Matriarchal society

@pawnedge interesting that expressing some reservations about the logical structure of a text makes me, in your view, "put the kitty on a pedestal". Or, in other words, if you believe something is true, then you should swallow any argument supporting that thing, no matter how illogical?

> Sure. And sharing around half our DNA with bananas doesn’t mean evolution really happened. :-P Look man, the fact that we tend to behave the same way animals do is probably not a coincidence. ;-) I mean what are the odds? This stuff is ancient. It predates trees.
Obviously I am not saying we share nothing in common with animals. You just shouldn't push some comparisons too far. Specifically, the behaviour of favouring one's own children is something that can be found both in men and women throughout history. So I don't know why we should focus on the example of female gorillas.

Your example with pick-up artists is a logical fallacy. That there are a lot of women available for this type of men does not imply that they are the general rule. Pick-up artists are "successful" because they go net fishing, so to speak. Sure, you will find a significant proportion of women who like machos, so statistically speaking pick-up artists will catch something in their nets. And yes, it probably has to do with evolution. Now it is only one aspect of human behaviour and seeing everything through that lense seems not granted to me. Humans are diverse, we all come with a certain heritage from our evolution, but with varying degree, and what we do with this heritage is up to us.
> I mean, if you want to pretend that women are somehow exempt from the drives that affect all the rest of nature (as in not just men, but the entire animal kingdom from insects on up), and are magically all just angels and saints, then enjoy that fantasy.
Again, I wonder what gave you this impression. Please read my post #4, where I express something along the lines of
> As for me, I reckon they’re just as bad on average, if not occasionally worse than any man.

@boilingFrog said in #17:
> Really, this is Critical Theory run amok !
No, this is basic logic. If you want to know what women want, why don't you ask a woman rather than a man who thinks he knows?
If such a simple observation is running amok to you... Well, I wouldn't like to be stuck in your head.

@pawnedge said in #20:
> But whereas everyone talks about the tyrannical father — who forces his kids to grow up too quickly — no one ever talks about the overbearing mother — who tries to protect her children out of having lives of their own.
That's grossly untrue. In popular culture, I can think of more works featuring a possessive mother than a tyrannical father.

I'm writing another book about men and women

I'm Okay You're NOT Okay

I'm a genus

huh

#21:
> the behaviour of favouring one's own children is something that can be found both in men and women throughout history. So I don't know why we should focus on the example of female gorillas.

Here we’re in agreement. The point isn’t that women are worse than men, it’s precisely that women are no different from men in that regard. He isn’t saying, “Look! Women do this terrible thing, and men don’t”; he’s just saying, “Look, women aren’t saints either.” ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ So I don’t really see what it is you have a problem with. That chapter happens to deal specifically with women; if you want examples of male animals doing bad things, read the rest of the book.

> That there are a lot of women available for this type of men does not imply that they are the general rule.

That’s where we disagree. You’ll need to provide an example of a PUA who mostly fails and only sometimes succeeds. From what I’ve seen, it’s the other way around. (And I doubt other PUAs would consider someone who mostly fails to be a real PUA. Clearly, there’s something wrong with his method.)

> Again, I wonder what gave you this impression.

I know it sounded like I was talking directly to you, but I was using a general “you.” It’s easier to contrast extreme positions than to deal only with specifics. If I’ve committed a fallacy here, that’s it. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ As for Thatcher, I happen to like her, FWIW. (FYI, I wrote a bit about Hillary Clinton — who’s my go-to example of a real-life witch — but edited it out. I decided the post was less controversial without specific examples.)

#23:
> In popular culture, I can think of more works featuring a possessive mother than a tyrannical father.

And yet everyone today demonizes “the patriarchy,” and Western governments are trying to be nanny states. You see, I’m not talking about fiction here, I’m talking about the real world. ;-)

A patriarchal society is, but isn't just about men being in power. It's about ideas, paradigms, stereotypes, roles and expectations, most of which we are so involved in that we don't notice them, and as a result we can live decades perpetuating and conforming to these ideas, women too. So instead of a matriarchal society, we need to integrate the ideas of feminism, because feminism isn't just about freeing women, but everyone from having to conform to restricting ideas.

@pawnedge said in #27:
> And yet everyone today demonizes “the patriarchy,”
Because we do live in a patriarchy. And for your information, that has nothing to do with the aeternal figure of the tyrannical father, or of the possessive mother for that matter.

@pawnedge said in #27:
> You’ll need to provide an example of a PUA who mostly fails and only sometimes succeeds
I think you have misunderstood my example. Since PUA go net fishing, and since there are "enough" women who like this type of men, statistically speaking every PUA will catch enough fish to be considered "successful".