Feminism and Societal Suicide

[Bbucko]

If you ever get a chance to visit the midwest, you should see the Cahokia Mounds outside of St. Louis. It is suggested (again, not a lot is known directly on account of a lack of written history) that the vast network of mounds stretched across much of the Ohio River and Mississippi River plains areas, and given the lack of high productivity technology, suggests that a highly structured society with a very large population built it.

Researchers don't really have much of a clue why the society disintegrated, but my own suspicion is that - like the Mayans and many of the other great pre-European civilizations like Great Zimbabwe - the system of esoteric knowledge that allowed such social cohesion failed to prevent or even caused a major natural disaster. I remember hearing (can't remember the source) that it may have had to do with trying to divert the flow of the Mississippi River to better irrigate crops, and of course flooding human living space instead. Jared Diamond, though, treats the subject of civilization collapse much better in his book "Collapse."

A good starting point for reading is George Bryce's book "The Mound Builders"
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Mound Builders, by George Bryce

I've written the name of the book down. The next time I have some "book cash", I'll get a copy.

I think that any speculation regarding the collapse of the Mound Builders hinges on proper carbon dating of the artifacts discovered to separate potential internal collapse (like the Maya) from the external calamity of the spread of European disease which virtually emptied the continent within a few generations.

I have no doubt that Native American societies had an enormous diversity of beliefs and internal structures. Their destruction counts as one of the greatest calamities mankind has ever endured, but for them (obviously) but for what's surely been lost for us.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There are bits and pieces of clues, some quite tantalizing, regarding the extent to which pre-literate Old Europe was Matriarchal. The decades of work by Marija Gimbutas cannot simply be dismissed as the ramblings of a crank, and most of her hypotheses remain unexplored by (patriarchally-focused) archeologists and anthropologists, let alone disproven.

I agree with you and have read some of her work (some of her Kurgan theories are very interesting, even if they don't really fit terribly closely with the most current evidences we have for how Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated in to Europe, the whole invasion theory is looking distinctly shaky atm) but even she stops short of calling the societies she discusses Matriarchal, she tends to describe them a Matristic.

I seriously doubt that the OP has even heard of her or her work.

Indeed, no arguments here. :wink:

Another excellent book on the subject of pre-literate Europe and the Middle East, The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age, by Richard Rudgley, should be required reading by anyone interested in the 50,000-250,000 years that anatomically modern humans existed prior to writing; they were hardly savages. In fact, the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry actually shortened, rather than lengthened, life expectancy 8000-10,000 years ago.

I think this kind of study also somewhat raises the question of what is considered civilised. Writing and the fruits of agricultural urbanised polities is always seen as the starting point, but this ignores neolithic pre-literate farming cultures and even the older pre-agricultural revolution cultures which built things monuments and had complicated social structures and belief systems. You're absolutely right these people were not by any measure savages.

Another example of a potential Matriarchal society that could well have existed at the dawn of Historical times is in Malta, where the oldest examples of stone architecture still stand. The only statuary ever found within the Maltese "temples" (no one really knows what purpose they served for those who built them) are of a characteristic female figure, whose enormous hips and breasts suggest a religion centered on fertility.

Again I think even the broadest possible interpretation which remains evidence based could only describe the stone age culture which built those monuments as Matristic, since religions which are based on the worship of female deities, even ones totally focused on female deities or with supreme female deities occur in patriarchal societies too.

Of course, much the same can be said about the Temple of Artemis , and there was never anything even remotely matriarchal about Hellenism. But as the archeological evidence at Malta has been plundered for centuries, we'll probably never know the extent to which their religious practices overlapped with their societal structures.

Yep.

Other ancient societies in which the sexes were considered equal were the Minoans and Etruscans. And, of course, we'll never know the extent to which civilizations and societies off the Eurocentric page by which we still study history may or may not have existed.

One can include a variety of others too, the Elamites, at least a couple of pre-indo-european and pre-semitic anatolian cultures like the Hattians and more speculatively the builders of Çatalhöyük.

The Berbers are another excellent example too. Though I'm being conservative (from feminist theory perspective) about what I think equality can be read to mean.

Judaism, while patriarchal in many of its structures, is entirely matrilineal, if only to pick the most obvious example.

Absolutely.

In hunter-gatherer civilizations, where men were absent for weeks at a time on hunts, it is patently obvious that women ruled the day-to-day lives of their societal groups.

Well to be fair it's thought that hunting was a more collective pursuit in the main, with whole familial groups or communities hunting collectively most of the time, gathering other foods as they did so. Though extended male only hunting trips may have been fairly common too as part of male bonding and rights of passage ceremonies.

 

[TroMag]

The Etc. forum is a majory gay males, with a few exceptions, you aren't going to get the same response from it as you would think. I'd say this would have had a better debate without just being written off as a waste of time in the Women's Issue Forum, i suggest having it moved there. It would probably have novels of response there.

Thanks. I wasn’t aware that the Etc. forum is gay dominated, and that is sub-optimal since I’m mostly looking for a discussion with straight women and straight men, as it impacts them directly, while the effects on gay men are more indirect. I didn’t put it in Women’s Issues because this isn’t a female issue as much as it is a societal issue. Perhaps the Politics forum would have been the best location. How does one get a topic moved around here? PM a mod? Who are the mods?

Or can I just make a request in the thread, assuming that the mods are reading it? If so, mods, can you please move this thread to the Politics forum?

 

[TroMag]

Oh for god's sake. You seriously think that because of feminists, in the future we're no longer going to have a military? That's where you're taking this argument right? More women in charge means no military, so China or whoever you think might want to invade us will succeed?

No, it’s considerably more complicated than that.

Again, you've confused "equal" with "same." I've already read plenty of other responses to you about this, yet you repeat the same idiotic thing again.

Even though you talk about equality as opposed to sameness, you continue to view the male and female roles through the lens of sameness.

Why does feminism view the traditional male role (in a patriarchal society) as provider as superior to the female role as homemaker. Why not view it as the male having to labor to bring home the bacon, spending time away from his offspring, while the female enjoys a much closer relationship with the children? Depending on one’s perspective, the traditional female role is superior. But both these views are through the lens of ‘sameness’, and ignore the fact that our biological differences make the sexes better suited for different roles.

 

[TroMag]

What exactly is 'civil' about a society that is in a constant state of war or preparing for war? What kind of 'civil living' is provided in a country like the United States where we spend an obscene amount of our treasure serving as the policemen of the world, while people die for lack of basic healthcare or homeless in our streets? What was 'civil' about life in the Soviet Union or the Roman empire at their demise, collapsing as they did from the sheer weight of defending themselves against military threats? What was/is civil about life in those supremely patriarchal and militaristic societies of Iraq, Iran, North Korea . . . . ?

Again, it is about relative civility. If the alternatives are more barbaric, then a society that is less barbaric is relatively civil.

First of all, we have precious few examples of matriarchal societies to draw upon for comparison. However, just because they have not existed, does not negate their viablility. Secondly, you have created a false construct by applying a Darwinian standard of mere species survival to define success in social evolution. If we are to evolve socially, if we are to be successful, indeed if we are to survive, we will have to move beyond such limited and archaic thinking.

Besides your false construct above, you have provided a false choice limited to two polarities. The world of my imagination is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. It is humanist, and it demonstrates responsible stewardship of the natural world we all occupy. I don't think it is a utopian vision, I think it is possible, but in order to achieve it we will have to lay to rest the sort of Neanderthal thinking you represent. Hopefully we will evolve to the awareness that our survival on this planet we all share depends on a new way of thinking before we annihilate ourselves. Hopefully it can be achieved through intelligence and not bloodshed. In order for that to happen, folks like you will need to step aside, or if push comes to shove . . . . well it's survival of the species, isn't it?

Unless you are talking about establishing a new world order under one government, any society will have to compete with others for its survival. For multiple societies to not engage in competition would require a change in human nature. And maybe you’re right, maybe we will evolve, but in the genetic sense, that would require those with more base natures to be outcompeted (via a reproductive disadvantage and/or a survival disadvantage) by those with more ‘humanist’ natures. At least as far as reproductive disadvantage is concerned, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

 

[TroMag]

So from your perspective, sex is always a win/lose scenario? How tragic for you.

As far as nature is concerned, sex is very much part of a win/lose scenario. Arguably, the ultimate win/lose scenario.

 

[TroMag]

I don't really understand your statement here at all. The Sexual Revolution began with the introduction of the Pill: it's at least 50 years old.

Free love was an essential part of 60s counter-culture and was pretty thoroughly mainstreamed by the 70s and early 80s. For from being at any "early stage", it's an historic fact.

[FONT=&quot]I say early stage because we still have some social mores that discourage total sexual freedom – e.g., slut shaming. This may not mean much to a gay man, but it has very strong implications for women, which is why feminists and most women are so strongly opposed to the stud/slut paradigm.[/FONT]

 

[TroMag]

I guess there is enough variety in what is considered a matriarchal society that I should clarify its use in this context. Let’s focus on the type of gynocentric society that feminism is pushing the west toward – one where women enjoy full sexual freedom (no effective or semi-effective religious or social/moral codes against promiscuity, no slut shaming, etc.), and one where women are able to raise their children without any significant paternal investment in child-rearing (and where this practice is not shamed).

 

[TroMag]

This pretty much describes college life in France. The willing non-participants were the girls (and much smaller group of corresponding boys) who required love before sex. There were virtually no female non-willing non-participants, but many male non-willing non-participants. I'm assuming by winners you mean those who found themselves sexually/socially satisfied.

I did notice that within university circles, there were fuzzy tiers of sexual rings - where a selected few guys were passed around.
The rings were based on attractiveness and wealth, and not unlike Hollywoods A-list, B-list and so on. A-list girls would only touch A-list guys (or rich men with yachts in St Tropez or Monaco), B-list girls would go for A-list if they could, but generally B-list guys, C-list with A and B list, but generally C. A-list guys had their pick of pretty much any girl, while selection narrowed as you went down the ranks. Far more guys that are B than A, and that are C than B, and so on down the line. At some point, you get to a group that takes whatever it can get and never has the luxury of saying no.

So in your scenario, the real winners are the A-list guys and most of the women (who always had enough options to say no).

Nailed it. It comes as no surprise to me that this observation comes from a straight man, as women are often blind to it.

So as we move towards unfettered sexual freedom, we move closer to animal mating, where the males present and the females choose. And from animal mating (and real life in large western cities where marriage is often postponed until later in life), we know that females are wired to be choosy, and confer most of the sexual access to a minority of the males.

In a traditional patriarchy, there are many restraints placed on female sexual choice, and this, along with marriage and the social mores against bastard children, among other factors, has the effect of guaranteeing sexual access to most males. As we move toward animal mating patterns, more and more men, and eventually (if left unchecked) a large majority, will find themselves without sexual access to females (outside of prostitution). Does anyone think this might be a problem for society?

 

[sbat]

Nailed it. It comes as no surprise to me that this observation comes from a straight man, as women are often blind to it.

So as we move towards unfettered sexual freedom, we move closer to animal mating, where the males present and the females choose. And from animal mating (and real life in large western cities where marriage is often postponed until later in life), we know that females are wired to be choosy, and confer most of the sexual access to a minority of the males.

In a traditional patriarchy, there are many restraints placed on female sexual choice, and this, along with marriage and the social mores against bastard children, among other factors, has the effect of guaranteeing sexual access to most males. As we move toward animal mating patterns, more and more men, and eventually (if left unchecked) a large majority, will find themselves without sexual access to females (outside of prostitution). Does anyone think this might be a problem for society?

Believe it or not, these are all positive changes for humanity.

At some point - especially as more women in developing countries gain education and therefore gain more control over their own fertility - birthrates all around will start dropping.

Proactive governments will probably legalize prostitution to pacify the large swaths of men who are numerically screwed, or simply can't get a mate. It will also probably slow down technological progress in developing countries, as the ineligible men will be forcibly relocated (given 'incentives' to move) and put to work in low-skill manufacturing type jobs. Probably a larger police (and secret police) force to crack down on political dissedents and terrorists trying to foment revolution.

Ironically, it might actually reinforce a patriarchal structure, as the desirable men will actually find their social power increase due to their low supply and high demand - we'll start to resemble lion prides, where the bulk of the productive work and day-to-day administration is done by women while a few alpha lions "oversee" things like security and technology.

All in all, I see no problem with men who lack the intellect, charisma, or emotional sensitivity to attract an intelligent woman being unable to propagate their genes. No one is entitled to get laid and have kids.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Nailed it. It comes as no surprise to me that this observation comes from a straight man, as women are often blind to it.

So as we move towards unfettered sexual freedom, we move closer to animal mating, where the males present and the females choose. And from animal mating (and real life in large western cities where marriage is often postponed until later in life), we know that females are wired to be choosy, and confer most of the sexual access to a minority of the males.

In a traditional patriarchy, there are many restraints placed on female sexual choice, and this, along with marriage and the social mores against bastard children, among other factors, has the effect of guaranteeing sexual access to most males. As we move toward animal mating patterns, more and more men, and eventually (if left unchecked) a large majority, will find themselves without sexual access to females (outside of prostitution). Does anyone think this might be a problem for society?

Are you telling me this is all because you have trouble getting dates?

Excuse me, I think I'm going to go out in the front yard and laugh until I puke.

 

[petite]

Are you telling me this is all because you have trouble getting dates?

Excuse me, I think I'm going to go out in the front yard and laugh until I puke.

I think you nailed it.

Is anyone surprised?

 

[TroMag]

Are you telling me this is all because you have trouble getting dates?

I probably should have anticipated this type of response. The number of women I've slept with easily puts me in the top 20% of men in terms of sexual access to women, so this discussion isn't borne of personal sexual frustration. However, I do know several guys who have a tough time with this and their numbers are increasing - this does not bode well for our current trajectory.

 

[mitchymo]

Does anyone think this might be a problem for society?

No.

If anything, it will serve to advance society. Change comes along whether you like it or not, i find, in the end you adapt. Or evolve even.

 

[maxcok]

......And what, pray tell, does sexual orientation have to do with this??

Because I've been on this board for 3 years to notice what kind of topics go well or don't go well over on the Etc. forum. It's mostly male gay men with a little bit exception. Because of that, certain topics that would be hot with responses every few minutes and turn a dozen pages a day may not get much of a response at all over here.

What is the measure of a good thread? The quantity of responses? Or could the substance of the views being presented be a better measure? At any rate, this thread doesn't seem to be suffering from a lack of attention.

Does it mean that gay men like yourself can't answer? No, does it mean that a lot of gay men won't bother answering, yes.

Who said I was gay? And what exactly are you saying about gay men anyway? First you don't want them to respond, now you're complaining that they're not? Who cares? I personally don't want people to respond if they're not interested, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about their orientation, gender, race, national origin, or whatever. You're complaining about gay men being involved here to the exclusion of straight men or women or both, I guess. News flash: Nobody's keeping the women or the straight boys out. Why don't you complain to them and ask why they're not participating? Maybe the straight boys just aren't that interested.

So i recommended him to take it to another forum where debate is more likely to happen rather than just being written off as BULLSHIT or "I'm not wasting my time"

Before I said it was a waste of my time, I had already written a substantive response to the OP, as several others had. His response was deflective and ignored my rebuttals to his position. The same was true of his response to several others. That is why I said it was a waste of time, because he is dishonest, deflective, close-minded, smug, overbearing, and a shit stirrer. There are others on the board like him, and once I see that pattern, I tend to avoid engaging in any serious discussion with them, not to point to anyone in particular. Writing him off had nothing to do with my sexual orientation, such as you perceive it, or being frivolous.

So what your saying is that the female members and others who frequent Women's Issues are just more likely to entertain patent bullshit then?

No, im saying that have more interest in responding to his questions than most gay men from the Etc. forum do.

There are tons of feminist/feminism related questions over there being talked about regularly. He should have asked it where most people ask those questions. There are more straight men who frequent the Women's Issues than the Etc. who would answer his theories.

Hilaire, I think she just sees it through the narrow lens of Women's Issues because on the surface it involves women. Plus she knows it will stir up shit there, and she likes that. Plus she likes to control things and wants it on her own turf. Nevermind that contrary to her 'reasoning', the majority of men posting there (excluding the leghumpers), indeed the majority of men on the site, still have a whole lotta gay in their profile, even many who don't say so.

MR - I think this is better suited to Etc even though the OP is, as hilaire points out, "based on nonsense and absurd received wisdom and a variety of other spurious nitwittery".

Etc is not, in my expereince, mainly gay men -I would say it is the forum that has the largest crossover of readers and posters from the male / female, gay / bi / straight spheres, well, along with Funny Stuff perhaps.

But that is somewhat beside the point. Who are you to decide what gay men are interested in and may or may not want to read and / or respond to? Feminism is not 'straight' issue - it is a people issue. Being gay does not make men run screaming from women. Sure, there may be a handful like that, but no more, proportionally speaking, than straight men who seem to run screaming from women as anything other than a convenient vagina and occasional Petri dish for heir cultivation.

Great observations and very well put, I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, it is my experience that gay men in general are more sensitive to women's concerns and issues of gender equality, having as they do a foot in both worlds. Being men they understand male privilege, being gay they understand discrimination, and they are able to empathize and communicate with women without the interference of sexual tension.

. . . a discussion about entire civilizations most certainly merits discussion not by women only.

And feminism does not espouse matriarchy. It espouses equality within existing structures.

^ This too. Speaking as one of only three men enrolled in my university's first ever Women's Studies program,
I am aware that viewing everything that involves women through the lens of feminism is a very narrow view indeed. This topic easily fits the Etc. or Politics forums. Viewing it strictly in the context of Women's Issues is simplistic, limiting, and misses the larger themes of political structures, social evolution, gender politics, and anthropology, among others.

Speaking as a man who has long advocated for women's equality though I am not a woman, speaking as a man who has worked to eliminate racism though I am caucasian, speaking as a man who advocated for gay/lesbian equality long before I ever had my first male sexual encounter, I can tell you that one does not have to be a member of any particular club to have something valuable to contribute to these issues and these discussions.

I have noticed you have a tendency to categorize and stereotype people by their gender and orientation, MR.
I have noticed you have a tendency to be particularly dismissive, condescending and exclusionary towards gay men, just as you are here. I don't think that's a good thing, either here or IRL. It is a limited, limiting and rather unenlightened view imo.

p.s. MR, if you are so hot to debate this topic, feel free to step right up.

It doesn't look like the thread is moving anywhere. So, did you have anything you wanted to say on the topic?

 

[petite]

Furthermore, it is my experience that gay men in general are more sensitive to women's concerns and issues of gender equality, having as they do a foot in both worlds. Being men they understand male privilege, being gay they understand discrimination, and they are able to empathize and communicate with women without the interference of sexual tension.

I absolutely agree with you (and MB earlier). The only reason why I keep coming back to read this thread is because of the contributions of people other than the OP, which includes the excellent posts by the gay men here. I think this thread wouldn't be half as interesting without their contributions. I've really enjoyed them. So educated and insightful, so fascinating!

 

[luka82]

I've really enjoyed the contributions of the gay men in this thread. So educated and insightful, so fascinating!

But I haven`t posted, yet
Or maybe I have...who knows!
heheheh

 

[petite]

But I haven`t posted, yet
Or maybe I have...who knows!
heheheh

Ha!!!

Now you have! :tongue:

 

[maxcok]

But I haven`t posted, yet
Or maybe I have...who knows!
heheheh

Are you gay??!!!

 

[luka82]

Are you gay??!!!

Only when i suck cock and have hot man to man action!:biggrin1:
I play str8 most of the time!:biggrin1::biggrin1:
Oh and when I post I try to be gay, I want Petite to like me!:wink: