> The fairer sex,” on the other hand, took a different evolutionary path, developing bodies better suited for endurance1, flexibility, childbearing, and foraging.
Though it's buried in a large archive of files, you might find these two articles interesting in that regard:
> Von and I are discussing whether patriarchies are intrinsic to human nature.
He hasn't met my in-laws.
Seriously, hasn't Von observed that variation in personality is broad enough that sometimes you just end up with a man who is less dominant than his wife or daughters? Granted I'm probably way older than he is, but by the time I was twelve I'd already visited a friend where the woman clearly wore the pants - and this was a conservative American household I'm talking about. Maybe a statistical *tendency* to patriarchy is intrinsic to human nature, OK, but that's all it's going to be.
> after publishing (In)Evitability, a commenter stated: “I think you inadvertently undervalue[d] motherhood in a massive way.”
> To clarify, I am not devaluing motherhood or parenthood, in general.
Well that was a very tactful way of glossing over some of the most irritating comments I've seen in a long while!
> We should not discourage women from being mothers, but we should encourage our daughters to have other pursuits in their lives both before and during motherhood. We should encourage our sons in the same vein.
Here I feel like invoking David Hume and hitting you with the is-ought fallacy, though I suspect you may be doing this because you're still be a bit cringey after encountering Dr. Tara Slatton
> No one’s social value should be restricted because of the sex with which they were born.
OK, I'll bite: In a post-apocalyptic world (or 19th century Australia, whatever) where there are six times as many males as females, do you *really* think it makes sense to value a boy as much as a girl?
1. I don't know what Von thinks, really. I'm trying to decipher his mind but it's not working well.
2. I was probably in a good when I wrote the response to the motherhood comments. Probably had some tea in my system that day.
3. It's amazing that though the sexes are roughly 50/50 in distribution, there are some places with huge sex imbalances. In a case where there's a 6:1 ratio of males to females, I can only imagine that social functioning would morph into something unique.
Re: sex imbalances etc, I may just be reacting to the *way* you stated your position. But all cases are somewhat unique, not just the case of six men to every woman.
I'm really alluding to the current situation, where large families are not valued, and 99.5% of children survive to adulthood. Under these circumstances women's social value simply won't be as high relative to men. If childbearing isn't desired, then people who have "childbearing," "nursing," "midwifery," and so on in their list of abilities are going to find they don't provide a social boost. Instead everyone is going to look at other abilities, which in many or even most cases favor men. In other words, unless the other abilities are totally equally distributed between the sexes, there's no way women can be valued as much as men.
You can even feel as I do and sincerely value children, and hence childbearing, nursing, midwifery, and the feminine skillset, and that still won't change what the larger society values. Supply and demand don't care about the preferences of a very few, or what we might all wish were true.
The response of the idealistic left is of course to insist that the other abilities *are* equally distributed, or that sex is just gender, and gender is multifaceted and complex, and *everyone* of *every* demographic should be valued equally, therefore reality is gauche, and also conservatives are bad. Personally, I'd be happy just knowing that there was a pretty good life waiting even for the paraplegic intersex, and if it isn't then we can at least talk about psychedelics as a route to personal flourishing, or suicide as an escape route, or whatever. Because ultimately I don't see how the sentiment that "No one’s social value should be restricted because of the [X] with which they were born" is ever going to be compatible with reality.
I suppose in a case with high child survival rates, the concept of "social value" shifts, to adapt to the contemporary landscape. In this world, the roles/abilities with most value would theoretically be those that are most rare. And while physical abilities would generally be granted to men, there's still the aspect of intelligence-based abilities, allowing a woman to find standing in society in other ways (e.g., becoming a chemist). I imagine that if birthrates began to decline and/or child mortality rates began to rise, then motherhood would become highly valued again.
What we value in society changes and fluctuates like the tide. And while, yes, either sex and other demographics do not always possess the same abilities to same degree of efficacy, there's still an intrinsic value that they all share simply because they are human. Perhaps that's what I should've stated originally: that we all have the same base-line value and (in many cases) potential, even though outcomes will never be equal.
And what if some humans could not understand mathematics?
And what if some humans could not speak?
And what if some humans could not appreciate music?
And what if some humans could not feel love?
Waeren sie doch gleich sein?
What if one day, an extraterrestrial visited the earth, and this being were capable of understanding mathematics, speaking, appreciating music, and feeling love?
What if there were an inventor, who struggled and strove to create a robot - and this robot were capable of understanding mathematics, speaking, appreciating music, and feeling love?
And what if there were a man, born mute, and mad, and wicked, so that he did not speak, or understand calculations, or listen to music, and killed his parents to wear their clothes and live in their house and eat their food in nakedness and solitude?
While I imagine this is largely rhetorical, I'd still say the man. He's human through and through, only he's a representation of the darker aspects of humanity.
The robot and extraterrestrial each are their own forms of being unique in and of themselves.
But I don't understand the purpose behind this questioning.
Then I'll be direct: According to that video, the thing that kings and peasants and this mute madman have in common is that they are made of meat. That is what all humanity shares - a physical body made of meat? There is nothing *worthwhile* in what is gleich, common, and equal to all; and what is worthwhile is ungleich, uncommon, and unequal.
We may not have any basis for comparing the genius of Newton or Van Gogh; but to me it is abundantly clear that they exemplify what is valuable in humanity, while the mute madman inspires nothing but disgust and disdain. It is not our humanity, but our traits, our qualities, and our character that are worthwhile.
My theory—and I'm drawing from evolutionary psychology here—is that patriarchy is a way for men to gain "paternal certainty" for their offspring. That's why, most societies (and most species of animals, even) are polygynous—meaning one husband and multiple wives. But being "natural" doesn't make patriarchy morally good, anymore than disease or cancer is good. Cool article.
On Meritocracy, I feel like the concept has to be split out even further, between Gerontocracy and Juniorocracy.
Our understanding of what makes one meritorious is the combination of one’s ability to accomplish and one’s previous accomplishments. While generally assumed to be the same, they are not.
One’s previous accomplishments can be denoted as representing rigor, whilst one’s ability to accomplish can be denoted as skill.
As we age, we acquire more and more rigor to our names, but our skills decline, either in intellect or physicality. However, with rigor comes wisdom, though the ability to express it may decline substantial.
I believe that the choice between these two forms of meritocracy is women-led. Under either understanding, guys are incentivized towards acquiring skills and then using them, but for women, the selection of either rigor or skill is left to them and the result of that choice in aggregate has massive implications for the functioning of society and how women fit into it.
I think it might be an interesting area to explore.
This is the first time I've ever encountered the terms "gerontocracy" and "juniorocracy."
And the separation between previous accomplishments and the speculation that one can accomplish a future task certainly gives me a lot to think about. I'm sure with some discussion and studying, I'll be able to write something on this.
I think the immediate implication is that the young widowed heiress only exists in Gerontocracy. I believe that these young widowed heiresses are the basis of Matriarchal societies.
Also, I think in Juniorocracy, marriage becomes essential for women as it guarantees an ability to “lock-in” some form of societal status wherein they cannot win that on their own merits in the other forms of life.
I would guess that the number of women participating in external meritorious affair compared to internal homely affair would also be substantially different.
I see. Marriage becomes a mean of cutting the line, creating a new cultural element in which daughters are encouraged to seek hypergamy, only it's more amplified than in the traditional sense...
The home life would also be different. It would take a specific culture to mitigate neglectful parenting, certainly.
I would also speculate that there could be a cyclical pattern:
From Patriarchy to Juniorocracy to Gerontocracy to Matriarchy to Patriarchy.
However, my proof of this idea may be rather weak under closer examination.
Patriarchy becomes Juniorocracy because a loosening of traditional rules and constraints in favor of active skill.
Juniorocracy devolves into Gerontocracy because of both a desire by women towards stability instead of speculation and because of the desires of the now-old ex-Juniorocrats.
Gerontocracy devolves into Matriarchy by inheritance falling towards women.
Matriarchy changes into Patriarchy because of the weakness of matriarchal systems in dealing with the strong forces of nature.
I establish no timeframe for these changes, nor do I reckon them in context of other technological and moral changes.
I would say that I do not as I think meritocracy for both sexes are a very modern phenomenon. This is why I preface a lot of this by saying that the point may be weak under examination.
I think that Rome or Venice would be good places to look based on my very thin knowledge of history. History tends not to be my field as my memory is goldfish-like.
>>where large families are not valued, and 99.5% of children survive to adulthood. (Apple Pie)
... then women are less valued?
I think this is true, but only for the short term. Because such a situation can only exist for a short term. As I write in my post 'Blessings of the Breast and the Womb', no society can long survive (like, generations and centuries) if it does not value the blessings of the breast and the womb. In order to survive, long term (again, generations and centuries) a society must reproduce itself. In hugely peaceful and hi-tech times, this means 2.2 children, on average, per woman. This means many women have to have at least three to account for childless women.
Thus any devaluing of the woman must be only temporary, on a civilisation scale.
It would be nice if there were a way to link comments to parts of a post. For this post in particular I would like to insert a dozen or so 'footnotes', as it were.
Ah, no, I see I miscommunicated. What I mean was that if I wish to reference, say,
>>However, to say a woman’s role is to have children first and foremost heavily restricts her value as a human.
I cannot (as a footnote reference would) leave a pointer as to where in your post this comment is found. So when I comment with, say, "This is flatly untrue. It is false on two levels: firstly, patriarchy does not elevate the mere 'having' of children, but the bearing, nursing, and training of children'; secondly there is nothing inhuman about having something be your 'first and foremost' role."
The reader cannot easily jump back in your post to see where what I am commenting on is.
> The fairer sex,” on the other hand, took a different evolutionary path, developing bodies better suited for endurance1, flexibility, childbearing, and foraging.
Though it's buried in a large archive of files, you might find these two articles interesting in that regard:
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/how-did-humans-domesticate-themselves
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/most-models-arent-even-useful
> Von and I are discussing whether patriarchies are intrinsic to human nature.
He hasn't met my in-laws.
Seriously, hasn't Von observed that variation in personality is broad enough that sometimes you just end up with a man who is less dominant than his wife or daughters? Granted I'm probably way older than he is, but by the time I was twelve I'd already visited a friend where the woman clearly wore the pants - and this was a conservative American household I'm talking about. Maybe a statistical *tendency* to patriarchy is intrinsic to human nature, OK, but that's all it's going to be.
> after publishing (In)Evitability, a commenter stated: “I think you inadvertently undervalue[d] motherhood in a massive way.”
> To clarify, I am not devaluing motherhood or parenthood, in general.
Well that was a very tactful way of glossing over some of the most irritating comments I've seen in a long while!
> We should not discourage women from being mothers, but we should encourage our daughters to have other pursuits in their lives both before and during motherhood. We should encourage our sons in the same vein.
Here I feel like invoking David Hume and hitting you with the is-ought fallacy, though I suspect you may be doing this because you're still be a bit cringey after encountering Dr. Tara Slatton
> No one’s social value should be restricted because of the sex with which they were born.
OK, I'll bite: In a post-apocalyptic world (or 19th century Australia, whatever) where there are six times as many males as females, do you *really* think it makes sense to value a boy as much as a girl?
1. I don't know what Von thinks, really. I'm trying to decipher his mind but it's not working well.
2. I was probably in a good when I wrote the response to the motherhood comments. Probably had some tea in my system that day.
3. It's amazing that though the sexes are roughly 50/50 in distribution, there are some places with huge sex imbalances. In a case where there's a 6:1 ratio of males to females, I can only imagine that social functioning would morph into something unique.
Re: sex imbalances etc, I may just be reacting to the *way* you stated your position. But all cases are somewhat unique, not just the case of six men to every woman.
I'm really alluding to the current situation, where large families are not valued, and 99.5% of children survive to adulthood. Under these circumstances women's social value simply won't be as high relative to men. If childbearing isn't desired, then people who have "childbearing," "nursing," "midwifery," and so on in their list of abilities are going to find they don't provide a social boost. Instead everyone is going to look at other abilities, which in many or even most cases favor men. In other words, unless the other abilities are totally equally distributed between the sexes, there's no way women can be valued as much as men.
You can even feel as I do and sincerely value children, and hence childbearing, nursing, midwifery, and the feminine skillset, and that still won't change what the larger society values. Supply and demand don't care about the preferences of a very few, or what we might all wish were true.
The response of the idealistic left is of course to insist that the other abilities *are* equally distributed, or that sex is just gender, and gender is multifaceted and complex, and *everyone* of *every* demographic should be valued equally, therefore reality is gauche, and also conservatives are bad. Personally, I'd be happy just knowing that there was a pretty good life waiting even for the paraplegic intersex, and if it isn't then we can at least talk about psychedelics as a route to personal flourishing, or suicide as an escape route, or whatever. Because ultimately I don't see how the sentiment that "No one’s social value should be restricted because of the [X] with which they were born" is ever going to be compatible with reality.
I suppose in a case with high child survival rates, the concept of "social value" shifts, to adapt to the contemporary landscape. In this world, the roles/abilities with most value would theoretically be those that are most rare. And while physical abilities would generally be granted to men, there's still the aspect of intelligence-based abilities, allowing a woman to find standing in society in other ways (e.g., becoming a chemist). I imagine that if birthrates began to decline and/or child mortality rates began to rise, then motherhood would become highly valued again.
What we value in society changes and fluctuates like the tide. And while, yes, either sex and other demographics do not always possess the same abilities to same degree of efficacy, there's still an intrinsic value that they all share simply because they are human. Perhaps that's what I should've stated originally: that we all have the same base-line value and (in many cases) potential, even though outcomes will never be equal.
(There's a short film that sums this up pretty well, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBzigBa0ag)
And what if some humans could not understand mathematics?
And what if some humans could not speak?
And what if some humans could not appreciate music?
And what if some humans could not feel love?
Waeren sie doch gleich sein?
What if one day, an extraterrestrial visited the earth, and this being were capable of understanding mathematics, speaking, appreciating music, and feeling love?
What if there were an inventor, who struggled and strove to create a robot - and this robot were capable of understanding mathematics, speaking, appreciating music, and feeling love?
And what if there were a man, born mute, and mad, and wicked, so that he did not speak, or understand calculations, or listen to music, and killed his parents to wear their clothes and live in their house and eat their food in nakedness and solitude?
Which of these three is human?
While I imagine this is largely rhetorical, I'd still say the man. He's human through and through, only he's a representation of the darker aspects of humanity.
The robot and extraterrestrial each are their own forms of being unique in and of themselves.
But I don't understand the purpose behind this questioning.
Then I'll be direct: According to that video, the thing that kings and peasants and this mute madman have in common is that they are made of meat. That is what all humanity shares - a physical body made of meat? There is nothing *worthwhile* in what is gleich, common, and equal to all; and what is worthwhile is ungleich, uncommon, and unequal.
We may not have any basis for comparing the genius of Newton or Van Gogh; but to me it is abundantly clear that they exemplify what is valuable in humanity, while the mute madman inspires nothing but disgust and disdain. It is not our humanity, but our traits, our qualities, and our character that are worthwhile.
>>where large families are not valued, and 99.5% of children survive to adulthood.
Wow, that is an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. I think it is very short term, however.
Would you care to elaborate?
I replied directly. Deep threads make it difficult for me on my phone. I tried to tag you, but SS doesn't like that in comments :(
...I don't know what "I replied directly" means. Should I look somewhere else for a hypothetical reply, and then reply to the reply there?
And are you *sure* your phone is the thing you want to be using right now?
>>I'm trying to decipher his mind but it's not working well.
One could always ask :) I don't think @ Von works in comments, but one can always ask at the bottom of one of my posts, or in a note.
My response is scheduled for Tuesday morning. I've been sick, busy, and out of town... so this week is basically toast :)
My theory—and I'm drawing from evolutionary psychology here—is that patriarchy is a way for men to gain "paternal certainty" for their offspring. That's why, most societies (and most species of animals, even) are polygynous—meaning one husband and multiple wives. But being "natural" doesn't make patriarchy morally good, anymore than disease or cancer is good. Cool article.
>>being "natural" doesn't make patriarchy morally good,
True. I would argue it is morally good, but for the purposes of this series I am arguing that it is natural. Intrinsic to the human condition.
On Meritocracy, I feel like the concept has to be split out even further, between Gerontocracy and Juniorocracy.
Our understanding of what makes one meritorious is the combination of one’s ability to accomplish and one’s previous accomplishments. While generally assumed to be the same, they are not.
One’s previous accomplishments can be denoted as representing rigor, whilst one’s ability to accomplish can be denoted as skill.
As we age, we acquire more and more rigor to our names, but our skills decline, either in intellect or physicality. However, with rigor comes wisdom, though the ability to express it may decline substantial.
I believe that the choice between these two forms of meritocracy is women-led. Under either understanding, guys are incentivized towards acquiring skills and then using them, but for women, the selection of either rigor or skill is left to them and the result of that choice in aggregate has massive implications for the functioning of society and how women fit into it.
I think it might be an interesting area to explore.
This is the first time I've ever encountered the terms "gerontocracy" and "juniorocracy."
And the separation between previous accomplishments and the speculation that one can accomplish a future task certainly gives me a lot to think about. I'm sure with some discussion and studying, I'll be able to write something on this.
I think the immediate implication is that the young widowed heiress only exists in Gerontocracy. I believe that these young widowed heiresses are the basis of Matriarchal societies.
Also, I think in Juniorocracy, marriage becomes essential for women as it guarantees an ability to “lock-in” some form of societal status wherein they cannot win that on their own merits in the other forms of life.
I would guess that the number of women participating in external meritorious affair compared to internal homely affair would also be substantially different.
I see. Marriage becomes a mean of cutting the line, creating a new cultural element in which daughters are encouraged to seek hypergamy, only it's more amplified than in the traditional sense...
The home life would also be different. It would take a specific culture to mitigate neglectful parenting, certainly.
I would also speculate that there could be a cyclical pattern:
From Patriarchy to Juniorocracy to Gerontocracy to Matriarchy to Patriarchy.
However, my proof of this idea may be rather weak under closer examination.
Patriarchy becomes Juniorocracy because a loosening of traditional rules and constraints in favor of active skill.
Juniorocracy devolves into Gerontocracy because of both a desire by women towards stability instead of speculation and because of the desires of the now-old ex-Juniorocrats.
Gerontocracy devolves into Matriarchy by inheritance falling towards women.
Matriarchy changes into Patriarchy because of the weakness of matriarchal systems in dealing with the strong forces of nature.
I establish no timeframe for these changes, nor do I reckon them in context of other technological and moral changes.
Do you have any historical examples?
I would say that I do not as I think meritocracy for both sexes are a very modern phenomenon. This is why I preface a lot of this by saying that the point may be weak under examination.
I think that Rome or Venice would be good places to look based on my very thin knowledge of history. History tends not to be my field as my memory is goldfish-like.
We’re not Capitalist. We are imperialist. Therefore, your entire narrative is bunk.
>>where large families are not valued, and 99.5% of children survive to adulthood. (Apple Pie)
... then women are less valued?
I think this is true, but only for the short term. Because such a situation can only exist for a short term. As I write in my post 'Blessings of the Breast and the Womb', no society can long survive (like, generations and centuries) if it does not value the blessings of the breast and the womb. In order to survive, long term (again, generations and centuries) a society must reproduce itself. In hugely peaceful and hi-tech times, this means 2.2 children, on average, per woman. This means many women have to have at least three to account for childless women.
Thus any devaluing of the woman must be only temporary, on a civilisation scale.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/blessing-of-the-breast-and-the-womb
Now I understand! Admittedly I really only looked at your position through the filter of Kasimir's own posts; I'll take a look at your link
Reading half of a conversation could be a bit confusing, I guess :)
It would be nice if there were a way to link comments to parts of a post. For this post in particular I would like to insert a dozen or so 'footnotes', as it were.
You can link it if you click the date/time of a specific comment or reply. Doing this will isolate the comment and give it a unique URL.
Ah, no, I see I miscommunicated. What I mean was that if I wish to reference, say,
>>However, to say a woman’s role is to have children first and foremost heavily restricts her value as a human.
I cannot (as a footnote reference would) leave a pointer as to where in your post this comment is found. So when I comment with, say, "This is flatly untrue. It is false on two levels: firstly, patriarchy does not elevate the mere 'having' of children, but the bearing, nursing, and training of children'; secondly there is nothing inhuman about having something be your 'first and foremost' role."
The reader cannot easily jump back in your post to see where what I am commenting on is.
I see, I see. Unfortunately only headers allow that. (But who knows what the system would do if the entire post were a bunch of headers.)
Well, I didn't even know that headers allowed it... so there's that :)
I'm finding the various comments very interesting. It would be very interesting if they pointed to historical examples.