The Atheist Case for Patriarchy

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

I have a new post up at the Feminine Mystique TWRA (Traditional Women’s Rights Activists) blog the readers here might be interested in. It is called The Atheist Case for Patriarchy. Just as the title suggests I lay out the basic case for patriarchy from an atheist point of view. The post is in response to an article about me written by Libby Anne at the Love, Joy, Feminism blog at Patheos. Libby Anne asked the question which is more “rage inducing;” a secular or religious supporter of patriarchy. I don’t really see why the subject of patriarchy should cause “rage,” patriarchy is really just common sense. Here’s the article by Libby Anne I am responding to:

Which Is More Rage-Inducing?
Patheos – Atheist Channel – Love, Joy, Feminism
By Libby Anne
February 12, 2013
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ucing.html

As for my article The Atheist Case for Patriarchy my approach is to first highlight the intellectual hypocrisy of the comment thread at Libby Anne’s post and then to lay out my basic argument for why it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to support patriarchy. I first ask is patriarchy compatible with evolution? Yes. Is patriarchy logically plausible and internally consistent as a possible social system? Yes. Is there statistical evidence to back up the hypothesis that patriarchy is good? Definitely, yes. Therefore my case is made; patriarchy is good and furthermore patriarchy can be defended and supported from the atheist point of view.

Here is the article at the Feminine Mystique TWRA site:

The Atheist Case for Patriarchy
Feminine Mystique TWRA
By Jesse Powell
April 3, 2013
http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.c ... atriarchy/

Any questions or comments?

(By the way, I didn’t choose the picture accompanying my article at the Feminine Mystique TWRA site; the picture is Edita TWRA’s sense of humor.)

[halophilic]

I posted on your site but I'll copy here for discussion. Respond to either, both, or neither. :)

Just to address a point from this post:

“All atheists believe in evolution I would presume since all the other theories of the origin of life require a supernatural “creator” that by definition the atheist rejects. ”

You’re conflating the origin of life with Evolution when Evolution has nothing to do with it at all. Evolution requires genetic information to pass down generationally to function at all so the transition from non-life to life could not possibly be through Evolution.

It may have occurred through an Evolution-like process, but Evolution is only concerned with life changing over time, not starting from non-life.

And not all atheists accept Evolution. Evolution also has nothing to do with atheism.

—————————————————
The question of whether Patriarchy is consistent with Evolution is a non-question: it doesn’t matter. In many ways, rape and murder are “consistent” with Evolution, but that doesn’t make them right or the best way for society to function. Naturalistic fallacy 101 here.

I definitely agree that as a sexual dimorphic species, men and women have different physiological traits and therefore may be better suited for certain roles; What I fail to see is why this means that they *should* be put in those roles. Everyone being pigeonholed into optimal roles isn’t how society has ever functioned and if men can fulfill traditionally female roles and vice versa “good enough” I don’t see why they shouldn’t.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

In the way I put together my argument that patriarchy is good or at least rational from an atheist perspective I first posited that it was consistent with evolution that I presume most atheists would agree with. This establishes that it is “natural” or consistent with evolved human traits. Then I posited that patriarchy is a reasonable or plausible way to organize human society and family relations; in other words that a patriarchal social system might work. Lastly I asserted the superiority of patriarchy based on patriarchy producing family forms that serve children best; namely married couple families that don’t divorce and where the mother does not work for money so that the mother can dedicate herself to the children.

As far as not all atheists believe in evolution; that might be so since I suppose it is not part of the definition of atheist to believe in evolution but it would seem quite strange to me for an atheist to reject evolution since evolution is by far the most scientifically sound explanation for how life developed and why species are the way they are. True evolution might not explain the initiation of life but to me that is irrelevant since the issue is not how life came to be, the issue is why life has the characteristics that is has. Regarding gender relations the issue is more specifically why men and women have the characteristics that they have. My assumption is that whatever characteristics men and women have they have these characteristics due to evolution and that furthermore the particular characteristics that they have are meant to enable the man or woman to serve their particular functions as men or women.

As far as the naturalistic fallacy, that not everything that is natural is good, I would most definitely agree that not everything that is natural is good but I would say that most things that are natural are good. The natural things that are bad are like errors of defects or vulnerabilities; these bad natural characteristics exist but they do not make up the majority of the whole. If dysfunctional bits were the majority phenomenon the human species wouldn’t have been able to survive long in the first place as the errors within the human structure would then dominate and lead to the failure of the species. Furthermore patriarchy is such a dominant and overwhelming characteristic of human social organization that patriarchy being bad would have probably led to human societal collapse long ago. Instead what we see is that human social organization held up quite well until just very recently when feminism appeared indicating that it is the mutation and novelty of feminism that is leading to societal collapse; not anything wrong with patriarchy.

Everyone being pigeonholed into optimal roles isn’t how society has ever functioned and if men can fulfill traditionally female roles and vice versa “good enough” I don’t see why they shouldn’t.

As far as men and women being pigeonholed into optimal roles in the past; this is exactly what happened in the past maybe not totally but to a much greater extent than it is occurring today. One of the most remarkable facts about family life in the United States 100 years ago is that married women almost never worked. The labor force participation of married men was very high 100 years ago, say about 97% in the 25 to 54 age group, but for married women their labor force participation was only 3% among white women in 1900. In other words there was almost a complete dichotomy in married couples where the husband worked and the wife did not; this in spite of the overall poverty of that era compared to today. Gender roles were very rigidly enforced 100 years ago and the value placed upon family stability was very high.

As far as men being “good enough” at traditionally female roles and vice versa; why settle for “good enough” when ideal is available? Gender bending actually produces a lot of problems and should only be resorted to if by necessity; a dysfunctional and sub-optimal way of living should never be chosen by choice.

[16bitheretic]

Just as a side note, not every atheist believes in evolution. I know it sounds crazy, but it's true. Look up Raelians or people who think we are code in some type of Matrix simulation. In fact I have lately been seeing more and more of these people proposing physics hypotheses as proof of us being in a videogame-style simulation and using all sorts of sciencey-sounding quantum language to back up the idea we are nothing but data.

But that's really off-topic, I just wanted to point out not all atheists are rational or adhere to the principles of waiting until you have actual supporting evidence to declare a knowledge of real things.



Now, getting back on topic, if you are proposing that we set up laws and societies based on evolutionary principles can you deal with the evolutionary reality that 98% of every species that has ever lived has died off, that every hominid species except our own has died off, and that every advance we've made in treating illnesses, extending life beyond the reproductive age and caring for the elderly and disabled runs counter to letting natural selection just run it's course?

Should we have just let someone like Stephen Hawking die off when he began showing signs of motor neurone disease? If we base societal structure on evolution, which is driven by natural selection, then letting someone like Hawking die off to benefit those who have better genetic stock is actually reasonable and logical. I suppose you'll say I'm taking your position to an extreme or using a slippery slope argument, but if we start trying to dictate to individuals what "role" they should play in society because of our evolutionary past, it doesn't take much of a stretch to follow that thinking to a certain very morbid conclusions.

Now, the other objection I have to this patriarchy thing is the same one we discussed previously, and that's by what authority do we enforce roles upon people? Do we just toss individual autonomy out the window simply because on average different groups of people have differences in physical and mental traits? If some couple out there wants to set up their own household in a patriarchal fashion that's fine, it;s their decision. If people want to promote patriarchy as an optional lifestyle choice I have no issues with that since I respect people's freedom of choice (so long as they don't violate anyone's human rights). But when I've read TWRA stuff before I see your movement's point of view does actively endorse legislation promoting patriarchal ideas as law and that runs counter to what is in my opinion the greatest ideal we strive for in the modern era: the idea that every human being is a free individual with rights of self-autonomy. It's this sort of recognition of individual rights that has led to the advances in human rights we've made in the post-Enlightenment world, and I'm not enthused or supportive of any system which would seek to impose roles on individuals, especially if we impose things on people because of generalizations of populations.

[halophilic]

Essentially agree with all of 16bitheretic's points.

I'll just mention that it's still a naturalistic fallacy to say that "that most things that are natural are good." Making any value judgement based on how things are is problematic. For instance, the case could easily be made that cranking out humans at the maximally societally efficient pace is a bad thing for humans and the planet at large. Putting humans in "optimal" roles for society could be determined to be an actual bad rather than good.

Also I don't buy the idea that gender bending is inherently bad. The idea that a person's gender has essentially any influence on their ability to raise children or function in society at large is nonsense to me. Willingness, resources, and opportunity seem infinitely more important than whether I have a penis.

[Metalogic42]

As far as men being “good enough” at traditionally female roles and vice versa; why settle for “good enough” when ideal is available? Gender bending actually produces a lot of problems and should only be resorted to if by necessity; a dysfunctional and sub-optimal way of living should never be chosen by choice.

The problem with patriarchy as it applies to family structure is the same as the problem with anti-patriarchy: in both cases, there will be some who want to do something else. There's some couples who want to be a working father and stay at home mother, there's some who want to be a working mother and stay at home father, and there's some who want to both be working. There's also same-sex couples raising children.

Obviously, not all parents are going to be smashing successes, but you have a problem here. If we say to certain couples, "you would be better at child-rearing if you switched your work and home roles*", then we have to also say that to other couples about a lot of other things. What about, "you would be better at child-rearing if you stopped working the night shift and started working the day shift"? The problem is, you can't just ask people to change their lives like this, especially when you'd often be asking them to change into sub-optimal roles. If you meet a couple where the mother works for a $70k a year salary, and the father quit his $25k a year job to stay home and raise the kids (maybe he wasn't lucky enough to afford an education, or maybe the economy is in the shitter), are you really going to tell them that they should have done it differently? Are you going to hire the husband to work for you for $70k a year?

TLDR: the best way to raise children is for the parents to decide on an individual basis, not a general one, which parenting roles they should respectively take.

Side note: what problems do you think "gender bending" produces, and why?


*this isn't going to always be the case, either. Some men are better suited to stay at home, and some women are better suited to go out and work. It has little to do with gender and much to do with their individual personalities and behaviors.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

Responding to 16birtheretic:

I’m not particularly advocating that we set up society based on evolutionary principles; evolutionary principles simply explain why a particular type of social organization works while other variations of social organization don’t work. I don’t advocate patriarchy because it fits with evolutionary theory; I advocate patriarchy because it fits with the psychology of men and women and the natural strengths of men and women. The reason for bringing up evolution in this context is to explain why the psychology of men and women is what it is and why men have the strengths they have and women have the strengths they have. In other words evolution is explanatory but the point is not to obey evolution, the point is to conform to the reality evolution has created.

As far as things that are “contrary to evolution” such as high tech health care that allows people to live longer than they would in a natural primitive state or allows people to live for an extended time with disabilities when earlier they would have died rather quickly; I have no moral problem with such things. If these things have social value and are good they have social value and are good whether they are consistent with evolution or not. Again the point is not obedience to evolution; the point is conformity to the reality evolution has created. If modern advances have allowed people to “outsmart” evolution so to speak then all the better, there is no problem with that. Social values and the ideals to strive for are determined by the human community based on their own sense of right and wrong and their own preferences and desires. That being said the legacy of evolution still restricts what human beings collectively can do in terms of social relationships because if social relationships are organized in a way contrary to our natural strengths and desires nothing good will come of it. We cannot alter our inheritance whether we find our inheritance inconvenient or restricting or not; we are what we are and there is nothing we can do to change that. It is our destiny, the destiny imposed upon us by the attributes given to us by evolution. Evolution assigning to men one set of attributes and assigning to women another set of attributes; these attributes working together in a complementary fashion to provide the most support to children.

As to the question regarding by what authority can I presume to impose my particular beliefs regarding family life upon others; the simple answer is through the government. The same question of “by what authority or right do you have the right to impose your beliefs upon me!” can be asked of any person or governing authority. A society will always be in the business of “imposing its values” upon those who disagree with the values being imposed. How to actually develop a cohesive society that is not in anarchy or constant conflict is what politics and the government is all about. I do have the belief that the right and the good tends to overpower the wrong and the bad over time because what is good tends to draw support while what is bad tends to breed opposition making the good overall more powerful than the bad overall; by this mechanism the good tends to win making life functional most of the time. Answering your question in practical terms however my right to impose my values upon others is derived from me being right and political activism changing government policies and cultural attitudes is the means through which a proper social order will be restored. That is the whole point of the TWRA group I am a part of; to change cultural attitudes and ultimately the law in a positive direction.

To change rhetorical directions a bit and use some religious language; it is God that determines what is right and what is wrong and obedience to God is the ultimate source of all legitimate authority. I have the right to impose my values upon others to the extent my values are an expression of God’s will. Laws and moral rules and cultural biases are only legitimate to the extent that they conform to God’s plan and God’s will. The ultimate question regarding what is right and what is wrong and whose beliefs should dominate must ultimately be derivative of whose beliefs are closer to God’s truth as God is the ultimate source of objective reality and objective morality.

As far as the issue of patriarchy being a couple’s lifestyle choice or it being a cultural standard that the overall rules and ethical values of society promote; the latter is much better than the former. I would even say that the former is unworkable and unstable because groups always seek to impose conformity upon the group members. A group always has a belief in what is right and what is wrong so the group always seeks to punish and stigmatize those who do not conform to the group’s idea of “the moral life.” Modern feminist society is very hostile to traditional family arrangements. This is simply a fact; traditional men are accused of being abusive and domineering and oppressive towards their wives and traditional women are accused of being lazy and stupid and wasting their talents and being psychologically afraid of dealing with reality and taking on responsibilities. These kinds of accusations are the dominant society’s way of trying to impose uniformity on everyone. In addition to the harsh social pressure applied to men and women to conform to the feminist lifestyle the laws are also geared towards promoting feminism and making traditional family lifestyles unworkable. The ultimate point being that a group norm is always imposed upon the group; the issue is whether the group norm is good or bad. A feminist group norm is bad; a patriarchal group norm is good. This is why I advocate in favor of a patriarchal group norm and against the prevailing feminist group norm.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's pointless to endorse or oppose The Patriarchy when its very existence has yet to be shown. Sure, there exist organizations and social & leadership structures with patriarchal tendencies, but the concept of an all-pervasive The Patriarchy, as posited by gender feminists, must be rejected as unfalsifiable. All arguments for its existence are tautological.

But if y'all want your secretaries to crawl on their hands & knees like Maggie Gyllenhall, go for it!


P.S. Your Feminine Mystique parody site is a hoot! Like when you say a woman devalues herself by having pre-marital sex? LOL, that's what I value most in a woman! And the part about a wife remaining an ethereal virgin being the best gift a man could ever receive, when everybody knows that's either a sno-mobile or a blow job. The best one is: "to keep a husbands interest a woman must foster a love for knowledge and education". That, or vacuuming in the nude.

These jokes are hilarious -- keep 'em coming.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

Responding to Metalogic42:

Side note: what problems do you think "gender bending" produces, and why?

First of all I will say that men can perform the functions of women part-way successfully and women can perform the functions of men part-way successfully. Men are not totally lacking in feminine attributes and women are not totally lacking in masculine attributes. In real life sometimes a man has to step into a woman’s role and vice versa. It would be mal-adaptive evolutionarily speaking for men and women to be totally incompetent in the roles of the opposite sex because in real life sometimes bad things happen or things don’t work out as planned in which case one sex may have to perform the role of the opposite sex in particular situations.

I will further grant that there is variation in the relative skill levels of individuals regarding typically masculine or typically feminine behaviors that may not match the norm of their biological gender. In other words some women may be truly good at some functions that are typically masculine and vice versa.

All that being said gender bending is still a bad idea the great majority of the time even when an individual may desire to play more the role of the other sex and even when an individual may be particularly good at some function that is more typically performed by the other sex. In other words conformity to gender roles has value even when such conformity may conflict with an individual’s desires and even when a particular individual may be fully competent performing the task usually done by the other gender.

The reason why this is so is because gender roles are intrinsically interactive and part of a wider social context. It is not just the individual who decides to “gender bend” that is affected by the individual’s choice to “gender bend.” The individual is in relationship with others and it is these relationships with others that may be harmed by the gender bending behavior.

A good example of this recently in the news is the finding that married men who do traditionally female household chores get less sex.

Husbands Who Share Housework Have Less Sex
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255763.php

Also on this subject is Sandra Tsing Loh’s famous rant against marriage where she called her husband a “kitchen bitch.” From her article:

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true

“To work, to parent, to housekeep, to be the ones who schedule “date night,” only to be reprimanded in the home by male kitchen bitches, and then, in the bedroom, to be ignored—it’s a bum deal. And then our women’s magazines exhort us to rekindle the romance. You rarely see men’s magazines exhorting men to rekindle the romance.”

In this example of men gender bending by doing typically female chores in the household even if the man is good at cooking and even if the man likes cooking the fact that he is the one doing the cooking makes him a “kitchen bitch” in his wife’s eyes. In other words if he “acts like a woman” he is weak, he is not dominant, he is subservient, he is a “beta,” he is not sexually desirable. Women like strong men as a strong man can better provide for a woman. If a man gender bends he sends the signal that he is weak and this turns women off. This is just one example of how gender bending harms relationships with others even if the individual wants to gender bend and even if the individual is good at performing the task of the opposite sex.

In the classical reverse gender role situation where the wife works and the husband takes care of the kids even if hypothetically this arrangement does no harm to the marriage what about the kids? How will the kids view their role as future men and women if their father stays home and their mother works? Even if this arrangement works for the parents’ marriage it is highly unlikely that the children modeling the behavior of their anti-traditional parents will be served. If the son grows up thinking that dads stay home and are subservient he is going to have a lot of trouble being the dominant man he has to be to impress a woman. Likewise if the daughter grows up thinking that mothers make the money and call the shots she will have a large problem finding a man to fulfill the subservient role that will not repulse her because of his weakness. Likewise her aggressive career orientation will turn men off. In other words parental gender bending is likely to harm the children even if the parents’ marriage is not harmed because the parents are modeling abnormal and atypical behavior as if it is the norm sending their children a false signal about how normal family life operates.

Another example of how gender bending can cause harm is through public modeling. I found a very interesting news clip from the early 1950s showing Dr. Marynia Farnham, a woman, strongly condemning careers for women. If Dr. Farnham had been touting careers for women using her own success as a psychiatrist as an “inspirational example” then she would have been harming others by presenting her own gender bending as a norm for others to follow. It is fair to say that Dr. Farnham presents herself as “mannish” but the important point is that she is explicitly not presenting herself as a model for others to follow as she is aware of the harm such inappropriate modeling could do. Instead she is using her prestigious position for the socially constructive role of encouraging women not to seek careers.

This is the video of Dr. Marynia Farnham exhorting women not to pursue careers:

Modern Woman: The Lost Sex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Rc63H7r6Y

So, gender roles exist as part of a network of social relationships; they are not merely about the individual. This is why it is very important to promote conformity to biologically determined gender roles as gender role violations send false and harmful signals to the different people an individual has relationships with in their life. This is in addition to the fact that in general men are not so good at women’s roles and women are not so good at men’s roles.

[rayshul]

Some women like having a kitchen bitch. ^_^

[Metalogic42]

Responding to Jesse Powell TWRA:

First of all I will say that men can perform the functions of women part-way successfully and women can perform the functions of men part-way successfully. Men are not totally lacking in feminine attributes and women are not totally lacking in masculine attributes. In real life sometimes a man has to step into a woman’s role and vice versa. It would be mal-adaptive evolutionarily speaking for men and women to be totally incompetent in the roles of the opposite sex because in real life sometimes bad things happen or things don’t work out as planned in which case one sex may have to perform the role of the opposite sex in particular situations.

http://www.nndb.com/people/184/00009190 ... -sized.jpg

Hey look, it's James Beard award-winning chef, Bon Appetit's 2004 "Cooking Teacher of the Year", Atlanta magazine's 2005 "Best Food Guru", and host of both Iron Chef America and Good Eats, Alton Brown, about to be part-way successful in the traditionally women's role of making sammiches in the kitchen! What a bitch. In fact, he's such a bitch that I heard one time, he was riding his BMW R1100RT motorcycle, and he accidentally took his pilot's license for his Cessna 414! (Yes, he actually owns these things)

I will further grant that there is variation in the relative skill levels of individuals regarding typically masculine or typically feminine behaviors that may not match the norm of their biological gender. In other words some women may be truly good at some functions that are typically masculine and vice versa.

Perhaps you're not aware that cooking, cleaning, etc. are skills acquired through practice, and have absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, to do with gender. So are the vast majority of skills required in the modern workplace. Disagree? Give some examples.

All that being said gender bending is still a bad idea the great majority of the time even when an individual may desire to play more the role of the other sex and even when an individual may be particularly good at some function that is more typically performed by the other sex. In other words conformity to gender roles has value even when such conformity may conflict with an individual’s desires and even when a particular individual may be fully competent performing the task usually done by the other gender.

The reason why this is so is because gender roles are intrinsically interactive and part of a wider social context. It is not just the individual who decides to “gender bend” that is affected by the individual’s choice to “gender bend.” The individual is in relationship with others and it is these relationships with others that may be harmed by the gender bending behavior.

This is pretty vague, and pretty dubious. Let's see what you have to say next...

A good example of this recently in the news is the finding that married men who do traditionally female household chores get less sex.

Husbands Who Share Housework Have Less Sex
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255763.php

Ok, let's see what this has to say...

"Married couples reported greater sexual frequency if the women did the cooking, cleaning and shopping and the men did the gardening, electrics and plumbing, car maintenance and paid the bills."

"The men's average age was 46, and the women's 44."

"The couples reported having sex approximately five times, on average, during the four weeks before the survey. In marriages where the woman carried out all the traditionally female tasks, the couples had sex 1.6 times as often, compared to couples where the man was involved in all the female chores."

Oh. Well...seems like kind of a raw deal to me. So when I'm starting to get middle-aged, starting to slow down physically a bit, been working all my life...if I pay all the bills, and do all the physically demanding jobs in the hot sun, leaving my wife to only watch the oven timer, watch the washer/dryer timer (that I installed), drive around in the air conditioned car (that I fixed), and casually stroll through the air conditioned supermarket (buying food that I pay for)...I can have sex a grand total of three more times per month (assuming I even have the energy after all that hard work)?

Fuck that shit.

In other words if he “acts like a woman” he is weak, he is not dominant, he is subservient, he is a “beta,” he is not sexually desirable. Women like strong men as a strong man can better provide for a woman. If a man gender bends he sends the signal that he is weak and this turns women off.

No, some women like strong, dominant men. Other women do not.

If the son grows up thinking that dads stay home and are subservient he is going to have a lot of trouble being the dominant man he has to be to impress a woman. Likewise if the daughter grows up thinking that mothers make the money and call the shots she will have a large problem finding a man to fulfill the subservient role that will not repulse her because of his weakness. Likewise her aggressive career orientation will turn men off.

If the parents shelter their children and never let them see that different people do different things, then of course they're going to grow up to act just like their parents. Good parents give their children options and teach them that the entire world is not like them. Oh, and by the way, my parents fulfilled these "traditional" roles you're talking about to a T, and I find a woman with an aggressive career orientation extremely attractive. What do you make of that?

If Dr. Farnham had been touting careers for women using her own success as a psychiatrist as an “inspirational example” then she would have been harming others by presenting her own gender bending as a norm for others to follow.

What you don't understand is that no one should be saying, "here's what I do, this is what everyone should do". Rather, "here's what I do, maybe you'll be happier doing what I do, but maybe you'll be happier doing something different" is a good idea.

In other words conformity to gender roles has value even when such conformity may conflict with an individual’s desires and even when a particular individual may be fully competent performing the task usually done by the other gender.

This is why it is very important to promote conformity to biologically determined gender roles as gender role violations send false and harmful signals to the different people an individual has relationships with in their life.

Oops. :lol:

This is in addition to the fact that in general men are not so good at women’s roles and women are not so good at men’s roles.

http://noclipmode.com/wp-content/upload ... n-book.jpg

[Metalogic42]

Some women like having a kitchen bitch. ^_^

I can make a mean jambalaya ;)

[16bitheretic]

Reading some of this stuff reinforces to me that I think TWRA philosophy overstates the importance of gender and understates the importance of individual traits, culture and education. Sure on a population-wide scale we can see tendencies that divide along gender lines, but there's always outliers to those averages and trends and as such the proper way for society to operate is to allow for as much maximum possible personal freedom and let the chips fall where they may. Much like radical feminism on the opposite spectrum, I think what I'm reading of this TWRA viewpoint is too adherent to black and white thinking and denial of the merits of people who don't fall within those black and white roles.

[rayshul]

Same shit, different bucket, eh.

[Lsuoma]

Or maybe this one?

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

Responding to Metalogic42:

It’s interesting that you bring up the professional male chef. As far as I know most professional chefs are men, the chefs who work in the fanciest restaurants are men, and the chefs who win awards and make lots of money are men. This is actually completely consistent with patriarchy and gender role related advantages for men. Competitiveness, developing expertise in a profession, maximizing one’s power and personal reputation; these are very masculine traits. When masculine traits are applied to cooking professionally you then get the result that the cooks at the top are mostly men; this is because the attributes that allow for competitive success are masculine in whatever field those masculine strengths are applied to. Apply masculine drive and competitiveness to cooking and you get the master chef who is a man. The woman cooking for her family is playing a feminine role because her cooking is just one aspect of care for her family in addition to many other aspects of care for her family that she performs. Cooking as part of taking care of your family is feminine while cooking for the big bucks and for fame and glory is masculine.

Another point I want to address; you say some women want strong and dominant men, not all women. The thing to keep in mind is that a woman’s desire for strong and dominant men is not merely a personality quirk or a preference depending on her temperament; it is a very strong and fundamental need. This is because from the point of view of evolution strong and dominant men are able to care for their women better. Strength and dominance means the man has more to give the woman and will better be able to defend the woman. These are survival advantages for the woman and her children; this is a necessity for the woman, not just a luxury. For this reason it is strongly built into the woman’s psychology to want a strong and dominant man. Now, other factors are involved in a woman’s psychology that may alter her natural born preferences leading to some women to appear to prefer weak men but if a woman prefers a weak man that is a sign of problems; that is not something that is normal or healthy.

[Metalogic42]

response to Jesse Powell TWRA:

Competitiveness, developing expertise in a profession, maximizing one’s power and personal reputation; these are very masculine traits.

You must not know very many women.

Another point I want to address; you say some women want strong and dominant men, not all women. The thing to keep in mind is that a woman’s desire for strong and dominant men is not merely a personality quirk or a preference depending on her temperament; it is a very strong and fundamental need. This is because from the point of view of evolution strong and dominant men are able to care for their women better. Strength and dominance means the man has more to give the woman and will better be able to defend the woman. These are survival advantages for the woman and her children; this is a necessity for the woman, not just a luxury. For this reason it is strongly built into the woman’s psychology to want a strong and dominant man. Now, other factors are involved in a woman’s psychology that may alter her natural born preferences leading to some women to appear to prefer weak men but if a woman prefers a weak man that is a sign of problems; that is not something that is normal or healthy.

"Another point I want to address; you say some men want women, not all men. The thing to keep in mind is that a man's desire for women is not merely a personality quirk or a preference depending on his temperament; it is a very strong and fundamental need. This is because from the point of view of evolution women are able to care for their men better. Being a man means the man has more to give the woman and will better be able to defend the woman. These are survival advantages for the man and his children; this is a necessity for the man, not just a luxury. For this reason it is strongly built into the man's psychology to want a woman. Now, other factors are involved in a man’s psychology that may alter his natural born preferences leading to some men to appear to prefer men but if a man prefers a man that is a sign of problems; that is not something that is normal or healthy."

When I can switch the terms in your argument like this without changing the form and come up with a ridiculously stupid anti-gay argument, you have a bad argument.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

Actually your changing around the wording a bit to transform my argument that women prefer strong and dominant men for reasons of evolutionary psychology into an argument against homosexuality is very clever. I rather like it. It is of course completely obvious that most men prefer women sexually rather than other men. This is of course because men having sex with women produces children which passes on the man’s genes while a man having sex with a man produces no such benefit. Therefore from the point of view of evolution homosexual preferences will be strongly selected against as such a preference will severely harm the carrier’s likelihood of having children.

In your alteration you say “This is because from the point of view of evolution women are able to care for their men better.” If this is changed a bit from “women are able to care for their men better” to “women are able to give their men children better” then the logic of the argument being made would make perfect sense.

To me if my style of reasoning can be used to explain the problem with homosexuality in addition to explaining the reason why women want strong and dominant men then all the better; that just reinforces the validity of my argument.

[another lurker]

This has been posted on the 'pit before but I think it is relevant to this discussion:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/ ... o-podcast/

Next, you’ll hear about female-male differences in competition. Economist Uri Gneezy and a group of researchers got to study competition in the Masai tribe in Tanzania (which is extremely patriarchal) and the Khasi tribe in India (one of the world’s few matrilineal societies). When it comes to competition, Gneezy says, nurture is key:

GNEEZY: It’s not that men and women are not born differently. I’m sure they are. And you can come up with good evolutionary stories about why men are more competitive than women. What we showed is that’s not the only factor that goes in, which is not a big surprise, but the other factor, the culture can be so big that it can just overturn the results.

The Khasi women are intensely competitive and the men, not so much.

From the paper:

http://www.iza.org/en/papers/1545_29062007.pdf

Khasi women choose to compete much more often than Khasi men—whereas 54 percent of Khasi women choose to compete, only 39
percent of Khasi men select the competitive incentive scheme.

In particular, the data provide a first piece of evidence that the existing societal structure is crucially linked to the observed gender differences in competitiveness. Further, it is suggestive that innate differences might not be the most important factor influencing competitive inclinations.

[Metalogic42]

It is of course completely obvious that most men prefer women sexually rather than other men.

This is correct. It's also irrelevant.

This is of course because men having sex with women produces children which passes on the man’s genes while a man having sex with a man produces no such benefit.

This is also correct. But, having sex with a man produces other benefits for men who like other men, such as not being disgusted by those ugly gross vaginas they don't like at all and won't go near even if they can't have sex with other men.

Therefore from the point of view of evolution homosexual preferences will be strongly selected against as such a preference will severely harm the carrier’s likelihood of having children.

If homosexuality is strongly selected against, then why the fuck is there so much homosexuality? Traits that are strongly selected against eventually disappear, and homosexuality is *not* a recent phenomenom.

In your alteration you say “This is because from the point of view of evolution women are able to care for their men better.” If this is changed a bit from “women are able to care for their men better” to “women are able to give their men children better” then the logic of the argument being made would make perfect sense.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Oh, sorry. I thought you just said that the logic of a crappy argument would make perfect sense.

Look, what you're not getting is this: people are never, ever, going to sit down and ask themselves, "what does evolution want me to do?" when they decide how to act.

To me if my style of reasoning can be used to explain the problem with homosexuality in addition to explaining the reason why women want strong and dominant men then all the better; that just reinforces the validity of my argument.

There is no problem with homosexuality. It's been around for at least as wrong as we've been writing things down, and we're all fine. No harm done.

[EdwardGemmer]

There is no way in hell I would ever tell my daughter her "role" is to obey men.

Evolution tells us many very interesting things and provides a basis for us to understand them. It does help us understand behavior. However, if we value individuality, then we don't assign roles to people based on arbitrary factors out of their control. It would in fact be ignorant to do so, because even if evolution tells us things like "a woman's role is to have children," there are many, many women who are happy to not have children or who are incapable of having children. Woman exist to have children, that's what makes them women, yet even this very, very basic role from evolution cannot be applied on an individual basis to every woman.

Our progress is not rooted in trying to emulate evolution. Evolution has been going on for billions of years, and only recently did we appear. We aren't bound by what it tells us. I feel feminism correlates well with evolution. Understanding evolution and our species helps us understand why women have been treated as property instead of people for quite some time. Understanding and correcting this is a noble goal.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

Responding to EdwardGemmer above:

My basic reaction to your statement is that we need to deal with reality; with how the world is rather than how we might wish the world to be. Men and women are not the same functionally; this is true regardless of what we think about this. It is much better to accept the reality of human nature than it is to fight against the reality of human nature. Feminism is a rejection of and a rebellion against human nature; this is why feminism doesn’t work and why it can never be made to work because the underlying raw material of man and woman cannot be changed to conform to some idealistic vision of gender equality that people dream up in their heads. A hypothetical ideal society and a society that will actually work in real life are two different things. Patriarchy works in real life, feminism only works hypothetically according to theory. When feminism is applied to real life only bad things happen.

However, if we value individuality, then we don't assign roles to people based on arbitrary factors out of their control.

It is fine to value individuality but only when people’s assertion of individuality does not harm others. Gender roles are based on people’s duty to others so a person’s individuality must be expressed within the larger overall context of their gender role. Also “we” don’t assign gender roles to people; the nature of life or evolution or God assigns gender roles to people based on what sex they were born as. The fact that which sex we are is not chosen by us is irrelevant to the fact that we are in reality male or female and being male carriers certain responsibilities and characteristics while being female carriers other responsibilities and characteristics.

We aren't bound by what it [evolution] tells us.

The hell we aren’t. Disobey evolution and you die, very simple. Evolution tells us that eating is good because food tastes good and we don’t like being hungry. Disobey evolution by not eating anymore and you’ll die. Evolution tells us that sex is good because sex feels good and gives us pleasure. Disobey evolution by refusing to have sex and your genetic line will die. Evolution tells us that men should provide for and protect and control women. Disobey evolution by instituting gender equality and the society will die. This is being seen in the form of increasing divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, children being put into daycare on a massive scale, and fertility falling below replacement levels. The message is very clear; disobey evolution and you die. This is not surprising because the whole point of evolution is survival; it makes sense that disobeying the dictates of that which is meant to help you to survive will result in your death.

[Metalogic42]

The hell we aren’t. Disobey evolution and you die, very simple. Evolution tells us that eating is good because food tastes good and we don’t like being hungry. Disobey evolution by not eating anymore and you’ll die. Evolution tells us that sex is good because sex feels good and gives us pleasure. Disobey evolution by refusing to have sex and your genetic line will die. Evolution tells us that men should provide for and protect and control women. Disobey evolution by instituting gender equality and the society will die. This is being seen in the form of increasing divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, children being put into daycare on a massive scale, and fertility falling below replacement levels. The message is very clear; disobey evolution and you die. This is not surprising because the whole point of evolution is survival; it makes sense that disobeying the dictates of that which is meant to help you to survive will result in your death.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30 ... AT-WAY.jpg

[Gefan]

Responding to EdwardGemmer above:

The hell we aren’t. Disobey evolution and you die, very simple. Evolution tells us that eating is good because food tastes good and we don’t like being hungry. Disobey evolution by not eating anymore and you’ll die. Evolution tells us that sex is good because sex feels good and gives us pleasure. Disobey evolution by refusing to have sex and your genetic line will die. Evolution tells us that men should provide for and protect and control women. Disobey evolution by instituting gender equality and the society will die. This is being seen in the form of increasing divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, children being put into daycare on a massive scale, and fertility falling below replacement levels. The message is very clear; disobey evolution and you die. This is not surprising because the whole point of evolution is survival; it makes sense that disobeying the dictates of that which is meant to help you to survive will result in your death.

I think it might help some of us if you would explain what it is you understand evolution to mean.

Under how I think you are using the term, males should mate with as many females as possible and females only with the strongest, most dominant males. This has diddly-squat to do with actual evolution but I also think it might be a tad at odds with the vision into which you seek to coerce everyone.
I appreciate you being so honest about that bit, by the way.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

This comment is being cross-posted at three different sites on this subject taking place at:

Feminine Mystique – The Atheist Case for Patriarchy
http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.c ... atriarchy/

Love, Joy, Feminism – Why I’m a Feminist First
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... first.html

The Slymepit – The Atheist Case for Patriarchy
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=288

I’ve seen a lot of misinterpretations regarding what I mean by evolution or more to the point “obeying evolution” which can be translated as “obeying God;” God and evolution being equivalent to each other in how I have been using these terms.

So, evolution is the process by which species develop the characteristics they possess. Evolution does not have a will or a purpose, it just is. Behaviors or characteristics that promote reproductive success will be maintained and will expand. Behaviors and characteristics that reduce reproductive success will decline and eventually die out. Through this mechanism favorable behaviors and characteristics become dominant.

Evolution does not have a purpose but it does produce outcomes with moral significance. To the extent survival can be said to be good evolution produces a good by promoting survival. This means the behaviors and characteristics that evolution leads to can be seen to be good since these things lead to survival which is itself good. In this way evolution produces a moral good even though evolution itself does not have intent or a will.

Here evolution can be converted into God. Evolution creates and designs life and God is said to be the creator. Evolution produces moral outcomes through the creation and promotion of life and God is said to be the source of all that is good; the creator of life.

Even though evolution does not have a will or an intent it leads to outcomes that mimic grand design and grand intent. Human beings survive based on our bodies being designed by evolution so that the human being can live and reproduce. The design of the human body caused by eons of evolution is precisely calculated to produce an overall functioning system as each mutation that “moved in the right direction” was kept and each mutation that “moved in the wrong direction” was discarded. This lead to an ongoing process of “moving in the right direction” which ultimately lead to the functioning human organism. This entire process mimics externally willful grand design and therefore performs the same function as the creating God even though an actual God is absent. In this way evolution plays the role that is assigned to God.

So evolution is equivalent to God. To be a good human being you then must obey evolution in the same way the religious say to be good you must obey God. Obeying evolution means to cooperate with the design evolution has created. Since evolution designed men to be strong and dominant and desirous of serving women to be a good man means to embrace the role of being strong, dominant, and a servant of women. Likewise evolution designed women to play a nurturing and submissive role in relation to men so to be a good woman means to embrace the role of dedication to family life and obedience to men. Obedience to evolution in the secular sense is equivalent to obedience to God in the religious sense.

The last thing I will add; evolution exists to serve us, we do not exist to serve evolution. Evolution does just fine on its own, it works automatically so us human beings have no obligation to put forth any effort or make any sacrifices to maintain evolution. Furthermore our moral purpose and our moral goals are up to us human beings to decide upon. We are to obey evolution in order to enable evolution to serve us; we are the object and intended beneficiary of our obedience to evolution. Converting evolution to God this translates as saying we are to obey God so that God will serve us as God’s purpose is our benefit since after all God is good and what God wants is what is best. So we are to obey God as obedience to God is the mechanism of serving humanity. In this sense God is not a separate entity from humanity; God is the collective interests of humanity.

[Skep tickle]

What a bunch of crap.

[Metalogic42]

What a bunch of crap. Bullshit.

No need to be so verbose. Fixed that for you.

@Jesse Powell TWRA:

Evolution still does not work that way. Here's what you fail to account for:

1) Evolution by natural selection is limited in scope by environmental pressures in what it can produce. So if Trait 1 would be more moral than Trait 2 and Trait 3, but there's no pressure pushing a population in the direction of Trait 1, Trait 1 won't spread.

2) It's also limited by the "randomness" of mutation itself. If Trait 1 never pops up in the first place, it can't spread.

3) It's also limited by random accident. If Trait 1 pops up only a few times, and by chance, the individuals with Trait 1 all die for reasons unrelated to Trait 1, Trait 1 can't spread.

4) Traits which grant neither an advantage nor a disadvantage can spread via genetic drift, completely independent of selection.

5) You're only looking at traits as having single effects. Many involve tradeoffs.

6) The only deity that evolution performs the same function as is Loki, the Norse trickster god. Kidney stones hurt. Really. WTF, evolution???

7) Same as 6, but whatever. Evolution is about the least precisely calculated thing ever. The point isn't survival, it's survival until reproduction. After that, evolution theoretically has no problem with making us want nothing more than to jump into a sarlacc pit on a whim, and feel our bodies being digested over a thousand years.

8) I don't give a shit what evolution wants. Fuck it. I want to live forever in the positronic brain of an android, eat BBQ every day, and use contraception every time I fuck. I also love blowjobs. Why should I care that evolution thinks that's a bad idea?

[rayshul]

Meanwhile, I'm so excited about bringing more little kitchen bitches into the world. TEE HEE HEE!!!

[TedDahlberg]

6) The only deity that evolution performs the same function as is Loki, the Norse trickster god. Kidney stones hurt. Really. WTF, evolution???

All the TWRA stuff and nonsense (you're doing the Doctor proud with your patient refutation) here has been worth it for the the notion of Loki being equivalent to evolution. Would you mind terribly if I stole the idea for a story?

Also, WTF, Evolution?

And finally, my father, who likes cars and football and other stereotypically male things also does practically all the cooking (and most of the cleaning) and has done so since before I was born. To the point where I am genuinely surprised if my mother ever mentions her making dinner. And while I'm currently doing all the cooking on account of being single, I would be really resistant to stopping simply on account of being in a relationship with a woman.

[Metalogic42]

6) The only deity that evolution performs the same function as is Loki, the Norse trickster god. Kidney stones hurt. Really. WTF, evolution???

All the TWRA stuff and nonsense (you're doing the Doctor proud with your patient refutation) here has been worth it for the the notion of Loki being equivalent to evolution. Would you mind terribly if I stole the idea for a story?

Also, WTF, Evolution?

And finally, my father, who likes cars and football and other stereotypically male things also does practically all the cooking (and most of the cleaning) and has done so since before I was born. To the point where I am genuinely surprised if my mother ever mentions her making dinner. And while I'm currently doing all the cooking on account of being single, I would be really resistant to stopping simply on account of being in a relationship with a woman.

I don't mind if you use the idea, but I'm not sure if it's entirely original (also, there's some debate over whether he was really a trickster). Loki is one of my favorite mythological figures, so I've read a lot of stuff that involves him or uses him as an influence. It might be that Loki = evolution is something I'm passively remembering from something I've read. So do some research first. Also I would like to read such a story.

Also, this seems semi-relevant:

"Then, when the messengers went home, having well wrought their errand, they found, in a certain cave, where a giantess sat: she called herself Thökk. They prayed her to weep Baldr out of Hel; she answered:

Thökk will weep
waterless tears
For Baldr's bale-fare;
Living or dead,
I loved not the churl's son;
Let Hel hold to that she hath![2]

And men deem that she who was there was Loki Laufeyarson, who hath wrought most ill among the Æsir."

[Vital Signs]

There is no way in hell I would ever tell my daughter her "role" is to obey men.

Evolution tells us many very interesting things and provides a basis for us to understand them. It does help us understand behavior. However, if we value individuality, then we don't assign roles to people based on arbitrary factors out of their control. It would in fact be ignorant to do so, because even if evolution tells us things like "a woman's role is to have children," there are many, many women who are happy to not have children or who are incapable of having children. Woman exist to have children, that's what makes them women, yet even this very, very basic role from evolution cannot be applied on an individual basis to every woman.

Our progress is not rooted in trying to emulate evolution. Evolution has been going on for billions of years, and only recently did we appear. We aren't bound by what it tells us. I feel feminism correlates well with evolution. Understanding evolution and our species helps us understand why women have been treated as property instead of people for quite some time. Understanding and correcting this is a noble goal.

Well, look what we have here, someone pulling a strawman right out of their ass. Nobody has argued for what you're supposedly arguing against.
Though, I guess that is all that feminism is isn't it? A one sided fight for justice.

[Aneris]

TWRA views are ahistorical and unscientific nonsense.

1. They don't magically become true by invoking some sound scientific concept (such as evolution).
2. Operating with averages (i.e. men are better at this, women are better at that) is also fallacious. It does not say anything about individuals. Consider 50 obese, and 50 starving people and then coming to the conclusion that this population is "healthy" on average. Consider that when dividing any continuum into two separate sets by whatever criteria, it is possible that another criterion in each set has different averages. Yet, it does not tell you anything about members of one set.
3. Differences in each set may not be relevant. Every human is different, for example you could divide the population by hair color. Yet, the hair color is not relevant for most occupations.
4. The Is-Ought Problem. You can't infer from an is-state to an ought-state.
5. Ahistorcial view of gender roles. They did change often, in part due to catastrophes. For example, wars and plagues have shook things up many times (and the changes did not just revert back). The USA of the 1950 is not the way it worked between genders in the previous thousands of years.
6. Even if we found that stoneage people did divide labor between women and men. The women would go gathering and the men would go hunting, you can't infer from this that nowadays women should stay at home. This is silly. I also don't ask you to go hunt your own meal wearing just fur.

[Metalogic42]

Well, look what we have here, someone pulling a strawman right out of their ass. Nobody has argued for what you're supposedly arguing against.
Though, I guess that is all that feminism is isn't it? A one sided fight for justice.

Strawman?


Jesse Powell TWRA:
"It is fine to value individuality but only when people’s assertion of individuality does not harm others. Gender roles are based on people’s duty to others so a person’s individuality must be expressed within the larger overall context of their gender role. Also “we” don’t assign gender roles to people; the nature of life or evolution or God assigns gender roles to people based on what sex they were born as. The fact that which sex we are is not chosen by us is irrelevant to the fact that we are in reality male or female and being male carriers certain responsibilities and characteristics while being female carriers other responsibilities and characteristics."

and

" To be a good human being you then must obey evolution in the same way the religious say to be good you must obey God. Obeying evolution means to cooperate with the design evolution has created. Since evolution designed men to be strong and dominant and desirous of serving women to be a good man means to embrace the role of being strong, dominant, and a servant of women. Likewise evolution designed women to play a nurturing and submissive role in relation to men so to be a good woman means to embrace the role of dedication to family life and obedience to men."

Edward Gemmer:
"However, if we value individuality, then we don't assign roles to people based on arbitrary factors out of their control."

and

" Woman exist to have children, that's what makes them women, yet even this very, very basic role from evolution cannot be applied on an individual basis to every woman. "

and

"Our progress is not rooted in trying to emulate evolution."

What strawman?

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

@ Vital Signs

I am the person who started this thread and I am making the argument that women should be socially encouraged to conform to feminine gender roles because of the characteristics women possess due to evolution. Likewise for men; that men should conform to masculine gender roles due to their inherent characteristics as men that developed due to evolution. The primary masculine role being financially providing for women and the primary feminine role being taking care of the family and submitting to men. These gender roles work because evolution made us that way.

@ Aneris

Men and women are fundamentally different from each other and do belong as separate and complementary groups because the man is specifically designed to benefit the woman and the woman is specifically designed to benefit the man; the characteristics of the man are a reaction to the characteristics of the woman and the characteristics of the woman are a reaction to the characteristics of the man. A quick look at human sexual anatomy will confirm this.

Yes there are variations within the male population and variations within the female population but this doesn’t change the fact that men were designed to complement women and women were designed to complement men and that men and women were designed to work together as a team on the project of creating and providing for children both materially and emotionally. When I say “designed” I mean designed by evolution. Violating the intention of evolution’s design by the imposition of gender equality destabilizes the family system leading to disastrous results for the society.

Regarding the “Is-Ought Problem” what “is” “ought” most of the time regarding the products of evolution because there is a bias in evolution to produce outcomes that work. If an animal has eyes there is a high probability that that animal benefits from vision. There might be bats in a cave somewhere that don’t use sight but still have eyes because their ancestors lived outside of caves and used vision and the genetic characteristic of producing eyes hasn’t disappeared yet but the rule still is that animals with eyes benefit from vision. This may not be true all the time but it is still true the great majority of the time. So it is a safe assumption to make that an animal with eyes benefits from vision. In other words the “is” that an animal has eyes strongly correlates to the fact that the animal “ought” to have eyes; this is not true 100% of the time but it is true close to 100% of the time. Same thing with evolved human behavioral characteristics; just because humans have a tendency to do something or desire something doesn’t mean it is good but there is probably a good reason for why the desire or behavior exists in the first place. The fact that essentially all societies have been patriarchal in the past, in the relatively recent past, is a strong indicator that patriarchy actually serves a useful purpose.

Also, I will acknowledge that life in the 1950s does not represent typical gender roles going back thousands of years; the family in the Western World probably began its breakdown sometime around 1850 so we have to go back 200 years or so to approximate the standard model of gender relations that is stable and historical for human societies. The origin of the current human patriarchal family model started 1.9 million years ago with the emergence of Homo Erectus and the ability to control fire to cook food. When control of fire developed in the human line it became women’s role to cook the food. Women cooking the food then became the foundation of patriarchal social organization. I get this from the work of Richard Wrangham; “Sexual Disparities and the Evolution of Patriarchy.” Wrangham says it is an iron clad rule that in all traditional societies women cooked the food; that this is the most stable and universal trait of human social organization up until very recent times.

[Metalogic42]

These gender roles work because evolution made us that way.

Except that they don't work for people who want to take different roles. A woman who stays home and cooking and cleaning when she would rather build a career is going to be extremely unhappy with her life.

Men and women are fundamentally different from each other and do belong as separate and complementary groups because the man is specifically designed to benefit the woman and the woman is specifically designed to benefit the man; the characteristics of the man are a reaction to the characteristics of the woman and the characteristics of the woman are a reaction to the characteristics of the man. A quick look at human sexual anatomy will confirm this.

*looks at human sexual anatomy (i.e. porn :D)*
*notices that two vaginas rubbing against each other seems really fun for the people involved*
*also notices that all but the largest penises fit just fine in butts and mouths*
*also notices that hands have many, many uses*

Well how about that.

Yes there are variations within the male population and variations within the female population but this doesn’t change the fact that most but not all men were designed to complement most but not all women and most but not all women were designed to complement most but not all men...

Fixed that for you.

... and that men and women were designed to work together as a team on the project of creating and providing for children both materially and emotionally.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/in-vitro-f ... tion-2.jpg

Science. It works, bitches.

Violating the intention of evolution’s design by the imposition of gender equality destabilizes the family system leading to disastrous results for the society.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ayWbXiHaaJ8/T ... 00/Sky.jpg

The fact that essentially all societies have been patriarchal in the past, in the relatively recent past, is a strong indicator that patriarchy actually serves a useful purpose.

The fact that essentially all societies have had a poor class in the past, in the relatively recent past, is a strong indicator that taxing the shit out of the peasants actually serves a useful purpose.

The fact that essentially all societies have had slavery in the past, in the relatively recent past, is a strong indicator that slavery actually serves a useful purpose.

The fact that essentially all societies have had substandard backwards medical care in the past, in the relatively recent past, is a strong indicator that bloodletting actually serves a useful purpose.

Wrangham says it is an iron clad rule that in all traditional societies women cooked the food; that this is the most stable and universal trait of human social organization up until very recent times.

I'm not married. I cook my own food (like a bitch). The sky is falling!!! We should all live like H. Erectus!!! You can set an example by throwing away your computer and living in a small hut crudely fashioned out of sticks and mud.

[Aneris]

Men and women are fundamentally different from each other and do belong as separate and complementary groups because the man is specifically designed to benefit the woman and the woman is specifically designed to benefit the man; the characteristics of the man are a reaction to the characteristics of the woman and the characteristics of the woman are a reaction to the characteristics of the man. A quick look at human sexual anatomy will confirm this.

Humbug. Complementary reproductive systems don't tell you anything about roles. In fact, early humans evolved as social animals that survived in small groups. We can see the same in primates. Traditional family roles are nonsense from an evolutionary perspective. Even the prevalent view that prehistoric women were immobilized due to pregnancy and child-care is challenged. It would tell you little about what we should do today anyway. They didn't have contraception and life was very different. It had to be organized differently. Later, families also weren't about one man and one women plus children. There were often several generations under one roof, working and living together. Even children had to work very hard, as the whole notion of childhood as we know it today, didn't exist. Childhood with toys and all that was gradually introduced in the Victorian Age, obviously rich families first. The poor had to work in mines and chimneys. In the Western World, the Monotheism and Greeks had a strong influence on culture, and they were based on patriarchal systems (as you also see in the religious views, i.e. God as father figure). You can't even infer from historical facts that represent a snapshot (even if it lasted thousand years) how it should be in the future.

Yes there are variations within the male population and variations within the female population but this doesn’t change the fact that men were designed to complement women and women were designed to complement men and that men and women were designed to work together as a team on the project of creating and providing for children both materially and emotionally. When I say “designed” I mean designed by evolution. Violating the intention of evolution’s design by the imposition of gender equality destabilizes the family system leading to disastrous results for the society.

Demonstrably false, see above. Additionally, men work well together all the time, and women work well together all the time and mixed teams also work well together. I don't see how gender is such an important factor. It seems to be much more important if the team harmonizes well, if they like each other. That plays a much bigger role.

Regarding the “Is-Ought Problem” what “is” “ought” most of the time regarding the products of evolution because there is a bias in evolution to produce outcomes that work. If an animal has eyes there is a high probability that that animal benefits from vision. [...]

Nonsense three times. You are (1) begging the question. (2) We evolved in social groups, not in traditional family roles and (3) Really, do check the Is-Ought Problem. It won't just go away. For example, the fact that our ancestors survived by hunting with spears and tools made from stone doesn't say that we have to continue in this fashion today.

Also, I will acknowledge that life in the 1950s does not represent typical gender roles going back thousands of years; [...] When control of fire developed in the human line it became women’s role to cook the food. Women cooking the food then became the foundation of patriarchal social organization. I get this from the work of Richard Wrangham; “Sexual Disparities and the Evolution of Patriarchy.” Wrangham says it is an iron clad rule that in all traditional societies women cooked the food; that this is the most stable and universal trait of human social organization up until very recent times.

According to the Wikipedia Article, Richard Wranham's views aren't considered mainstream. And then it remains to be seen if his views lead to the conclusions you draw.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

... women should be socially encouraged to conform to feminine gender roles because of the characteristics women possess due to evolution. Likewise for men; that men should conform to masculine gender roles due to their inherent characteristics as men that developed due to evolution. The primary masculine role being financially providing for women and the primary feminine role being taking care of the family and submitting to men. These gender roles work because evolution made us that way.

Jesse Powell gets his pseudo-science straight from Das Ahnenerbe.

Wrangham says it is an iron clad rule that in all traditional societies women cooked the food; that this is the most stable and universal trait of human social organization up until very recent times.

So, cooking skill is a phenotype? Are you saying that the "cooking gene" has an X chromosome locus and requires two copies to be expressed? Cuz my mom's a great cook, and I'm a great cook, but my sister can't even boil water. Am I just a sissyfied male denying his genetics? So mDNA maybe? Or do neonatal androgens suppress culinary skills? C'mon Jesse -- fill us in! After all, you're the evolution expert.

[Lsuoma]

Note to tamerlane: humourless people also have no sarcasm detector.

[Pitchguest]

... women should be socially encouraged to conform to feminine gender roles because of the characteristics women possess due to evolution. Likewise for men; that men should conform to masculine gender roles due to their inherent characteristics as men that developed due to evolution. The primary masculine role being financially providing for women and the primary feminine role being taking care of the family and submitting to men. These gender roles work because evolution made us that way.

Jesse Powell gets his pseudo-science straight from Das Ahnenerbe.

Wrangham says it is an iron clad rule that in all traditional societies women cooked the food; that this is the most stable and universal trait of human social organization up until very recent times.

So, cooking skill is a phenotype? Are you saying that the "cooking gene" has an X chromosome locus and requires two copies to be expressed? Cuz my mom's a great cook, and I'm a great cook, but my sister can't even boil water. Am I just a sissyfied male denying his genetics? So mDNA maybe? Or do neonatal androgens suppress culinary skills? C'mon Jesse -- fill us in! After all, you're the evolution expert.

This is a total derail, but...

Guns are good. The penis is evil.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Note to tamerlane: humourless people also have no sarcasm detector.

;)
Who said all that was for the benefit of the humorless?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Guns are good. The penis is evil.

:shhh:
Full disclosure: The account "Arthur Frayn" is my sockpuppet.

[Bioshock]

You're a moron.

Evolution has no preferences. It has no direction. It is the aggregate of variations, causal to more variations. Evolution trends in one context and then when the context changes, so does the trend. However, there's no end point to it. Evolution is not an optimization algorithm despite most lay people's perception of it in that context...

The social roles for which you have butchered and gutted the theory of evolution in an attempt to support are demonstrably changing. And they are demonstrably changing because the context has demonstrably changed. By suggesting we attempt to conserve traditional roles, you fly in the face of what evolution is.

And you are still a moron. :ugeek:

[16bitheretic]

Humbug. Complementary reproductive systems don't tell you anything about roles. In fact, early humans evolved as social animals that survived in small groups. We can see the same in primates. Traditional family roles are nonsense from an evolutionary perspective....

...Later, families also weren't about one man and one women plus children. There were often several generations under one roof, working and living together. .

This doesn't even take into account that TWRA views seem to hold onto the view of the one-man, one-woman nuclear family, when throughout most of recorded history marriage was a political arrangement primarily, not a familial one, and polygamy, almost always one powerful man hoarding numerous women, was the norm in many societies.

Seems to me the TWRA view of marriage and family starts in the European/colonial America 18th/19th century and ends in an idealized view of 1959 America as seen on black and white TV shows.

[Jesse Powell TWRA]

This is Jesse Powell here; former TWRA. I’m still an advocate for Traditional Women’s Rights but I am no longer a “Traditional Women’s Rights Activist” or TWRA. Unfortunately I don’t think I can change my username to reflect this new state of affairs.

Anyways, some of you may have noticed that The Atheist Case for Patriarchy link in the first post points to a deleted site. The former Feminine Mystique TWRA site has been deleted and the new site, Modern Feminine Mystique, is here:

Feminine Mystique (Modern Feminine Mystique)
http://modernfemininemystique.wordpress.com/

I have moved to a new site, Why I Am Not A Feminist:

Why I Am Not A Feminist
http://whyiamnotafeminist.com/

The Atheist Case for Patriarchy has just been republished at the Why I Am Not A Feminist site that I am now affiliated with:

The Atheist Case for Patriarchy
http://whyiamnotafeminist.com/2013/04/2 ... atriarchy/

There has been some drama between me and Edita. It turns out our views are not so compatible after all. I am more authoritarian and Edita is more libertarian. In particular I support the idea of a Superior Power that is to be obeyed while Edita rejects any kind of Superior Power; even a Superior Power compatible with atheism. I am an atheist myself by the way.

So anyways Edita Munoz, the administrator of the Modern Feminine Mystique site and the founder of the TWRA group, has expelled me from her website and expelled me from her group. All my articles at Modern Feminine Mystique have been deleted.

I am taking refuge at the Why I Am Not A Feminist blog run by Judithann Campbell; this is my new home for my writing. The articles that were at Feminine Mystique (now Modern Feminine Mystique) that have been deleted will be republished at the Why I Am Not A Feminist site in the coming weeks. So for those interested in my writing the Why I Am Not A Feminist blog is the place to look.

[Metalogic42]

[quote=Jesse Powell former TWRA"]In particular I support the idea of a Superior Power that is to be obeyed [/quote]

Or else what? Your superior power, regardless of who or what it is, can go fuck itself. I double dog dare it to try to force me to change my behavior. I hope it's ready to get its face kicked in.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I support the idea of a Superior Power ... compatible with atheism. I am an atheist myself by the way.

I am giddy with excitement anticipating your definition of a Superior Power that's compatible with atheism.

[John Greg]

I am giddy with excitement anticipating your definition of a Superior Power that's compatible with atheism.

Ditto.

[Lsuoma]

Fuck. It's back again. Zzzzzzzzzz......

[rayshul]

I support the idea of a Superior Power ... compatible with atheism. I am an atheist myself by the way.

I am giddy with excitement anticipating your definition of a Superior Power that's compatible with atheism.

I HOPE IT IS A GIANT PENIS

[dycrZ]

http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/spam.jpg