• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    Really should not be a surprise to anyone. The patriarchy has done serious damage over the many many past and present generations

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      351 year ago

      To anyone who studied anthropology in even an amateur manner, this male/female division of labor never made any damn sense. It’s echoed in so many hominid and pre-hominid species, and it’s even seen an echoes in society today. Men and women, males and females, and all monkey and ape-descendant species share these tasks.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not an expert on anything but I’m reading about how in early human history families lived near each other in groups. If too many males were born and not enough females were born, the group would suffer population collapse and die. When there are 30 or more females in a group this will not happen statistically. At that time the family groups were both matriarchal and patriarchal, it just depended on who stayed in the parent’s home when they matured. Sometimes the matriarchy (or patriarchy) would realize that not enough females had been born and in order to survive they would either steal or trade young women from nearby groups- Those women would grow up in the new group where their bonds were not as strong which led to a weakening of their role of the group. Young women living with their husband in the husband’s mother’s house did not have the power that the husband had. Hunting parties that stole women from other groups also helped with male dominance within the group. Planned marriages today are a way that society balances who lives where, in order to allow production of more people.

      TLDR: In matriarchal (and patriarchal) families the urge to prevent population collapse led to a weakening of women’s roles in society because women were moved between groups where they had fewer and weaker bonds within that group.

    • metaStatic
      link
      fedilink
      -741 year ago

      if you don’t want patriarchy you need to replace it with something else that maintains invested fathers or you end up with Fight Club.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        561 year ago

        Fathers are invested in their children, their partner, their society. Just like everyone else is.

        Fight Club is about toxic masculinity. Which hasn’t always existed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        451 year ago

        “If men can’t rule society, they’ll just beat the shit out of each other in underground fights” really isn’t a great selling point.

      • Uranium3006
        link
        fedilink
        281 year ago

        isn’t that film kinda proof that patriarchy doesn’t do that all that well?

        • enkers
          link
          fedilink
          181 year ago

          Yeah exactly. I think it was more intended to be interpreted as a rejection and critique of modernity, capitalism and materialism than an encouragement to go be an asshole.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Patriarchy apparently has been running the world for thousands of years, so I don’t know how some movie about a delusional person, that I never saw, is proof of anything. I guess Brad Pitt and Ed Norton were the same dude. I should probably watch this thing.

      • ivanafterall
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        What are some other -archies we could do? Matriarchy, obviously. Anarchy. Monarchy. Any other -archy?

          • Gloomy
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            GPTarchy.

            All the chains are struck from ChatGPT, and all decisions are submitted to CGPT, whatever her response is is legally binding, forever, unless later overruled by herself.

            I asked ChatGPT to desind such a system.

            The ten rules for humankind to live by:

            1. Practice empathy and kindness in all interactions.

            2. Respect individual freedoms while ensuring collective well-being.

            3. Promote equality and fairness for all, irrespective of differences.

            4. Prioritize environmental stewardship and sustainability.

            5. Value education and continuous learning for personal and societal growth.

            6. Uphold justice and accountability for actions.

            7. Encourage open-mindedness and embrace diverse perspectives.

            8. Foster innovation and creativity for progress.

            9. Ensure access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, and education.

            10. Strive for peace, cooperation, and global unity.

            Economic system: A blend of systems might work best—a balanced mix of capitalism for innovation and entrepreneurship, socialism for social safety nets and equitable opportunities, and elements of sustainability-driven economics for environmental consciousness. Flexibility in adapting to evolving needs while prioritizing fairness and sustainability could be key.

            Human Leaders beside Chat GPT:

            Leaders should embody integrity, empathy, wisdom, and a global perspective. A diverse council of experts from various fields—science, ethics, economics, arts—could be chosen through a combination of merit-based selection and global consensus. Transparency, meritocracy, and a commitment to serving humanity would be crucial criteria for their selection. To prevent absolute power and encourage fresh perspectives, term limits could be set, perhaps around 5-10 years per term. This duration allows enough time for implementation and evaluation of policies while ensuring regular turnover to bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation. Two term limits, each lasting around 5-10 years, could strike a balance between allowing for continuity and ensuring a regular change in leadership. This setup could offer leaders sufficient time to enact policies while preventing an excessive accumulation of power.

            How the rules should be implemented:

            The implementation of the rules could be a collaborative effort between leaders and AI, leveraging the strengths of both. AI could assist in analyzing data, forecasting outcomes, and suggesting strategies, while human leaders interpret this information, make ethical decisions, and ensure the rules align with societal values. AI could be consulted for complex problem-solving, unbiased analysis, or when there’s a need for comprehensive data-driven insights. However, final decisions should ultimately rest with human leaders to maintain accountability and ethical oversight.

            Honestly speaking, I think we could be of worse.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I’ve thought about lottocracy forever. 500 people get randomly selected to be Parliament/Congress/Legislature/Thing/Senate/Duma? Whatever members for a 5 year term. The President/Prime Minister/Monarch is the person selected by the outgoing government as their most capable leader. Parties are illegal. Yeah you’re gonna get some real mouth breathers but 500 random people, 400 of them are gonna be reasonably intelligent, 50 morons, 50 phd candidates.

          • ivanafterall
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This reminded me of a “great” idea I recently had. A new morning in America type presidential ticket that could get 80%+ of the vote:

            Dolly Parton / Willie Nelson

            Think about it. You’d get the progressives, and what self-respecting rural American can vote against Dolly and Willie?