1) How closely does the social system hew to the genetic imperatives that spawned it? A lot of people talk a lot of crap about “evolutionary psychology,” but the fact of the matter is that no one has found the codons for virtually *any* of these behaviors, yet. To say that patriarchy is the expression of genetic imperatives (as opposed to what I was saying: the product of thousands of years of social evolution that may have at one point been related to genetic imperatives) implies an isometric relationship for which there is absolutely no evidence.

2) To suggest that homosexuality is somehow “unnatural” is equally troublesome, because it presumes that all individual species members MUST have a drive to pass on their genetic material. But there’s no reason to assume that this is the default; a species, for example, with a built-in system to avoid population booms, or to accommodate circumstances in which males outnumber females, is a species that potentially has a better chance of survival than one that doesn’t. In this light, homosexuality isn’t a failure or perversion of natural drives, it’s actually a useful evolutionary adaptation.

Both of these are connected to the fact that we aren’t a hundred percent sure why we have any specific traits, or what, precisely, they’re for. Virtually all assertions made by evolutionary psychology are made out of ignorance; they are wild guesses at the very best, and, for however interesting they are to consider, are not particular useful in providing a foundational argument for a social or governmental system.

If parts of human social behavior, as evolutionary psychology suggests, come from biological instincts, then it is safe to assume that these parts of human social behavior are here to stay. Even if they are suppressed by society, the instincts that motivate us are still there and pushing.

Take homosexuality, for example. A gay man is biologically driven to mate with other men, even if that is looked upon unacceptable in the society he lives in***. When he doesn’t carry out his instinct, he lives uncomfortably, feeling unhappy and unfulfilled.

If gender roles found in human society are rooted in biological instincts, then wouldn’t humans feel much less happy if these roles weren’t expressed? Patriarchy is the ancient system that is based on our biological drives towards the gender roles we know. For most people, fulfilling their respective gender role in one way or the other makes them feel just that, fulfilled. If patriarchy was eliminated from our society, as many feminists want, then humans would be confused, unhappy, and unsatisfied.

This isn’t to say that men should be the only leaders and women should only be housewives. In our modern world that’s ridiculous. What this means is that humans are generally more content when Dad is driving the car when the whole family goes out.

It is true that social instincts can be much more malleable than biological ones, but that only ones that the biological ones are all the more permanent and not ignorable.

*** (Note that I’m not saying that this is evolutionarily natural, I’m just saying that it is an undeniable occurrence. Homosexuality is a perversion of the instinct to spread one’s genes, and is NOT natural in the sense that a straight person’s instincts are. It is natural in the sense that it is natural for a pedophile to want to mate with children)

How do women achieve independence and equality with men by blaming men for everything and then outlining the things men need to do to make women’s lives better?

That is not what feminism is! It is actually only what really defensive men think feminism is. In fact, feminism is a broad social movement meant to, in the long term, change the social expectations regarding gender. It involves women doing a lot of things for themselves in order to make their own lives better — you know, voting, working, picking their own clothes.

By blaming men women describe the things that men need to do in order to win women’s favor for reproduction. Women have a monopoly on reproduction and despite the feminist claims it is men who are subserviant to women. Try as they might to talk about men raping women even a evolutionary psychologist can tell you that using violence against those who carry babies is the least productive way of making babies and bringing them to term, then birthing them, then feeding them and raising them. Sure it might work some of the time but if it were as common as the feminists claim we would not have evoloved patriarchy now would we?

I don’t know, would we? Is this what we call an “argument from personal incredulity”? That is, YOU CAN’T THINK of how it could be true, and therefore it must be false? Of course, “coercive sex” is actually more complex than just violent rape, as you’ve laid out in your own comments. If women are dependent on men to provide for them, as you say, then violence is hardly necessary, is it?

How have feminists achieved equality? They have a reproductive monopoly turned tyrrany with the most draconian laws that govern the actions of men from courtship to child rearing and women are nearly immune to prosecution for fraud, perjury, and child abandonment, and abuse.

Hahah, this is just bullshit. Draconian laws that govern courtship? Like what? Immune to prosecution for fraud and perjury? When are women excused from standing trial for perjury or fraud? Fraud, seriously? What are you even talking about?

And at this last point I want to remind each of you of the genetic pre-disposition of women to discriminate against men. It is coded into their DNA and the evolutionary psychologists can agree to the evolutionary purpose of such a thing. But to then give women equal political power–indeed unequal power given their majority of votes–in our democracy knowing their predisposition to discriminate is a recipe for the downfall of our civilization.

What is the genetic pre-disposition to discriminate against men? I’ve never heard of such a thing, so rather than reminding me of it, it looks like you’re just making it up. Which gene is that? How does it express? “Discriminate against men” in what sense? When women talk about the patriarchy discriminating against women, they’re talking about a social system that privileges one gender over another, not a genetic predisposition to discriminate. In what context are you using “discriminate”?

Also, the idea that women are given “unequal political power” in a functional democracy ludicrously presupposes that “women” are a single voting block, rather than an aggregate of individuals who vote according to their individual interests. You could make that same argument about any substantial demographic — white people discriminate against non-white people, and we outnumber most other minorities. Should we be disenfranchised due to our more significant political power? If there are more Democrats (who discriminate against Republican policies) than Republicans, should Democrats be disenfranchised until the numbers are equal?

And that is why no matriarchies have ever survived in competition with other civilizations. I think there may be some matriarchies out in the Pacific Islands but that’s the exception that proves the rule.

The phrase “the exception that proves the rule” refers to exceptional data inputs that correlate properly to anticipated outputs; you’ve described a discrepancy in outputs, and so the aphorism is meaningless. Not that it wouldn’t be meaningless anyway — the point of the article isn’t that patriarchies weren’t helpful, it’s that they aren’t helpful. It’s old-fashioned caveman bullshit and, like many things that people did in caveman days, is no longer a useful evolutionary adaptation.

Finallly, women will always rely on men to provide for them and men will always provide. It is simply too lucrative for women to spend money they didn’t have to work in coal mines or steel mills to earn. And as long as women select for the most dominant and even violent males then men will compete and kill and war and occasionally women will suffer from that violence.

That’s just stupid. Working in coal mines and steel mills is not, by far, the most lucrative work anymore. Even assuming that women are the self-absorbed parasites that you’re trying to portray them as, why would they expect coal miners and steel millners to provide for them? Of course, civilization doesn’t really work that way anymore, anyway. Lots of women have jobs and, in fact, women tend to work in jobs that are more lucrative (or, would be more lucrative all things being equal). In fact, a lot of women actually make more than their husbands! It’s surprising, I know.

Your last statement is really weird, and, I think exemplary of the kind of nonsense that anti-feminists propagate. Killing and waging war are inherently immoral activities — we should be able to rightly say that men shouldn’t be doing them at all, regardless of whether we live in a matriarchy or a patriarchy or anything.

So, on the one hand we have men doing an immoral activity, to which women say, “hey, stop doing that, but especially to us.”

But on the other hand there’s you, saying that it’s the fault of women in the first place! Do you really think if you didn’t murder people all the time then you wouldn’t be able to get a date?

Or, I guess, maybe you just care about competing? In your social circle do the guys that always lose at Call of Duty never get laid? Maybe you’ve never heard of poor people getting laid?

Anyway, you’re an idiot, but I’m not worried. Most psychological studies show that feminist women are better at sex than non-feminist women, and your poisonous, idiotic, chauvinism pretty much guarantees that you’ll never have sex with a feminist. So. Enjoy!

Let me sum it up for you in layman’s terms. Feminism IS patriarchy.

How do women achieve independence and equality with men by blaming men for everything and then outlining the things men need to do to make women’s lives better?

By blaming men women describe the things that men need to do in order to win women’s favor for reproduction. Women have a monopoly on reproduction and despite the feminist claims it is men who are subserviant to women. Try as they might to talk about men raping women even a evolutionary psychologist can tell you that using violence against those who carry babies is the least productive way of making babies and bringing them to term, then birthing them, then feeding them and raising them. Sure it might work some of the time but if it were as common as the feminists claim we would not have evoloved patriarchy now would we?

So back to my point. . . feminism is patriarchy . . . how can women claim to want independence and equality with men when they continue to empower men to cater to women’s whims and wants?

Only modern feminism is much different than previous eras. Feminists pander to the uber father–the government–for their privilege. And men are left to pay for it all and still be blamed and maligned.

How have feminists achieved equality? They have a reproductive monopoly turned tyrrany with the most draconian laws that govern the actions of men from courtship to child rearing and women are nearly immune to prosecution for fraud, perjury, and child abandonment, and abuse.

And at this last point I want to remind each of you of the genetic pre-disposition of women to discriminate against men. It is coded into their DNA and the evolutionary psychologists can agree to the evolutionary purpose of such a thing. But to then give women equal political power–indeed unequal power given their majority of votes–in our democracy knowing their predisposition to discriminate is a recipe for the downfall of our civilization.

And that is why no matriarchies have ever survived in competition with other civilizations. I think there may be some matriarchies out in the Pacific Islands but that’s the exception that proves the rule.

Finallly, women will always rely on men to provide for them and men will always provide. It is simply too lucrative for women to spend money they didn’t have to work in coal mines or steel mills to earn. And as long as women select for the most dominant and even violent males then men will compete and kill and war and occasionally women will suffer from that violence.

@Roman: Well, there are peacocks around. Potentially, actually, yes. If you think of it this way: individually, having a huge feathered ass makes an individual peacock, say, five percent more likely to be eaten by a leopard. Now, an individual peacock maybe has a 43% chance of breeding successfully–a 5% difference in individual success isn’t really that high. But taken as an aggregate, a species with a 5% higher survival rate for its females than its males is, in the long-term, going to be a more successful species than one that has a 5% higher survival rate for its males than its females.

I don’t know if these numbers are accurate–I am just positing the existence of a set of numbers in which such a theory is plausible.

Not that any of this matters; I have no direct knowledge of peahens or their sexual preferences. There’s just two really big flaws in the theory that “big, bright plumage is meant to attract peahens”: 1) it doesn’t actually do it. 2) if it did actually represent the principle that “oh, man, I can survive with this huge pile of feathers on my ass, I MUST be awesome, right?” then peacocks ought to be one of the most clever birds in town, and those things are fucking stupid.

Again, none of it’s pertinent. Every species is an combination of “things that are useful,” “things that were useful, but aren’t harmful,” and “things that are kind of harmful, but haven’t died out of the species yet.” Sometimes, these elements contradict each other.

*******

Yes monkeys do all kinds of stupid shit. And if they were humans they would do even more stupid shit; the kind of shit we do while they’re hanging around from branches and generally having a good time.
But never fear little monkey, we humans are going to save you from the asteroid…after we’ve eradicated your habitat and polluted the globe beyond with CO emissions and other unsustainable ‘developments.’

Interesting.