/edu/ - Education

Its really just as simple as:
>Men can impregnare easily and practically infinately
>Men don't have to be pregnant and thus allways can be at their 100% physical capacity
>When women are pregnant they can't really do much and basically are a burden to the tribe
>However also women are super important to the tribe since without them it can't grow
>Ergo a culture is born where women are treated like prized possesions of the tribe and often times become victims of inter-tribe warfare where they get kidnapped
Basically it all stems from now-gone tribal material conditions which have zero bearing on material conditions now, however due to their prevalence before they are just really in-grown culturally abd hard to get rid off. At the end of the day, sexism is just as stupid as desire to stuff yourself on sugary food because thats how mammoth hunting worked, except one is instinctual rot, and the other is cultural.

If you know what Marxism is then you know what materialism is, if you know what materialism is then you know how we produce influences out social intercourse. The patriarchy stems from patriarchal relations of production and social intercourse. Marx said once that the more libertared women are is a good indicator of us getting closer to communism.

>>8358
most males hunt while the females feed the young

>>8358
The agricultural revolution. No I will not elaborate

If only Engels wrote a book about this…

>With the transition to agricultural class societies, the economic power of women is radically reduced, reflecting both her removal from primary access to food and other necessities and the loss of her autonomy in controlling her labor power. Her social status and political power are also radically reduced. Men generally handle the plow as well as all heavy domestic animals, and thus virtually monopolize the means of production, while women are reduced to the role of domestic laborers, merely processing the food and other goods provided by men in ways overseen by men. Her all-around dependency on the man then is a product of her economic dependence on him as a provider. Women's traditional job of taking care of children is reinforced by her increasing confinement to the home. Although both sexes do some craft-type work around the home, the division between "domestic tabor" and "external tabor" becomes qualitatively greater than it was in horticultural society. The agricultural division of tabor is also reinforced by the interests of the emerging ruling class in such societies, a class which is interested in securing the largest possible economic s urplus from the peasantry, and thus has an interest in men doing the agricultural tabor and women doing the processing around the house. because it is this system that is the most productive and hence the one from which they can extract the greatest surplus as tax (or rent) (Sacks 1975). The subordination of women to men that occurs concurrently with the development of class society means the all-around subordination of women. Sexual virginity becomes the norm for women at marriage. Strict penalties for extramarital sex are instituted for women. Neither becomes the case for men. Women's sexuality and ability to reproduce now come under the control of men. Women assume the status of minors, inferior in most rights to men. They are removed from having any role in political decision making. For the first time, women become subject to the general authority of their fathers and husbands.
Source: https://archive.org/details/ClassStructureSzymanski
This book has a whole chapter dedicated to how patriarchal structures originated.

>>8361
Circular logic. You are basically saying that "in tribal age men did tasks asociates with the dominant sex and women did those asociated with the submissive sex". Lets imagine humans were like snails and didn't have a sex. Our ancestors still would have needed division of labour between hunters and gatherers, and to me at least it doesn't seem that for some reason the hunters should have gotten higher standing than gatherers/caretakers. If anything, judging how the more close-to-home workers would take the top spots in early class societies, I'd even say its the gatherers/caretakers that should be superior in such a case. Thus I'd argue it is not the work roles but the biological differances of reproduction that caused sexism.

>>8358
A few reasons, some of the most pertinent include:

1. Women have lower average physical strength and aptitude for waging war. While this is generally less of an issue in countries with higher modes of production that supplant the need for physical strength with technological supremacy, historically, it was much harder to assert a claim to power without the means to physically contend for that power. Because strength was a valuable commodity in pre-industrial societies, women were also less valued as a result.

2. As >>8359 said, women are physically anchored to their offspring, both by pregnancy and breastfeeding, while men are not. The fact that women are literally attached to the act of childbirth and child rearing creates a social impetus for women to act as caretakers for children, a task of great responsibility, to say the least, that often prevents them from pursuing positions within a society in which they can wield institutional power.

3. Either for reasons of nature or nurture or most probably both, women generally place a higher value on the maintenance of social stability and are less likely to take major risks or challenge the status quo through confrontation. Since power in hierarchy is typically achieved through conflict, women are thus often at a disadvantage relative to their male peers.

>>8359
I said essentially the same thing in the prostitution thread, but the replies all seemed to disagree that patriarchy is fundamentaly rooted in women's biological role as childbearers and the consequences thereof.
I'd be curious to hear what other people have to say, as I am admittedly not that well-read and might be wrong about everything.

>>8362
Patriarchy also exists within hunter-gatherer societies.

>>8361
This is not true across patriarchal societies (many had women hunt small game and collect plant food). Additionally, you fail to suggest how this would create a patriarchal society.

>>8368
>Additionally, you fail to suggest how this would create a patriarchal society.
by suggesting such i assume that males are dominant in supporting a society annd hence become patriarchal.

>>8367
>patriarchy is fundamentaly rooted in women's biological role as childbearers and the consequences thereof.
I'd say it's a contributing factor, but it also depends very much on the role of child rearing relative to the material conditions of a given society. If a tribe of people are highly dependent on things like warfare, demanding physical labor, or anything that pregnant women and their children would become liabilities rather then assets, then that tribe is likely to veer towards a more patriarchal social arrangement. If a tribe is more dependent on women's labor than they will probably be more egalitarian.

Since it seems OP's question is answered, I have a few hypothetical questions. I want materialist responses, or references to texts if you accept an answer there:

>ignoring status quo, can patriarchy be abolished, provided women continue to want and have children, and provided advancements in science don't obsolete current physical differences between males and females?

Points to consider are decreased and decreasing physical requirements for an 'average' job, work automation, liberalism and socialism already resulting in reduced wage gaps, high-ranking female politicians including presidents and prime ministers, and female CEOs in major companies.

>>8359
>Basically it all stems from now-gone tribal material conditions which have zero bearing on material conditions now
Nah up until very recently childbirth was hugely risky and often took a massive toll. Something like 1/3 of women died in childbirth across history. It's something that was very much with us until modern medical advances changed things (including birth control and abortion as a medical procedure), which is the reason you saw feminism etc take off when it did and not a lot earlier in capitalism. We do still have some of the material basis for this, it's just been lessened greatly.

More to the point, power no longer passes through noble family lines, but through ownership of property. This means that inheritance really isn't such an important question as capital will pass to somebody who can manage it regardless of whether Porky can give it to Porky Jr. This is a big upgrade because succession is not a major source of crisis any more.

Even with a patriarchal system this had a lot of problems, but if society was run by women usually or even sometimes there would be a significant risk of death during an attempt to produce an heir. This means that societies that only allow men to rule are less likely to have that kind of succession crisis. On the other hand, they are likely to have a different one: the king is a cuckold. A quirk of reproduction is that the paternity of a baby is not clear (again until modern medicine worked this out). If there turns out to be a problem with the royal line, that is going to cause political instability and threaten the system with crisis. For this reason it becomes necessary to strictly control the female side of reproduction. There really wasn't any other way to ensure proper inheritance, and of course that's going to matter for biological reasons. Obviously somebody who passes power to their descendants will be more successful in evolutionary terms than someone who doesn't, so in the long run the rulers who protect their legacy are going to be more successful at reproducing and the trait will come to dominate. Those are the three key ingredients pretty much:
>high lethality of reproduction for women
>reproductive infidelity for men
>drive to pass power to your offspring

There are other ways around this and of course the systems got a lot more complex with rules for the line of succession, but this is the material basis they had to work with.

>>8363
Origin of Family Private Property and the State is very outdated. He was limited by the science of his time. It should not be taken as reflective of the knowledge we have now.

>>8366
>1. strength and war
This is relevant to the detail of warrior classes and the like but that operates on different factors from who is "fit to rule" so to speak. It's incidental that women are smaller and weaker than men. The opposite is true in some animals. Physical dominance and power is more about who you can get to support you than fighting for dominance yourself, which is very specific to humans. If women were larger than men but the mechanics of reproduction still worked as described above, men would still dominate politically.
It wouldn't really make sense to have women warriors even in this case, though, because of the reproductive bottleneck. Losing women to war reduces the rate the population can replenish itself, which is probably a major factor in human sexual dimorphism being what it is. Men by nature of how they reproduce are more expendable than women (1 man can impregnate an arbitrarily large number of women), which means they are more suited to being warriors from a Darwinian perspective. With that being the case, it makes much more sense for men to tend to be larger and stronger. And indeed you tend to see larger females in species that are less social, like lizards or fish. In those species the size difference is more a function of male bodies not needing to be as big to make sperm as female bodies need to be to make eggs. Organized war-like practices are irrelevant to those species.
>2. women anchored to offspring
This is a significant factor for working classes, but not so much for rulers. Nobles's "work" could be done in tandem with taking care of children a lot more easily than manual labor can, and of course upper class women employed lower class women to tend to their children, so this is really not a big factor for who wields political power at the top. It is very relevant to the commoners, though, and shapes a lot of how society looks for most people's daily lives.
>3. women take fewer risks
This is probably more effect than cause, irrespective of whether it's nurture or nature. If women didn't face higher physical costs for pregnancy they might be more open to sexual risks for example. Behavioral tendencies are pretty much a second order effect and follow from more foundational biology, like the costs and risks associated with reproduction. It probably also ties in a lot to the disposability thing mentioned above.

Patriarchy isn't a mystical or spooky thing. It literally meant that patriarchal rights and duties were codified into law, or part of the customs of a polity that were effectively the force of law. In Rome, the patriarch of the family effectively owned the members of his household, male and female alike. The concept of an individual relationship to the state was a somewhat newfangled thing, as before the state usually dealt with subjects through something like a feudal relation and held the patriarch accountable. The state proper would gradually supplant this with the obligation of the citizen or subject to the state, but still had to accept the patriarchal norms of most societies in the world.

There wasn't anything spooky or mystical about patriarchy. At any point in the modern era, it is inappropriate to speak of "patriarchy" beyond the last remaining vestiges. Even the fascist appeals to "patriarchy" are really nothing of the sort - in fascism, everyone is subordinated to the totalizing state, and it is a game of fascist elites to claim the wives and daughters of lesser men as an expression of the ideology.

If you want to have a meaningful discourse about prostitution, patriarchy is far removed from the problem, unless you're talking about fathers prostituting their children - which does happen more often than you'd think. Prostitution is something older than legal patriarchy and something quite apart from it. The prostitute is typically a "free woman", and historically was an example given to men about why women shouldn't be allowed political freedom.

There isn't a serious claim that women are politically unequal since the early 20th century. Where women are shit on, it's usually because there is the remaining expectation that women should sell their bodies for the pleasure of elites, and the women who refuse to do that and try to survive on merit are beaten back, because meritocracy is a farce and always has been. You'd really have to look at why meritocracies are generally failures, and how shitty self-serving behavior is rewarded in them, to understand what happens in the modern workplace, or even begin to understand. But aside from that, the modern workplace is basically a giant eugenics program, rather than something geared towards being productive beyond the barest minimum. Only the sobering influence of a need to produce some saleable good disciplined managers to do anything other than sit on their hoards of wealth and influence and do petty shit. Once that sobering influence was removed, managers went apeshit with pettiness, and today it's pretty much expected for young women to put themselves on the sexual exploitation circuit, ironically in the spirit of "freedom". If you're arguing that patriarchal rights in the old sense mean anything in 2021 though, you'd in crazytown, unless you're talking about super shithole countries like Arabia or Afghanistan; and even there, patriarchy is something quite different from prostitution, and men aren't driven to buying women because of "patriarchal brainwashing", as if they'd be ideal male-female pairs in some imagined equality. As I said, prostitution is much older than formal patriarchy as such, and probably existed in some form during times of primitive equality of the sexes. It's a simple reality that men are typically wanting for partners, and women really don't need to buy men in the vast majority of cases. It is a very unusual case for women to debase themselves by purchasing a male partner for pleasure, because they can find many men who will do it for free or even pay them. If the circumstances were reversed and women were the breadwinners, this wouldn't change. Men who enter prostitution almost universally offer themselves to other men.

>>8358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGymk8wjtA
If your french there this

>>8359
This is stupid because hunter-gatherer tribes were not polities as if they were a modern managerial state. The early hunter-gatherers didn't think with a Malthusian, eugenicist mindset towards reproduction or the roles of the sexes. All evidence of current hunter-gatherers shows that there isn't marked patriarchy in them. Nor does this attitude correspond to every single early-civilized polity based on what we know, in the exact same way.

The simple truth is that women have a number of assets in their body that can be sold and are in demand, and so it was possible to appropriate those features, whether this would be done by the woman herself or someone claiming ownership of her. Then the men decided they could, and that it was beneficial to maintain a conspiracy against the women to supplant an earlier, mythological conspiracy of women to lord over men. The thinking would arise that if a man was fool enough to love a woman, she would take everything from him, and this was a bad way to do business. Marriage, in most of the world and for most of history, was always going to be about business.

The state as an institution historically didn't care about "upholding patriarchy". Usually when it did so, it was doing so because the men of that society preferred the state staying out of their marital and family affairs, and it had long been accepted that the family as an institution was preferable to state intervention in reproduction. Modernity saw that for the first time, the state could reverse this old practice, and so progress begun on exactly that aim, under the guise of "liberation" that usually wasn't even asked for. One of the great difficulties of feminism is convincing women that they should actually be feminists.

One thing that should be dispelled is the notion that feminism liberated women to work. If you were poor and working class, capitalism didn't spare women from working. It was in the 19th century a major problem that mothers were sent to the factory to work long hours at unequal pay, something that justified the exploitation of the children (and it was considered a bonus that women nursing children were unable to work, because by enforcing the compulsion to work, the liberals could break up families and lower the birth rate).

Biological differences (women have to produce new people) and the rise of class society.

>>8376
Genetic engineering to enable male pregnancy and female insemination is a necessary prerequisite to ending class society.

material conditions have naturally selected male traits for leadership and female to support

>marxist
Stop it right there.
Ask actual historians or anthropologists about this.
I

>>8378
>we can't end class society until we have invented science fiction bio technology
this is a new type of reactionary argument, I'll give you credit for your creativity.
We can end class society now, all the material conditions for building socialism are already in existence.

>>8381
That's not what Marx said.

>>8381
Yeah but only in developed countries.

>>8365
It is asweing about origins, no if was correct these origins.
> Lets imagine humans were like snails and didn't have a sex.
> impliying
As simple as men could not breastfeed, similarly, they were not cared for until the age of majority, barons who could already start running were already going to hunt and girls were pregnant at very early age. Let's remember that life expectancy was no more of 20 years old. But we can say man are bad if you feel oppresed

>>8380
Well that would be a good start for some facts also archeologists and paleontologists but once we've acquired the information we can interpret it

>>8384
Yes, but life expectancy of 20 does not actually mean that most people died at around 20. It simply ment that most people born didn't survive past the first few years of their lives, and the ones that did, got to be 40-50 years old

>>8365
>Lets imagine humans were like snails and didn't have a sex.
Stfu, snailphobe.

>>8380
>implying 'Marxist' isn't effectively a buzzword synonym for a materialist scientific paradigm incidentally used by historians and anthropologist in formal works anyway
U

Coochie feel good
Ug stronger than Uga who have coochie
Ug use club get coochie

>>8389
>Ug use club get coochie
All the good times…
Nowadays you'll never get to have a totally dependent fuckdoll that bows her head when you talk, unless you go full hillbilly or the marriage equivalent of a sex tourist.

I know humans are not all that sexually dimorphic like other animals but wouldn't differences in muscle/bone density, skeletal proportions, inclination towards aggression (because of men having way more Testosterone) factor into this?

>>8358
It was the lack of Fluoride in the water and soy in every other meal and Demons.

>>8391
Humans are basically not sexually dimorphic the way most apes are, but we are still mammals hence males are larger than females as with almost all species of mammals, especially social species
We also have a predilection for violence and aggression on at least some level, otherwise we would not experience violent/aggressive emotions
I would also say males are more adapted for combat than females are, not to the extent of chimps and gorillas since our ancestors were not as competitive and aggressive as they were, but still to a marked degree men seem built for melee combat

>>8358
read this
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/index.htm