Who are the "DOGS", men or women?

[Señor Fingers]

Women want to strangle, burn and then stomp on the corpse of their opponent.

LOL! Hell hath no fury, as they say.

Still, it's interesting to note that one of the typical traits of matriarchal society is the relative absence of violence.

We can all learn from each other methinks.

 

[bigjohnson]

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.

That is interesting. Do you think the argument has merit?

 

[iqqi]

That is interesting. Do you think the argument has merit?

Need to do more research.

I think that the topic IS fascinating, to many, hence all the works of fiction and all the myths that use the matriarchal frame.

I personally think that there were matriarchal societies. Like with many myths, I believe that there is basis in real history.

 

[iqqi]

Here is something I just read at this link that is interesting...

Some basic laws of logical reasoning should be kept in mind:

-to state that something never exists, a theoretical proof of its impossibility is required, as well as
when stating that something applies to all cases, a proof is needed.
-Only one counter-example is needed to refute a claim that a fact is always true.

When we apply this to the insistence that there ever was or could be a matriarchy, we must require a theory of society which implies it. This would mean an assumption that human society has only a limited number of possible ways of organizing itself, and in none of these ways women are dominant.

I wish to prove the contrary, and even by two independently separate arguments. First, that the variety of human societies seems to be infinite and no Western theory is able to cover it all. This argument is not elaborated here, I only refer to the anthropological writings listed in sources below.

My second argument is even bolder: that there are in fact matriarchal societies among contemporary, scientifically observed and documented peoples. These are small societies living in horticulture, nevertheless, they are functional, real human societies with long histories. As stated previously, one example would be enough, but I present here three: the Nagovisi of Bougainvillea in the South Pacific, the Khasi of Meghalaya, India, and the Machinguenga of Peru (Johnson and Johnson 1988).
See list of sources.

In addition to these "matriarchal" examples there is a large number of societies where women enjoy full sexual, and economical control over themselves. To the group of matriarchies, or egalitarian societies, depending on how to define it, several Pacific and Native American cultures could be added, for example Pueblo Indians (the Zuni, Laguna and Hopi), the pre-19th century Iroquois and Innu (Montaignais-Naskapi), the Vanatinai, and Hawaii under Queen Liliuokani. Take a look at the list of matrifocal societies around the world.​

 

[iqqi]

Then again, Fingz did already post this nugget! http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml

 

[bigjohnson]

For what it's worth I never asserted they never existed, just that they are less successful than other alternatives and (separate assertion) that there is no indication that they were ever more than a novelty.

 

[aliasguy]

"Who are the "DOGS", men or women?"

Thread drift. I'm as guilty as most.


To add a little to the drift --- can anyone cite a "matriarchal" society/civilization of any significant global influence? Besides a couple of island cultures no one knows about enough to NAME? How about any matriarchal societies who have provided any long-lasting social, architectural, literary, legal, or ANY real heritage?

What has humankind benefited from in any measurable way from any "matriarchal" society?

I can't even think of a real, documented, well described "matriarchal" society, anyway, except the mythical "amazons."



EDIT: Oops, Iqqi named a few. Big hitters, those cultures, huh??!!!??

 

[iqqi]

Some animal "kingdoms" are completely matriarchal, just somethin' else to ponder...

 

[aliasguy]

Ok, Iqqi, but I don't wanna f*ck any animals (other than human chicks.)

What's the point of that animal stuff? --- doesn't apply to us men not into bestiality.

 

[aliasguy]

From Iqqi, we're getting descriptions of obscure pacific island cultures, and ANIMALS, for god's sake.

Queen bees and gay swans mean NOTHING to us in the real human world. Neither do obscure, rare, and irrelevant island cultures with a matriarchal bent. Who cares about those relics? They simply don't count. We live in the world we live in. Call it patriarchal or not. It is what it is.

We have to survive in the society we are currently LIVING in. And I don't even know who's really in charge, behind the scenes. But that doesn't matter.


But I DO know that women are women, and men are men (sometimes.) And we all are going along, doing the stuff we do. Men can be "dogs." Women can be "dogs."

What the HELL does any isolated matriarchal culture, or "matriarchal" ANIMALS, have to do with it?

 

[iqqi]

What the HELL does any isolated matriarchal culture, or "matriarchal" ANIMALS, have to do with it?

Where the matriarchal points came in:

@ Aenigma

Interesting points, but your logic falls apart when you try to apply modern social dynamics to human evolution.

If you go back far enough, before churches, patriarchy and other male institutions locked down female sexuality, women did not need to lie or cheat to sleep with multiple partners. Society was matriarchal and it was considered common practice for women to be promiscuous.

Think about a women's cycle of arousal vs mens, it makes total sense. A woman does not tire after orgasm and could easily handle a procession of men, who in contrast would not be able to do the same. (We just want to eat a sammich and go to sleep once we bust!)

Only the tantrics of the far east really explored the multi-orgasmic potential of men. Mainstream society never caught on and to this day guys are convinced that ejaculation = orgasm, which is actually not true!

I watched a documentary not too long ago called Sperm Wars (or something like that) They basically had these tiny cameras inside a promiscuous womans uterus and you could actually see sperm from different partners fighting with each other! That is evolution at work... for centuries it was considered the norm and nature adjusted our physiology as a result.

If you wanted to make a generalized statement, I think it would be more accurate to say that women are genetically predisposed to have multiple partners and are rebelling against society after years of repression.

In the final analysis, both genders have taken turns throughout history being "dogs".

In response to:

Women's reproductive behaviors (just like our own) are molded by countless eons of evolution. Their reproductive behaviors, utlimately, are "designed" to access the best possible genes for their children and ensure their survival. The "physical and emotional responses" that woman experience are, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, mechanisms to control behavior; mechansims to ensure that a woman mates with the best possible source of genetic material. How do you think that these mechanisms evolved to be so powerful in the first place? Women (and females of our prehuman ancestors) who obeyed those impulses mated with the best possible source of genetic material available to them. They had children who were more attractive, intelligent, and able then the women who "controlled" those impulses and mated with males who were sub-prime. The laws of evolution, cruel though they are, then led to those less fit offspring being eliminated from the gene pool. In other words- ideas and emotions such as honesty, loyality, and fairness are actually unbenefical, if not harmful, to a woman's reproductive success. This is why woman often ignore these ideas and don't apply them (to their own behavior). To them, these are nothing but masculine social conventions.

Every generation of woman that ignored masculine social conventions, and obeyed their own "base" impulses had greater reproductive success (in terms of genetics) then the woman who acted "responsible, mature, moral, loyal, honest, or fair" (or whatever other term you want to apply to your masculine/slave/beta standard of reproductive morality). Little wonder we see these behaviors continue, and thrive, to this day.

Glad to be of assistance.

 

[Señor Fingers]

What the HELL does any isolated matriarchal culture, or "matriarchal" ANIMALS, have to do with it?

My hypothesis is that women were once granted total sexual freedom (thats how matriarchal system works). Evolution enabled them to satisfy multiple partners over eons, which explains their enormous sexual potential (and the fact that most dudes are two-minute brothers)

They are showing their "dog" side more than ever nowadays because you can only keep a b!tch on her leash for so many centuries.

The general consensus among (unfaithful) women seems to be that men have been dogs for so long, that they may as well beat them at their own game.

EDIT: Iqqi beat me to it.. I need to get some rest already. Night yall.

 

[STR8UP]

The main point of this post was that women are just as bad as men (and in some ways WORSE) when it comes to poor behavior. But 9 times out of 10 a woman excuses her own behavior by rationalizing it, and society tends to collectively nod their heads.

I just look around and see people doing SOOOOO many things that their significant other would not approve of.

A good friend of mine is married and just had his third child. He screws around on his wife EVERY chance he gets. I don't know the wife....maybe she does the same thing, who knows. It's just sad and disheartening to know that this stuff is RAMPANT in today's society.

And I'm not so sure if it's all about biological drive either. We live in such a mememe nownownow instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later society that it's almost like nobody really gives a flying fukk......get your rocks off today and deal with the fallout tomorrow if necessary.

 

[STR8UP]

They are showing their "dog" side more than ever nowadays because you can only keep a b!tch on her leash for so many centuries.

The general consensus among (unfaithful) women seems to be that men have been dogs for so long, that they may as well beat them at their own game.

Hmmm....I've REALLY tried to avoid going this route, but over the past several years i have talked to my friends and the general consensus seems to be "She's eventually gonna do it to you so you might as well take advantage of opportunities when they arise".

I hate to be that way. I really do. And to make matters WORSE, all a woman has to do if she's not satisfied in her relationship is to make a little more eye contact and smile some more and she will have ten guys lined up waiting in a heartbeat. A guy has to ACTIVELY pursue something outside of a relationship, at least to get to the same level of "plate spinning" that a woman can experience in a very short time.

Been saying this for awhile now.....if you want to be successful in the mating game you have to play it like a woman. That includes branch swinging and being able to take the axe to the emotional attachment you shared with someone at the drop of a hat. And the thing is women will LOVE you for it!

Sad but true.....

 

[iqqi]

Been saying this for awhile now.....if you want to be successful in the mating game you have to play it like a woman. That includes branch swinging and being able to take the axe to the emotional attachment you shared with someone at the drop of a hat. And the thing is women will LOVE you for it!

Sad but true.....

Interesting, your description of successful here.

 

[bigjohnson]

My hypothesis is that women were once granted total sexual freedom (thats how matriarchal system works). Evolution enabled them to satisfy multiple partners over eons, which explains their enormous sexual potential (and the fact that most dudes are two-minute brothers)

Isn't it simpler to just realize that reproduction doesn't depend in any way on female climax?

 

[aliasguy]

Hmmm....I've REALLY tried to avoid going this route, but over the past several years i have talked to my friends and the general consensus seems to be "She's eventually gonna do it to you so you might as well take advantage of opportunities when they arise".

I hate to be that way. I really do. And to make matters WORSE, all a woman has to do if she's not satisfied in her relationship is to make a little more eye contact and smile some more and she will have ten guys lined up waiting in a heartbeat. A guy has to ACTIVELY pursue something outside of a relationship, at least to get to the same level of "plate spinning" that a woman can experience in a very short time.

Been saying this for awhile now.....if you want to be successful in the mating game you have to play it like a woman. That includes branch swinging and being able to take the axe to the emotional attachment you shared with someone at the drop of a hat. And the thing is women will LOVE you for it!

Sad but true.....

I had a buddy all weirded out because he found out his girl was f*cking around. This was like a year ago.

I ran into him shortly thereafter, and he said, "They always told me, 'cheat or get cheated on.' "

I'm starting to think he was right.

(BTW, the dumbass gave her a RING a few weeks later --- DUMBASS.) He KNEW better!!!!

 

[iqqi]

OK, lets get to the real nitty dam gritty.

STR8UP, are you looking for reasons or validation to be a cheater?




CUZ the decision to be faithful/honest or not shouldn't depend on someone else's behavior.

 

[Aenigma]

A good friend of mine is married and just had his third child. He screws around on his wife EVERY chance he gets. I don't know the wife....maybe she does the same thing, who knows. It's just sad and disheartening to know that this stuff is RAMPANT in today's society.

Right there's your problem. You think that humans should have progressed in time to move beyond such behavors, and that we have in the past. You think that this is a "problem" unique to todays soceity. It's not. Human nature is the same it always has been. Underneath all of our rational facilities lies the animal instincts, always has. For some reason you seem to think that it wasn't like this in the past; it was, you just didnt hear about it.... in some eras. In others, like in imperial Rome, the animal nature was fully visible (and not just in regards to sexuality). Labeling people, of either gender, as "dogs" is just identifying them as what they are- animals. Stop fooling yourself.

 

[aliasguy]

OK, lets get to the real nitty dam gritty.

STR8UP, are you looking for reasons or validation to be a cheater?




CUZ the decision to be faithful/honest or not shouldn't depend on someone else's behavior.

Iqqi, you are RIGHT, here. Other's behavior isn't at issue. At least in how WE act.

I DON'T "cheat," nor do I advocate it.

But I think STR*UP REALLY wants a woman whom he can LOVE, and BE WITH, and PROTECT, and ALL THAT STUFF ----- but he despairs of ever being able to FIND ONE WORTHY.

And, I agree with his pessimism.

Just because you don't like his attitude, doesn't mean it's WRONG.


I understand how you got to your position, here, Iqqi, I just don't think STR8UP WANTS a "license to cheat." I think he wants a woman whom he can TRUST. (hard to find.)