 ms·

> Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were non-patriarchal and patriarchal societies ... i.e. unorganized societies are largely egalitarian, and small.

by adekok 10y ago

> Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were non-patriarchal and patriarchal societies ... i.e. unorganized societies are largely egalitarian, and small. Organized societies are not egalitarian, but are larger than unorganized ones. Organized societies tend to treat the leaders better than the masses (go figure). And the leaders are the ones who win the leadership competitions. There is no intrinsic "male" preference here. No "patriarchal" society promotes men simply for being men. Simple math shows this to be true. The leaders of a "patriarchal" society are perhaps 10%? Maybe 1% of the population. Yet 50% of the population is male. i.e. At least 80% of the male population had limited status, and limited power. We only call these societies "patriarchal" because we concentrate on the leaders. Everyone wants to be rich and powerful. No one wants to be a 16 year-old boy who's conscripted into an army, and then forced to die of starvation or illness in a foreign land, due to the whim of a king.

pluma 10y ago
The problem you are addressing is part of an ideology called "intersectional feminism": the idea that all interactions between two individuals are also interactions between whatever buckets the two individuals fall into -- men and women, whites and blacks, heteros and homos, cis and trans, and so on. By that reasoning a man in Western culture is inherently privileged over a woman simply because men in general are typically privileged over women in general. This leads to redefining sexism as "sexism from a position of power" (because arguably sexism without power is "harmless") and "power" is then often treated as a synonym for "privilege". And this is how you end up with Hillary Clinton (a woman with significant wealth and political power) being less privileged than a male salaried worker simply by association. Note that this idea isn't inherently discriminatory against men (or whites or whatever) either -- if the balances were different it'd be equally unfair. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q

by adekok 10y ago

pluma 10y ago

The problem you are addressing is part of an ideology called "intersectional feminism": the idea that all interactions between two individuals are also interactions between whatever buckets the two individuals fall into -- men and women, whites and blacks, heteros and homos, cis and trans, and so on. By that reasoning a man in Western culture is inherently privileged over a woman simply because men in general are typically privileged over women in general. This leads to redefining sexism as "sexism from a position of power" (because arguably sexism without power is "harmless") and "power" is then often treated as a synonym for "privilege". And this is how you end up with Hillary Clinton (a woman with significant wealth and political power) being less privileged than a male salaried worker simply by association. Note that this idea isn't inherently discriminatory against men (or whites or whatever) either -- if the balances were different it'd be equally unfair. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q