But I don’t feel like I’m any less confused about the topic.
It seems like you might have meant to be comprehensive? I feel like, if that is the case, this is missing a lot of references to at least some kind of generic/nebulous ‘some other explanation’ along the dimensions you mention.
I don’t think I agree with this in particular:
The question of how patriarchy arise and perpetuate is of course an extraordinarily complex question that requires careful empirical work and it’s beyond the scope of this post to review that literature here.
I’m not entirely sold on the idea of ‘patriarchy’ itself. (I think there’s something there ’in that direction.)
But, it seems reasonable that how it arose was basically because of the fact of human violence, particularly inter-tribal (or inter-tribal-band), and the comparative advantage that males, especially young males, have at doing violence to other people, particularly ‘cultural competitors’.
Razib Khan published some posts about male violence that seem particularly apt for thinking about the ‘rise of patriarchy’:
Interestingly, ‘patriarchy’ maybe existed long before what Razib describes, but possibly attenuated (and maybe by a lot). ‘Extreme patriarchy’ might be (relatively) more recent and a result of a very ‘successful’ memeplex that was able to spread itself in its environment.
I find ideas along the lines that “we should be paying mothers and other caring roles that women disproportionately take on as we would pay any high status, important job” confusing.
For one, I’m very skeptical that people that propose things like that are actually proponents of ‘capitalism’ anyways.
Secondly, I think this is a confusing way to speak/write about ‘status’. There isn’t a role that’s ‘high status’ and also something that nearly half of all humans can do – without being explicitly restricted via, e.g. certification, unions/guilds. Lawyers and doctors are relatively well paid compared to other roles/jobs/occupations/careers, but not at all lawyers and doctors are in fact paid well, let alone to the level of ‘high status’. The market mechanisms by which different lawyers and doctors are paid different amounts are, even if complex, pretty understandable. Would there also be market for “mothers and other caring roles” where specific ‘buyers/clients’ pay the particular woman/mother ‘seller/service-providers’ and everyone negotiating prices thru the typical market means of doing so?
Or is the idea something like ‘$X is the average pay of … doctors; every woman/mother will be paid $X too forever’?
Would there be any kind of ‘consumer protection’ in any of this?
Maybe these lines of thoughts are loose/casual and they weren’t even intended to be considered as any kind of instance of or even analogy too what’s often mentioned in these kinds of statements.
But it sure seems like maybe it’s ‘adopting the language of its enemies’ or for some other reason difficult to translate into any-kind-of concrete terms.
I like what I think you’re attempting to do in this post!
But I don’t feel like I’m any less confused about the topic.
It seems like you might have meant to be comprehensive? I feel like, if that is the case, this is missing a lot of references to at least some kind of generic/nebulous ‘some other explanation’ along the dimensions you mention.
I don’t think I agree with this in particular:
I’m not entirely sold on the idea of ‘patriarchy’ itself. (I think there’s something there ’in that direction.)
But, it seems reasonable that how it arose was basically because of the fact of human violence, particularly inter-tribal (or inter-tribal-band), and the comparative advantage that males, especially young males, have at doing violence to other people, particularly ‘cultural competitors’.
Razib Khan published some posts about male violence that seem particularly apt for thinking about the ‘rise of patriarchy’:
The wolf at history’s door
Casting out the wolf in our midst
Interestingly, ‘patriarchy’ maybe existed long before what Razib describes, but possibly attenuated (and maybe by a lot). ‘Extreme patriarchy’ might be (relatively) more recent and a result of a very ‘successful’ memeplex that was able to spread itself in its environment.
I find ideas along the lines that “we should be paying mothers and other caring roles that women disproportionately take on as we would pay any high status, important job” confusing.
For one, I’m very skeptical that people that propose things like that are actually proponents of ‘capitalism’ anyways.
Secondly, I think this is a confusing way to speak/write about ‘status’. There isn’t a role that’s ‘high status’ and also something that nearly half of all humans can do – without being explicitly restricted via, e.g. certification, unions/guilds. Lawyers and doctors are relatively well paid compared to other roles/jobs/occupations/careers, but not at all lawyers and doctors are in fact paid well, let alone to the level of ‘high status’. The market mechanisms by which different lawyers and doctors are paid different amounts are, even if complex, pretty understandable. Would there also be market for “mothers and other caring roles” where specific ‘buyers/clients’ pay the particular woman/mother ‘seller/service-providers’ and everyone negotiating prices thru the typical market means of doing so?
Or is the idea something like ‘$X is the average pay of … doctors; every woman/mother will be paid $X too forever’?
Would there be any kind of ‘consumer protection’ in any of this?
Maybe these lines of thoughts are loose/casual and they weren’t even intended to be considered as any kind of instance of or even analogy too what’s often mentioned in these kinds of statements.
But it sure seems like maybe it’s ‘adopting the language of its enemies’ or for some other reason difficult to translate into any-kind-of concrete terms.