More Left Ideological Delusion: ‘The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong’ As Proof of What, or Who, That Got it Wrong, Exactly?
More Left Ideological Delusion: ‘The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong’ As Proof of What, or Who, That Got it Wrong, Exactly?
Now I understand! The Feminists are not against traditional male domination because it's old, but because it's not old enough.
Obviously, if our ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years before the present moment lived in egalitarian tribes and societies because there are no sexual differences and therefore no need to divide tasks or resources, then it follows apodictically that the last twenty centuries' horrors of having males lording over females and keeping them ignorant and oppressed and disadvantaged, must be considered a recent invention with no basis in true biological history. It's bad because it's new!
Thence, feminism is inherently conservative and right-wing. Even far-right, I'm afraid to say.
Which explains why The Science(TM) is not progressing. There is a white female supremacist boycott going on and no one ever noticed!
There is no other option but to punish them with more taxes.
and the ancestry is not even a hundred thousand years! 45,000-10,000 for the Palaeolithic. and the article cites recent studies of the ainu and indigenous tribes where that was the case.
i also love how you bridged that to the observation that 'feminism is inherently conservative and right-wing. Even far-right, I'm afraid to say.' blind to the past, blind to the present, and wanting to keep, conserve their ideology at all costs.
and yes, the solution to everything is more taxes. love it.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes! even feminist delusion. hmmmm. okay, maybe not theirs. and so i'll concentrate on reducing my delusion! why hadn't i though of that before. hasta luego.
Right or left, left or right, what does that even mean anymore? It does seem as if the country is being pushed to the “right” with the “left” imploding in ridiculous fashion but so is the “right”. To step way, way back and see what is most important, what gives our lives real meaning, love, kindness, beauty and the sides fall away, dissolve into the interconnectedness of all things. It is funny though to watch people contradict themselves trying to prove the other side is off its rocker, better to laugh at the chaos of it all than to cry.
as you likely know, i rarely write about this. i'm not sure why this caught my eye/ear. i think that the original claim was so ridiculous i wanted to confirm its stupidity. and found that the article actual undermines feminism's pushing the ideology of the innate historical nature of tyrannical male patriarchy. so funny!
hola, matthew. yes, yes, i know i know. hard to conceptualise that pandering could viably exist in a society raised under the christian-based rubric of being truthful. [headshake.] (of course that ignores the part of the old testament that give permission to lie and cheat those not in your tribe.) and even the need for agreements would seem to be unnecessary if functional truth-telling at all times was the core social foundation.
and yet, we walk around only about 5% conscious at best, and so our agreements are often unconscious and so projected onto the other. and hiding in them are the dark-shadow seeds of self-destruction even if — especially if? — it also destroys the other. also, of course, the liars are unconscious and who knows what kind of destruction unconscious liars can reap?!
interesting times, for sure. the great apocalypse is upon us, hip hip hooray! so i think it is important for the awake to be really awake, check on our awakeness from time-to-time. and to be especially careful not be blinding ourselves with easy pot-shots at the perceived sleepers. we who consider ourselves to be 'awake' are also mostly unconscious.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes!
Thanks for this Guy. It was very interesting information and matches my own experience--there is only one guy who can keep up with the endurance level of my dance teacher. Oh, two now because of a gay ex-fitness instructor who's just joined her aerial conditioning class, that I'm also part of, and he and his husband also come to dance. Otherwise, the men are great fun in the class but they do Gina lite. But there are at least a dozen women in every class who are keeping up (sometimes me but not always) including one marathon runner. But no one keeps up with Gina's full regime.
Fit or not, there are certainly differences in the male and female physique from birth--any mom of both will tell you so. The evidence from anthropology is fascinating. The episodes I've done from David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything are to show that patriarchy hasn't always been the norm. And the word itself is redundant because the archons from Greece were all male, the word matriarchy is a contradiction in terms because it combines matri- with archons, which were mutually exclusive.
So I would make some modifications to your paraphrase of the expected objection: First, I would never call you a dumbass. I would say fellow traveler in figuring out what's real. Then I would not say 'the rise of city/states and agriculture' created patriarchy as the rule(s). I think it's more specific to the Abrahamic religions so starting with the warlords who took gangs of nomadic men and promised them the spoils of conquest, including the land and women. I think this included the Habiru, Hyksos, Scythians, 'Romans' from the second era (since I'm not sure the first existed). It's certainly the Crusaders and the colonizers.
The rule of primogeniture that gave ownership of the land and rule over the family to the oldest son created complete ownership of women, since property is power. And pushed the other sons into the military. In Africa, the introduction of property tax forced all but the oldest son into the mines. Taxation and the commodification of labor went hand-in-hand with the Torah technique of extraction.
We don't need to go back hundreds of thousands of years to show patriarchy isn't natural. My examples are from the colonial push in Canada and the US. If Laurent Guyenot is right about the timeline of the first millennia AD, the whole coinage-taxation-conquest scheme may be no more than 1300 yrs old, along with both enabling ideologies of the Torah and NT.
So I think you're right that the ridiculing 'right' has missed the point. But there's no denying that Euro-centric law has upheld property ownership by men, with rare exceptions. Communal ownership of food production and distribution, as was the norm in indigenous societies, is unheard of. And the maternal longhouse, which has become a trope for ridiculing the property ownership of women, doesn't exist in Euro culture.
yes. i remember the graeber post. (youtube has removed the video 'safe and effective' you linked. is it available elsewhere?)
thank you for suggesting that i'm not a 'dumbass', although i have the scars to aver the veracity of my statement.
i'm not sure you can ascribe that development to just to the abrahamic religions. gautama was active with the rise of the city states in india and the absolute rigidification of the caste system. in it women were the 'slaves' within each group. and in one of the discourses following gautama's death, ananda is chastised by the self appointed man who was to go on to create buddhism, that ananda was in error to have convinced gautama to let women into the practices he was developing.
and there is the strange world wide common event in the mythologies of the world that at nearly the same time there was a revolt by the men against the dominance of female power, in big and small civilisations. Joseph Campbell discusses this in his book *The Masks of God, Volume 1: Primitive Mytholog,* if memory serves. (i no longer have my library to reference and read that in the 1980s, i think.)
no the need to go back certainly isn't there. and yet it is powerful to have a concurrence of evidence point to the same truth. well, that is good for the logical thinking brain, anyway.
yes, this whole 'property ownership' issue is part of the psyop around scarcity. as soon as we put boundaries on anything, although land might be the most obvious example, i think by action it immediately becomes scarce. and it might be interesting to consider that along with all women, 99.9% of men also were property and without it. in the reality of most families, the man and the women were equally responsible for eking out survival in the family under the various forms of the monetary tyranny being managed by men. so, if we scratch below the surface of the powerful and look at the experience of most of human experience, at least for the west, is even then there equality of personal responsibility, if not physical contribution, was required to keep life going. the power structure will die of the vacuum if they are successful in the global genocide, even if they own all the land and the remaining humans.
in 'Muskrat Love & Anarchy: the antidote to civilization' you cite: 'This brings up what the Daves see as the three essential freedoms: 1) to move away; 2) to disobey; 3) to build new social worlds.'
yes. and this applies to the laws as well. how to move away from the laws? *one* of the ways, and perhaps an important one, is to see how we are blind to being lawed into place and then to move out from that. it was mlk, who wrote that an unjust (inhuman) law requires by our actions to be shunned or ostracised. (big paraphrase.) so i do find it interesting how much energy is spent by the alt/freedom movement to keep making, changing, or stopping laws, the very laws that are the structures of ownership and property rights — and even the pragmatic sources of what gets defined as property. now that is a huge problem.
i think it comes down to spiritual awareness, deep shadow work, and 'trust yourself'. hmmmm. now *that* is hard.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes.
Hola Guy!
Now I understand! The Feminists are not against traditional male domination because it's old, but because it's not old enough.
Obviously, if our ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years before the present moment lived in egalitarian tribes and societies because there are no sexual differences and therefore no need to divide tasks or resources, then it follows apodictically that the last twenty centuries' horrors of having males lording over females and keeping them ignorant and oppressed and disadvantaged, must be considered a recent invention with no basis in true biological history. It's bad because it's new!
Thence, feminism is inherently conservative and right-wing. Even far-right, I'm afraid to say.
Which explains why The Science(TM) is not progressing. There is a white female supremacist boycott going on and no one ever noticed!
There is no other option but to punish them with more taxes.
Salud!
hola, roger w. yes!
and the ancestry is not even a hundred thousand years! 45,000-10,000 for the Palaeolithic. and the article cites recent studies of the ainu and indigenous tribes where that was the case.
i also love how you bridged that to the observation that 'feminism is inherently conservative and right-wing. Even far-right, I'm afraid to say.' blind to the past, blind to the present, and wanting to keep, conserve their ideology at all costs.
and yes, the solution to everything is more taxes. love it.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes! even feminist delusion. hmmmm. okay, maybe not theirs. and so i'll concentrate on reducing my delusion! why hadn't i though of that before. hasta luego.
😂🤣😂
Right or left, left or right, what does that even mean anymore? It does seem as if the country is being pushed to the “right” with the “left” imploding in ridiculous fashion but so is the “right”. To step way, way back and see what is most important, what gives our lives real meaning, love, kindness, beauty and the sides fall away, dissolve into the interconnectedness of all things. It is funny though to watch people contradict themselves trying to prove the other side is off its rocker, better to laugh at the chaos of it all than to cry.
Yes, lots of laughter here, for sure.
as you likely know, i rarely write about this. i'm not sure why this caught my eye/ear. i think that the original claim was so ridiculous i wanted to confirm its stupidity. and found that the article actual undermines feminism's pushing the ideology of the innate historical nature of tyrannical male patriarchy. so funny!
all the best with what is changing.
How dare you entertain the notion that people who agree with me might have ulterior motives in farming my attention!
lol!
hola, matthew. yes, yes, i know i know. hard to conceptualise that pandering could viably exist in a society raised under the christian-based rubric of being truthful. [headshake.] (of course that ignores the part of the old testament that give permission to lie and cheat those not in your tribe.) and even the need for agreements would seem to be unnecessary if functional truth-telling at all times was the core social foundation.
and yet, we walk around only about 5% conscious at best, and so our agreements are often unconscious and so projected onto the other. and hiding in them are the dark-shadow seeds of self-destruction even if — especially if? — it also destroys the other. also, of course, the liars are unconscious and who knows what kind of destruction unconscious liars can reap?!
interesting times, for sure. the great apocalypse is upon us, hip hip hooray! so i think it is important for the awake to be really awake, check on our awakeness from time-to-time. and to be especially careful not be blinding ourselves with easy pot-shots at the perceived sleepers. we who consider ourselves to be 'awake' are also mostly unconscious.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes!
Thanks for this Guy. It was very interesting information and matches my own experience--there is only one guy who can keep up with the endurance level of my dance teacher. Oh, two now because of a gay ex-fitness instructor who's just joined her aerial conditioning class, that I'm also part of, and he and his husband also come to dance. Otherwise, the men are great fun in the class but they do Gina lite. But there are at least a dozen women in every class who are keeping up (sometimes me but not always) including one marathon runner. But no one keeps up with Gina's full regime.
Fit or not, there are certainly differences in the male and female physique from birth--any mom of both will tell you so. The evidence from anthropology is fascinating. The episodes I've done from David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything are to show that patriarchy hasn't always been the norm. And the word itself is redundant because the archons from Greece were all male, the word matriarchy is a contradiction in terms because it combines matri- with archons, which were mutually exclusive.
Here are those episodes: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-mothers-ran-the-world and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy.
So I would make some modifications to your paraphrase of the expected objection: First, I would never call you a dumbass. I would say fellow traveler in figuring out what's real. Then I would not say 'the rise of city/states and agriculture' created patriarchy as the rule(s). I think it's more specific to the Abrahamic religions so starting with the warlords who took gangs of nomadic men and promised them the spoils of conquest, including the land and women. I think this included the Habiru, Hyksos, Scythians, 'Romans' from the second era (since I'm not sure the first existed). It's certainly the Crusaders and the colonizers.
The rule of primogeniture that gave ownership of the land and rule over the family to the oldest son created complete ownership of women, since property is power. And pushed the other sons into the military. In Africa, the introduction of property tax forced all but the oldest son into the mines. Taxation and the commodification of labor went hand-in-hand with the Torah technique of extraction.
We don't need to go back hundreds of thousands of years to show patriarchy isn't natural. My examples are from the colonial push in Canada and the US. If Laurent Guyenot is right about the timeline of the first millennia AD, the whole coinage-taxation-conquest scheme may be no more than 1300 yrs old, along with both enabling ideologies of the Torah and NT.
So I think you're right that the ridiculing 'right' has missed the point. But there's no denying that Euro-centric law has upheld property ownership by men, with rare exceptions. Communal ownership of food production and distribution, as was the norm in indigenous societies, is unheard of. And the maternal longhouse, which has become a trope for ridiculing the property ownership of women, doesn't exist in Euro culture.
yes. i remember the graeber post. (youtube has removed the video 'safe and effective' you linked. is it available elsewhere?)
thank you for suggesting that i'm not a 'dumbass', although i have the scars to aver the veracity of my statement.
i'm not sure you can ascribe that development to just to the abrahamic religions. gautama was active with the rise of the city states in india and the absolute rigidification of the caste system. in it women were the 'slaves' within each group. and in one of the discourses following gautama's death, ananda is chastised by the self appointed man who was to go on to create buddhism, that ananda was in error to have convinced gautama to let women into the practices he was developing.
and there is the strange world wide common event in the mythologies of the world that at nearly the same time there was a revolt by the men against the dominance of female power, in big and small civilisations. Joseph Campbell discusses this in his book *The Masks of God, Volume 1: Primitive Mytholog,* if memory serves. (i no longer have my library to reference and read that in the 1980s, i think.)
no the need to go back certainly isn't there. and yet it is powerful to have a concurrence of evidence point to the same truth. well, that is good for the logical thinking brain, anyway.
yes, this whole 'property ownership' issue is part of the psyop around scarcity. as soon as we put boundaries on anything, although land might be the most obvious example, i think by action it immediately becomes scarce. and it might be interesting to consider that along with all women, 99.9% of men also were property and without it. in the reality of most families, the man and the women were equally responsible for eking out survival in the family under the various forms of the monetary tyranny being managed by men. so, if we scratch below the surface of the powerful and look at the experience of most of human experience, at least for the west, is even then there equality of personal responsibility, if not physical contribution, was required to keep life going. the power structure will die of the vacuum if they are successful in the global genocide, even if they own all the land and the remaining humans.
in 'Muskrat Love & Anarchy: the antidote to civilization' you cite: 'This brings up what the Daves see as the three essential freedoms: 1) to move away; 2) to disobey; 3) to build new social worlds.'
yes. and this applies to the laws as well. how to move away from the laws? *one* of the ways, and perhaps an important one, is to see how we are blind to being lawed into place and then to move out from that. it was mlk, who wrote that an unjust (inhuman) law requires by our actions to be shunned or ostracised. (big paraphrase.) so i do find it interesting how much energy is spent by the alt/freedom movement to keep making, changing, or stopping laws, the very laws that are the structures of ownership and property rights — and even the pragmatic sources of what gets defined as property. now that is a huge problem.
i think it comes down to spiritual awareness, deep shadow work, and 'trust yourself'. hmmmm. now *that* is hard.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes.