We can’t observe gods, but women exist empirically, and men have had to live with them all along. If the resulting body of experiences with women have condensed into a patriarchal tradition which puts women in a bad light—well, you can’t blame that on theology, now, can you?
Of course you can. Theology is very easily observable. One can ask what the theology should be blamed on, but that goes back to the dawn of history and is but speculation and fog.
So here’s some speculation for why patriarchal traditions are so prevalent, which I suppose has been at the back of my mind for as long as I’ve been aware of such issues, although I’ve never seen it stated so starkly as I am about to.
Men are physically stronger than women.
Without modern science, paternity cannot be observed, only enforced (see (1)).
It seems to me that these two facts are a sufficient explanation for the entire phenomenon of both religious and secular suppression of women. Men have been able to, men have wanted to, men have done. Might makes might. “If you want a picture of the past, imagine a man’s boot stamping on a woman’s face – for ever.”
Explanations of how all women really want to be controlled by a strong man are window dressing, excreted by the virtual outcome pumps in the heads of those who find current mores uncongenial to continuing in that way, and who nowadays must use ideas as ammunition instead of stones.
My reading of the situation is not that women prefer abusive men or prefer to be controlled. My reading is that women (warning: crude generalizations incoming) like to be/feel protected and prefer strong men. Given this, some women consider being abusive to be evidence of strength, and some women are willing to trade some control or some abuse for getting a strong man. This may or may not be a good trade, depending on the circumstances.
For what (little) I have read about abusive relationship, my pet theory is that abuses are like superstimulus for things like assertiveness, confidence, strength, etc.
Some women get imprinted with this kind of behaviour in such a way they are no more able to find attractive kinder men.
Some women are. I don’t have the feeling for what proportion of women are willing to have relationships with obviously abusive men.
The usual account of abusive relationships is that the abusive escalates fairly slowly—I don’t know whether the initially abusive relationship is too embarrassing to talk about.
Without modern science, paternity cannot be observed, only enforced (see (1)).
You left out a few important ones:
3. A man can potentially impregnate many women.
4. Having a man to help raise a woman’s children greatly increases their prospects (this is the reason your (2) matters).
5. Unlike his sperm, a man’s attention is a rather limited resource.
So, women would prefer to have children by an alpha male. They would also prefer to find a beta male to help raise them (they would like even more to have the alpha male raise them but see (5)). Men don’t what to raise children that aren’t theirs.
Having a man to help raise a woman’s children greatly increases their prospects
This is no longer true in countries where women can earn their own living.
So, women would prefer [...]
Don’t generalize. Women are individuals, not a monolithic bloc.
Men don’t what to raise children that aren’t theirs.
Again, don’t generalize. I’d much rather adopt an orphan than increase the amount of living people, all the while knowing my genes would much rather be copied. I don’t fear my moral inclinations will be outbred; I can just teach them to my adopted children. Every man (and woman, and genderless person, and all variations thereupon) has hir own motivations and interests. Ignoring individual differences is one of the problems with this particular brand of sexism.
Why betas should have longer attention span than alphas?
...seriously?
The point Azathoth is making is that there is only so many hours in a day. An alpha male may sleep with many women, but he can only give his attention to one or a few. Beta males, who are lucky to have one woman, are free to concentrate all their attention on her and her children. Therefore, females who fail to attract the alpha male for anything but a quickie have a preference for fooling beta males into raising the resulting alpha male’s children. Beta males, obviously, do not share this preference.
Beta males, who are lucky to have one woman, are free to concentrate all their attention on her and her children.
But this is not a successful reproduction strategy. If your genes dictates that you devote all your attention to a female that already has one children that is not yours, then your genes will be marginalized very quickly. Thus, only short attention span children are raised.
Of course you can. Theology is very easily observable. One can ask what the theology should be blamed on, but that goes back to the dawn of history and is but speculation and fog.
So here’s some speculation for why patriarchal traditions are so prevalent, which I suppose has been at the back of my mind for as long as I’ve been aware of such issues, although I’ve never seen it stated so starkly as I am about to.
Men are physically stronger than women.
Without modern science, paternity cannot be observed, only enforced (see (1)).
It seems to me that these two facts are a sufficient explanation for the entire phenomenon of both religious and secular suppression of women. Men have been able to, men have wanted to, men have done. Might makes might. “If you want a picture of the past, imagine a man’s boot stamping on a woman’s face – for ever.”
Explanations of how all women really want to be controlled by a strong man are window dressing, excreted by the virtual outcome pumps in the heads of those who find current mores uncongenial to continuing in that way, and who nowadays must use ideas as ammunition instead of stones.
Then way are women so willing to throw themselves in front of abusive men?
Some women are willing to throw themselves in front of abusive men. It doesn’t follow that all women really want to be controlled by a strong man.
I think a lot of women believe that they are and/or should be able to improve abusive men.
Yes, and this belief appears to be sufficiently pervasive and impervious to evidence that its clear there is something more driving it.
My reading of the situation is not that women prefer abusive men or prefer to be controlled. My reading is that women (warning: crude generalizations incoming) like to be/feel protected and prefer strong men. Given this, some women consider being abusive to be evidence of strength, and some women are willing to trade some control or some abuse for getting a strong man. This may or may not be a good trade, depending on the circumstances.
Yes, this is the position I’m trying to argue.
For what (little) I have read about abusive relationship, my pet theory is that abuses are like superstimulus for things like assertiveness, confidence, strength, etc.
Some women get imprinted with this kind of behaviour in such a way they are no more able to find attractive kinder men.
Some women are. I don’t have the feeling for what proportion of women are willing to have relationships with obviously abusive men.
The usual account of abusive relationships is that the abusive escalates fairly slowly—I don’t know whether the initially abusive relationship is too embarrassing to talk about.
I don’t generally bother pointing out typos, but this one might be worth fixing.
Thanks. Corrected.
Really, can you show me where?
You left out a few important ones:
3. A man can potentially impregnate many women.
4. Having a man to help raise a woman’s children greatly increases their prospects (this is the reason your (2) matters).
5. Unlike his sperm, a man’s attention is a rather limited resource.
So, women would prefer to have children by an alpha male. They would also prefer to find a beta male to help raise them (they would like even more to have the alpha male raise them but see (5)). Men don’t what to raise children that aren’t theirs.
Any library or bookshop.
This is no longer true in countries where women can earn their own living.
Don’t generalize. Women are individuals, not a monolithic bloc.
Again, don’t generalize. I’d much rather adopt an orphan than increase the amount of living people, all the while knowing my genes would much rather be copied. I don’t fear my moral inclinations will be outbred; I can just teach them to my adopted children. Every man (and woman, and genderless person, and all variations thereupon) has hir own motivations and interests. Ignoring individual differences is one of the problems with this particular brand of sexism.
Markdown automatically renumbered your 5 to 3; if you want it not to, add backslashes i.e.
3\.,4\.and5\..Thanks, fixed.
I find this to be the weakest point. Why betas should have longer attention span than alphas?
...seriously?
The point Azathoth is making is that there is only so many hours in a day. An alpha male may sleep with many women, but he can only give his attention to one or a few. Beta males, who are lucky to have one woman, are free to concentrate all their attention on her and her children. Therefore, females who fail to attract the alpha male for anything but a quickie have a preference for fooling beta males into raising the resulting alpha male’s children. Beta males, obviously, do not share this preference.
But this is not a successful reproduction strategy. If your genes dictates that you devote all your attention to a female that already has one children that is not yours, then your genes will be marginalized very quickly. Thus, only short attention span children are raised.