Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

White Patriarchy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well Roy, tell me where I was wrong, which native american tribes had female hierarchies? I could be wrong, so set me straight.
    Societies change and evolve. The greater physical strength of men was necessary to sustain societies in the past, nowadays intellectual strength is what counts most regardless of gender. And, whilst monogamy is nowadays the norm in the developed world, anthropologists believe that polygamy was the norm through human history. So your broad-brush claim that societies have always been patriarchal and should remain patriarchal in not a valid argument. There have been many variations throughout human history.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    That does not change the fact that the vast majorities of tribes are patriarchies. And no, rare exception don't necessarily have to be on anyone's radar.
    It seems to me that you (and others in this thread) are improperly conflating females who exceptionally lead societies which are generally patriarchal with actual matriarchal societies. You're also IMO missing the larger point that, while there have been occasional matriarchies among primitive tribes, it is in patriarchies that civilization developed and advanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Exceptions, being exceptional, tend to be more widely known - so anyone who isn't aware of them clearly doesn't know a great deal.
    That does not change the fact that the vast majorities of tribes are patriarchies. And no, rare exception don't necessarily have to be on anyone's radar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, going through that list - these mostly are recent (the last century), the older ones are exceptions to the rule. Relatively few.
    Exceptions, being exceptional, tend to be more widely known - so anyone who isn't aware of them clearly doesn't know a great deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Right, going through that list - these mostly are recent (the last century), the older ones are exceptions to the rule. Relatively few.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    File with "I know a great deal about the sky. It's pink."
    Well Roy, tell me where I was wrong, which native american tribes had female hierarchies? I could be wrong, so set me straight.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post





    I am speaking of males or men being in charge of the group. For instance I know a good deal about American Indians and as far as I know Chiefs and tribal leaders were always male.
    There will always be exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...erican_leaders

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    For instance I know a good deal about American Indians and as far as I know Chiefs and tribal leaders were always male.
    File with "I know a great deal about the sky. It's pink."

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    The progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.
    You might want to try not using extremely long run on sentences and breaking up large blocks of text with paragraphs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Very true but they are afforded an inordinate amount of power and influences in colleges and universities and now increasingly in the work place.
    Sadly, so are "sexist pigs" under Trump.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    And worldviews. OK I was recently watching feminists on C-Span, and they were adamant that the progressive movement must dismantle or destroy white patriarchy and patriarchy in general, yet... Yet it was largely this patriarchal system that created the universities that they presently haunt, the modern medicine that helps keeps them alive, the farming and infrastructure that puts food on their table, every other modern convenience that they enjoy and created the very system of government that they see to exploit. Never mind the fact that it was largely the white patriarchal system that gave women the vote. What was really interesting was the claim that patriarchal system was a contrivance, a mere social invention. But that does not make sense, male dominance has been inherent in human history, and in our closest primate cousins. It is more biological than mere contrivance.
    Avery sad contorted justification for white male superiority and supremacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post


    “Feminazis” as you characterize them, are not representative of average woman any more than "sexist pigs" are representative of the average man.
    Very true but they are afforded an inordinate amount of power and influences in colleges and universities and now increasingly in the work place.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    The progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.
    Wow, I had to read it twice, but exactly right!

    Leave a comment:


  • mattbballman31
    replied
    The progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I was talking about why we have patriarchies in the first place, Tass. Why most societies are patriarchies now.
    We had them in the first place because the greater physical strength of men was an advantage in hunting for food. This is no longer essential in the technological era where intellectual skills are what matter most, not physical strength.

    no, actually many are trying to claim equality physically too. That is why they want the same jobs, even the military, why they insist on being able to compete with men in sports, why they don't want men to help them out in any way. I freely admit that there are some women out there that actually ARE the physical equal to some men. But in general they are not. The average woman is not the physical equal to the average man. and I don't have any problem with women having equal rights to men. Just with the feminazis that hate men and call them all rapists and such.
    “Feminazis” as you characterize them, are not representative of average woman any more than "sexist pigs" are representative of the average man.

    Virtue signalling acknowledged.
    Not “virtue signalling”, merely making the point that everyone is a potential victim of domination and rape not just “boo-hooing” women.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
10 responses
84 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
10 responses
62 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
23 responses
474 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
2,045 responses
105,580 views
0 likes
Last Post thormas
by thormas
 
Working...
X