This is a comment from John D. on Patriarchy Shmatriarchy
The most successful societies are the ones predicated upon the twin pillars of men’s denial of self-worth by men and protection of women.
The reasoning is simple. Women are the limiting factor in human reproduction.
Let’s say a village of 20 adults (10 men and 10 women) will have 9 hunters killed this upcoming year due to a surprise stampede or whatever.
The hypothetical village that protects women (even restricting their choices to participate) and encourages men to self-sacrifice would then see 9 of the men dead.
1 very happy men + 10 women will equal 10 babies per year or every other year to repopulate.
A society that shares in equally in all risky things like hunting will have 5.5 men and 5.5 women, meaning 5 or 6 babies each cycle.
A society in which women are expected to self-sacrifice for men will have 1 women and 10 men which will yield 1 baby per birth cycle. It’s clearly obvious that male disposability + female safety = reproductive success. Whether it’s culture or genetics really doesn’t matter.
The issue is we’re not in a hunter/gatherer state anymore. This is a country with artificial hearts, that put people on the moon, has gay marriage and a black president. It’s time to act as evolved as we claim we are and squeeze a little bit of room on the victim stage for men where and when it is deserved (which large feminist organizations mostly oppose).
It’s about time to advocate for men when and where they truly need it (like the 9 to 1 ratio of men over women in homelessness and suicide). Not that you said we shouldn’t.
—
photo: nasa.gov
Heather. Wrong again. It is not a “personal” issue. It is a clear demonstration of how some people act. I’m not the only one. See cops and soldiers. There is a cohort of people who dismiss the idea that men should be expected to take care of the rough business…until it’s necessary for THEM, and then they think it’s a dandy idea. My anecdote is not meant as a personal illustration. Anybody with eyes,whether they admit in public or not, has seen the same thing. But, from the safety of the keyboard, they can pretend otherwise. Because they know that… Read more »
I’m sorry for misinterpreting your last comment as a personal issue. I didn’t mean to imply that your view of it was invalid by saying I thought it was personal. I just thought that a lot of what you were saying was coming from your own personal experiences. But I apologize for misunderstanding what you said in that last comment. Regardless, we’re not getting anywhere in our dialogue here. So I’ll bow out. I’m not agreeing with you, by the way (I just have to put that out there). I could discuss this with you for weeks, probably, because that’s… Read more »
Richard, The thing is that were men voluntarily engage in whatever behaviors they see fit (whether it’s soldiering, working on an offshore oil rig 6 months at a time or whatever) that’s fine. What I don’t agree with is that your sentiment that when shit goes bad, men can be used as fodder is used as fuel in society to destroy men who never signed up for sh1t. This sentiment of men as blunt tools is used to rob men of equal access to emergency services, help with homelessness, suicide, education and parental rights. Those men who didn’t sign up… Read more »
You keep stating you think empathy for men is a weakness, but it is a strength. In fact, I would say that one of the reasons we as a society is so weak is because we have so little empathy for men. When we refuse to care about fathers parental rights, our society becomes suffused with nearly feral generations of children who were raised without fathers guiding hand to help build respect for the civil society. It’s no coincidence in the timing of the UK riots, and there new family court protocols protecting the visitation rights of dads. When we… Read more »
Heather. Among other things, I don’t think men taking the heavy work and the danger is a biologically unavoidable proposition. I think it’s such a sensible proposition that everybody knows it’s a good idea except when blogging and nothing bad is coming at them in the real, material, meat world. When I mentioned the situation where my colleagues were not mesomorphs and I was, I was talking about civil rights work at Rust College, MS where Tom’s father had worked a couple of years before. As I said, everybody had heart. Wouldn’t have been there otherwise. But that was in… Read more »
Okay what I’m getting is that this is a very personal issue for you, Richard. It sounds to me like you’re saying you went through a period as a younger adult where you were criticized for being a physically fit guy who was interested in doing “tough guy” type activities (such as football, etc). Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’m getting. I acknowledge that and I respect that. However, I think because it is such a personal issue for you we aren’t going to come to an understanding by having a dialogue about it. I know that… Read more »
Okay Richard: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Hunters-First-Farmers-Perspectives/dp/0933452918 http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Farmers-Origins-Agricultural-Societies/dp/0631205667 Those are links to the two books we used in my class about the beginning of hunting. I’m not sure exactly which one will explain it. Unfortunately I can’t look in mine, because they’re about 5500 miles and an ocean away. Also there’s this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html The article suggests that a gendered division of labor may have been part of why humans survived and Neanderthals didn’t. But I’d like to point out that they mention that it’s too simple to point to one factor and say that’s why the Neanderthals went extinct. Also, the part that’s valid… Read more »
Well sugar….
when I said “about the beginning of hunting” that should have read “about the beginning of farming.”
I spotted the same thing about the Neanderthals. Gender division of labor could be the key, but there are all sorts of differences between H nea and H sap that could have a role to play. If the sexual dynamics were the only difference between the two or even the biggest difference between the two, then the explanation would be much clearer, but it’s not. The gender division hypothesis is at least fairly plausible compared to some of the other hypotheses that have appeared over the years. At one point the popular theory was that the Neanderthal skull size kept… Read more »
“Were the “hobbit” hominids found in Indonesia egalitarian, and if so, is that why they went extinct?” – Before we even ask that we gotta find out whether the h. sapiens in Indonesia were even dividing labor based on gender. 🙂 Just adding that to the rest of what you’re saying because, yeah I totally agree. I only linked that article to indicate that homo sapiens weren’t dividing labor from the beginning, and yet still got along just fine. And your bit here: “Big picture: probably a million years from now the question will be “Why did the Neanderthal species… Read more »
For the sake of more humor, I’d like to request that you hop onto a plane, wellokaythen, and come to the UK to help me when I have to defend my thesis. You keep bringing up things that I mean to mention (but I’m not clear enough) or you bring up topics that I completely forgot about (until you mention them). So yeah if I could just borrow you, in case I forget to mention something during my viva, that’d be awesome. Don’t worry though, it won’t be for another couple years…plenty of time for you to brush up on… Read more »
“t’s about time to advocate for men when and where they truly need it (like the 9 to 1 ratio of men over women in homelessness and suicide). Not that you said we shouldn’t.” I 100% support your sentiment, but I think that one way MRAs differentiate themselves from feminists is we are honest and forthwright about statistics. As such, here are the numbers: The ratio of sheltered homeless is 6 to 4. The ratio of UN-sheltered homeless is 9 to 1. The ratio of suicide victims is 4 to 1 I don’t mean to be picky. This is purely… Read more »
Hey AZ, I’m aware of the stats (and if I remember correctly I did post more detailed stats earlier in the thread that this comment was lifted from. I just condensed them to make my point briefer. I (and many others) had typed a LOT of very long comments. I don’t think 9 to 1 in suicide is that much of a stretch from 8 to 2. But, I accept your point. I just want you to understand the circumstances surrounding my post. I was not aware of the stats on sheltered homeless genders. While I think that may or… Read more »
Here is another little factoid that may interest you. The numher of unsheltered homeless can not be known with accuracy, because they are invisible. The number I report comes from a so called “point in time” survey (PIT), which means that on a single day, federal agencies all over the nation scour the streets looking for homeless people who sleep “outdoors” under bridges, in dumpsters, on sidewalks, etc. Question: What DAY OF THE YEAR do you suppose the PIT surveys are done on? Answer: January 15 Because I am an MRA, I interpret this in the least charitable way possible:… Read more »
I share your skepticism. Although, it could be a budgetary thing. Maybe these departments do it when they are flush with cash, because they are afraid if they wait then there will be no cash and there would be charges that “so and so” department doesn’t care about the homeless.
P.S. Almost forgot: why does sexual dimorphism and gender division show up in so many different ways in the animal kingdom? Females give birth and males don’t, but the result of that is an incredible variety of social organization. Why isn’t human society like a pride of lions, where the alpha male does virtually nothing but sleep and get females pregnant, and the females do almost all the hunting and every other job? (I know some women who would say that’s not so different from the men they know….)
I’d like to say that this is a really interesting question and I have no idea. I so wish I still knew some biological anthropologists.
Actually now that I say that…I bet it is argued that it has something to do with environmental pressures + the environmental niche that humans originally filled.
The idea that males “do nothing” in a lion pride is ludicrous. The males are there to protect the cubs; when the bad guys show up, they go to war, kick some ass, then go back to napping and playing with their kids. Just by being there, they also do something in warding off predators; a lion cub alone is a tasty treat to, say, a hyena, but a hyena would be far less likely to go after it when they have a 500-pound male lion to tangle with in the way. Male lions are, shortly put, the guardians of… Read more »
Well alright, but the point wasn’t about specific lion habits. The point was that even though the sexual roles of female giving birth and men not giving birth, are the same throughout the animal kingdom, their social roles are different in different species. (And yeah I’m sure you could point me to a couple bizarre outliers or something. Like the clown fish that can change sex, but that’s beyond the point).
Sorry, had to correct zoology errors.
I see your point. There is an offsetting biological factor, though: the need for genetic diversity. A village with only one man and 10 women will result in quite a bit of inbreeding over a few generations. (In the Adam and Eve story, I keep wondering where their grandchildren came from if it’s not from incest….) There would have to be a minimum number of males, not just to produce pregnancy, but just to supply enough genetic diversity. Killing off too many males would also be bad, so there has to be some minimum guarantee that some men will survive.… Read more »
I see your point about genetic diversity and beta males. Although it wouldn’t necessarily have to be a beta male, but a hunter past his prime. You can always pull men off the 2nd string team or the bench. Even grandpa could do in a pinch (until environmental factors of the modern age came into it, my understanding is that most men could father children right up to their death). But, the same is not true of women. Grandma, can’t come off the bench for reproduction. So, all women of child-bearing age would be considered first string. There would be… Read more »
Good point about the older men. Perhaps a smart beta who managed to avoid excessive dangers would be more likely to live to a ripe old age than a stressed-out alpha in constant danger…. Wouldn’t having women with longer reproductive lives accomplish the same thing as men having longer reproductive lives? (Leaving aside for the moment all the social and environmental factors that influence fertility. Boxers vs. briefs, e.g.) I think what you’re pointing out are some powerful factors in the course of human evolution. There is at some level a fundamental constant about which sex gives birth and which… Read more »
This. Times a million.
“Wouldn’t having women with longer reproductive lives accomplish the same thing as men having longer reproductive lives? (Leaving aside for the moment all the social and environmental factors that influence fertility. Boxers vs. briefs, e.g.)”
Nope, reproduction puts an infinitely greater strain on women. Theres no way to keep the female reproductive window open while still ensuring the quality of her offspring. Just to give a minor example: aren’t there developmental conditions that are more associated with older births than younger ones? Comparitively speaking, its not all that taxing to ejaculate.
wellokaythen. Your comment about inbreeding and the offsetting handicap has a flaw: John D’s hypo is that nine of the men are dead. Thus, any concern about inbreeding, which may be valid, isn’t going to bring the nine dead back to life. So you deal with what you have. The actual flaw in this scenario is that we have eleven people, before babies, and only one guy hunting. This group is toast. We know/we think that paleos married out of the group, either due to boredom with the locals or some concern about inbreeding, or for some other reason. Presumably,… Read more »
“The actual flaw in this scenario is that we have eleven people, before babies, and only one guy hunting. This group is toast.” I didn’t say the analogy was perfect. But the main point I was driving at is that there is an evolutionary advantage to male self-sacrifice. However, we’re not repopulating the earth anymore. If a ship goes down, I don’t think it has to be “women and children first” anymore. How about families first, single adults second? But, considering all the advancements we have made to do away with obstacles for women to enter the workplace, for gays… Read more »
Families first, then single adults second. Great. I’d still be hosed. Before I would have died on the Titanic for having a penis. Now I’ll die on the Titanic because I got a vasectomy. Can I count my wife and I as a “family of two”? How about those divorced dads with partial custody? I say draw lots, like sailors do when they have to decide who on the adrift rowboat gets eaten by the others. This used to be called the ‘Law of the Sea’. If Molly Brown wants to yell at me for being in the lifeboat, she… Read more »
Hehehe, I chuckled at the intentional humor injected into this post. Nice. Divorced dads with partial custody? Yup I’d include them into the parents and kids first. Maybe this is biologically programmed into use…but I put a child’s life above an adults. So a child and their caregivers (might be a better way to put it). I mean OBVIOUSLY in the middle of a crisis you can’t say “hey show me proof that you’re this child’s legal guardian,” before letting them into the life boat. But then, there are always people that will try to take advantage of any system.… Read more »
Or how about the parents get picked (to be saved) and the kids don’t. Agreed heather. Children should DEFINITELY have a leg up in any system, because of being more vulnerable to physical domination in the line or what have you (vulnerability) and also because they have a lot more of their life left. I think children and guardians (as you put in much better) would be the most fair way to divy things up. Quite frankly, if I had kids I think it would be just silly to not stay with my wife and kids to protect them. While… Read more »
“Honestly, I don’t even know why people are trying to inflict “women and children first” anymore.” I’m even more surprised that men are trying to push this system. I mean, what? Why? Do you have some need to make a “noble sacrifice,” or something? It’s like when I was in high school and I’d preach about letting women have combat roles in the military, or including women in the draft, or doing away with different physical qualifications for the same job. It was always men who were like…”nooooo we can’t do that.” And that just never made sense to me.… Read more »
Thanks Heather.
I apologize for occasionally being snarky on the other thread.
I am very happy to see that after a lot of wrangling it appears we agree a heckuva lot more than we disagree.
It’s understandable; this is an issue that rightfully brings up a lot of emotions. I think this is a case of us both going into our discussion with certain expectations, then we actually read what the other person was saying, and realized that those expectations weren’t true at all. I think it just took us awhile to realize that I’m not a crazy hardcore feminist infiltrator trying to convert or condemn the “womyn” and “menz” here at GMP. And you’re not a conspiracy nut that jumps at shadows and cries out ‘male dehumanization!’ at the slightest provocation. 😀 😉
I’m trying to decide whether I should bring up the fact that hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian than our biology would suggest? Do I point out that some societies engage in polyandry? Or do I let it go and just say that I agree with your sentiment. How about I do this:
“It’s about time to advocate for men when and where they truly need it (like the 9 to 1 ratio of men over women in homelessness and suicide).” – Amen!