Who are the "DOGS", men or women?

[bigjohnson]

Before patriarchal institutions ..... Everything worked completely different. Women called the shots in society ....

You made this statement and *I* would like you to back it up with facts that show this situation was ever dominant as a standard of behavior worldwide. I suspect that it was not, but that it has always been, as it is now, a fringe behavior.

 

[ketostix]

I have no doubt that they have always existed as they do now, as a tiny worn spot on the hem of the pant-leg of civilization. Why would I argue otherwise? Something existing and something being dominant are completely different things.

This a good point. All these people who say matriarchy is a good thing fail to see that whatever matrairchal society that exist are either insignificant or cause the collapse of a once significant patriarchal society. Women leading and controling is not the natural order and can't be succesful.

 

[iqqi]

This a good point. All these people who say matriarchy is a good thing fail to see that whatever matrairchal society that exist are either insignificant or cause the collapse of a once significant patriarchal society. Women leading and controling is not the natural order and can't be succesful.

I don't know who "all these people" are, but I don't think Fingz said he thinks either one is better. Just that there have been times (and still are times) that roles are reversed in regards to gender. And both sitations, have indeed, worked.

It doesn't matter which one is more common. Male roles and female roles tend to be the result of beliefs, not nature.

 

[bigjohnson]

Male roles and female roles tend to be the result of beliefs, not nature.

I'm afraid you're gonna have to prove that one too sugar-pants.

 

[iqqi]

I'm afraid you're gonna have to prove that one too sugar-pants.

Its pretty easy. So I'll keep it simple!

Matriarchal societies work, as do patriarchal ones.

The only difference is the belief system. Not nature.

 

[ketostix]

Its pretty easy. So I'll keep it simple!

Matriarchal societies work, as do patriarchal ones.

The only difference is the belief system. Not nature.

This is a very classical feminist argument. And a erroneous argument as well.

 

[Señor Fingers]

You misunderstood me again and you are on the defensive for no Reason. I don't think Saudi arabia have "the right idea", I was just pointing out how things used to work(and they worked fine) and how they still work in some places.

I apologize if my tone is defensive. I just have very low tolerance for people who say ignorant and derogatory sh!t.

Apparently I'm not the only one.. the mods have deleted that post of yours.

@ ketostix

Why is the argument erroneous, aside from the fact that you believe it is.

 

[iqqi]

This is a very classical feminist argument. And a erroneous argument as well.

LOL, HOW is that feminist??

My point is most evolution/genetic arguments are silly, as human beings are creatures of society more so than creatures of nature.

Both ways (role reversals) work, and if roles were reversed in our society today, I don't think the human race would end.

 

[bigjohnson]

Matriarchal societies work, as do patriarchal ones.

Matriarchal societies are vastly less successful unless you redefine success as 'less popular and shorter lived', in which case yes, they are supremely successful endeavors. But then redefining terms to mean something completely new and different is a feminist move.

Both ways (role reversals) work, and if roles were reversed in our society today, I don't think the human race would end.

If a tree could blossom donuts *I* think cops would cultivate it. The reality is that reversing the roles has not proven to result in a stable social order to my knowledge.

 

[Señor Fingers]

But then redefining terms to mean something completely new and different is a feminist move.

I believe Orson Welles called it DoubleSpeak

It's a move made by any entity seeking power and control over people's minds. You control words, you control thoughts.

Last time I checked, the Feminists did not have a patent on this technique... its much older than them.

Why are you guys so focused and obsessed with Feminists anyway?

Believe me, I'm not fond of them either, but the b!tches dont have me paranoid and blaming the world's problems on them.

Your fear and paranoia only gives them more power you know.

 

[Phyzzle]

I believe Orson Welles called it DoubleSpeak

George Orrrr-wellll?

 

[iqqi]

Matriarchal societies are vastly less successful unless you redefine success as 'less popular and shorter lived', in which case yes, they are supremely successful endeavors. But then redefining terms to mean something completely new and different is a feminist move.

I'm not trying to say how successful they were, I just know they worked.

 

[Señor Fingers]

George Orrrr-wellll?

Gah!!!! You got me there Phyzzle. Thanks for correcting my terrible memory

Note to self: I need to get back into reading again.

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm not trying to say how successful they were, I just know they worked.

Again, redefining terms doesn't prove anything.

"They worked (amazingly poorly and then ceased to exist after imploding like a supernova) " isn't a huge success story that tells us much except that humanity is better off if women stay in the kitchen and gossip between babies.

EDIT:

I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course. Now make a sammich.

 

[ketostix]

@ ketostix

Why is the argument erroneous, aside from the fact that you believe it is.

You're seriously asking me why I wouldn't want females to dominate a society I live in? To put it simply as possible women are petty and have no inherent sense of fair play. A woman is only fair to a person who she likes personally. She doesn't act out of principles.

There's no point in arguing whether nature intended for men to dominate or women. It's totally obvious to anyone that in nature in order to dominate you have to physically be able to dominate, not just emotionally.

 

[Señor Fingers]

Men are generally better leaders. We are driven, focused and can make split-decisions quickly.

Women are generally better care-takers and muses. They are the center of the family unit and catalyst for man's greatness.

It's a symbiotic relationship, each one with its strengths and weaknesses.

Neither is better, or more noble than the other. To suggest otherwise seems ludicrous to me.

 

[Phyzzle]

Some anthropologists believe that patriarchy became the dominant structure of primitive societies after the invention of nomadic animal herding. People developed a attachments to their flocks, and the offspring of those flocks.

Heck, people 20,000 years ago might not have understood where babies came from! Lord knows that apes don't understand this. Men would have figured this out in short order from watching domesticated animals. They would have become much more aware of their biological attachment to their children after becoming herders, and much more aware of protecting his investment in any mate.

Of course, herding is a heck of a lot easier than hunting up your meat every day. So the more successful, dominant groups of people (herders) BECAME more patriarchal than the less successful hunter gatherers.

So patriarchy, rather than creating a successful way of life, is a RESULT of a successful way of life. This is why matriarchy seems to be limited to "fringe" hunter-gatherers. The rest were either wiped out or adopted the new ways.

Well, I wish there were an anthropologist here, instead of schoolteachers and whatever the Hell else everybody is.

 

[iqqi]

It's totally obvious to anyone that in nature order to dominate you have to physically be able to dominate, not just emotionally.

Or logically!

Anyways. This is fun! I am learning things today.

I just did some quick research, and to be fair, now there seems to be a lot of disputing that there ever was a real matriarchal culture in history. Believe it or not, some of the biggest disputers are... feminists! Go figure.

This is a great discussion now! I love it.

However, Phyzzle, I think this all resulted because of someone suggesting genetics are why men are dogs, or women are dogs. ?

 

[bigjohnson]

Neither is better, or more noble than the other. To suggest otherwise seems ludicrous to me.

I mostly agree here, although the merciless lack of any sort of sportsmanship or fair play in women is a little disturbing. Guys fight and at the end someone submits and it's over. Women want to strangle, burn and then stomp on the corpse of their opponent.

Maybe that sort of no-quarter behavior works when defending your offspring but not when disputing who has ownership of the family well. It's still spooky.

 

[Señor Fingers]

Honestly I wish I was much more educated at this stuff than I am. It really is a fascinating topic.

In my very amateur opinion though, an ideal society is balanced between masculine and feminine extremes. We are all screwed up because the pendulum is always swinging from one extreme to the other, which makes harmony between the sexes very difficult!