The term "patriarchy theory" is inconsistent with its own definition, as defined by its own proponents

hierophage · 2013-04-25T04:13:23+00:00

Been lurking for a while, thought I'd share a simple reason why patriarchy theory don't real. Patriarchy theory is problematic in that its label is...

[–]PieMasterBob5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hierophage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't come here to defend jezebel (I really don't like jezebel anyways).

But if you're looking for a quick and dirty answer: Patriarchy privileges masculinity, which isn't something all men embody, and it's something that some women embody (though in this latter case, these women have to work hard to balance their femininity as women with their masculinity). Saying it privileges masculinity isn't the same as privileging men; though it is true that it is easier for men to "work" towards masculinity in our society. Feminism, in challenging normative notions of gender exposes the oppressive effects privileging masculinity has on women and men. Especially in light of the fact that social and personality qualities which have been articulated with hegemonic masculinity (toughness, insensitivity, callousness, etc) are very damaging to the mental and physical health of men, MRAs really ought to be more interested in embracing this kind of analysis.

[–]jolly_mcfats6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(I really don't like jezebel anyways)

heh, we have that in common. I should have been more specific- I assumed you would know that I was referencing a jezebel article Lindy West wrote recently that seemed to have been picked up by the rest of the internet, only to be repeated by the red-headed demonstrator at the university of toronto, and mutate without any consideration of mra responses.

In my experience talking with self-described feminists, the term is used extremely loosely, and few people using the term would seem to agree on a canonical definition. In its' most outrageous form, the patriarchy is a conspiracy to benefit men at the expense of women perpetrated exclusively by men. I've heard that radical second wave feminists define patriarchy as a tool of class oppression, and third wave feminists define it as a gender system which is masculosexist and femmophobic. Very, very rarely I will encounter a definition similar to yours which uses the term Patriarchy to personify a bias which causes men and women alike to confer a greater expectation of competence and responsibility to men. I am aware of studies that appear sound that would support the proposition of such a bias, and as you point out, this bias is probably responsible for perceptions of hypoagency in women, hyperagency in men, and is a driving force behind male disposability, since disposability is the price men are expected to pay for that responsibility.

Unfortunately, even if we limit it to the narrow definition provided above, we run into problems. First, why personify it at all? Why not just call it a percieved agency bias? Secondly- you know how one of the goals of feminism has been to promote gender-neutral terms, such as police officer rather than policemen and women; fire fighters instead of firemen and women? Justified by the rationale that language matters, and affects how girls think about themselves? What do you think the effect of Patriarchy as the thing that causes all social ills, and feminism as the cure is? And if the answer is that "men are privileged and should be able to take negative language"- isn't that just another demand of stoic tough guy behavior? Isn't it even possible that such a loaded and nebulous term is part of the reason nobody seems to really have the same definition?

Finally, masculists will say that part of the issue is that manhood is a status that is traditionally earned, and that men who do not earn it are treated with scorn (such as the homeless, and homosexuals in an earlier era). While I agree that men should have value because they are humans, I'm not certain that it hasn't been demonstrated that those traits which "earn" manhood are useless. You say that

social and personality qualities which have been articulated with hegemonic masculinity (toughness, insensitivity, callousness, etc) are very damaging to the mental and physical health of men

and that women seem to have to pick up these traits as well to succeed. But what isn't clear to me is that those traits are worthless in the world as it is (competitive). The assumption that they are useless, and that feminine traits are better suited for getting things done seems... misandric, and to have an air of female supremacy to it. Don't get me wrong- I don't want those traits to be required in order for men OR women to get respect, but I do think that those traits might be associated with success for reasons that have nothing to do with sexism.

[–]rottingchrist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hierophage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Especially in light of the fact that social and personality qualities which have been articulated with hegemonic masculinity (toughness, insensitivity, callousness, etc) are very damaging to the mental and physical health of men...

Citation needed. This is quite a qualitative, subjective interpretation in your conclusion.

Qualities perceived as being masculine are necessary to the very foundation of societal coexistence, even if carried to the extreme, in rare cases, they can become a detriment. What you call "toughness", "insensitivity", and "callousness" are negative connotations for positive traits. How about "endurance", "objectivity", and "focus"? Without what you call the insensitivity and callousness of men, how could society ever perform the functions which men have always done and which women are largely either unable (due to physical muscle mass) or unwilling (due to privilege)? Men do the work which is more likely to result in serious illness, injury, or death, necessary work mind you, and always have. It's partly because of these masculine traits which you are biased to see in a negative light. Women haven't exactly rushed to do these jobs in even the most female-liberated countries on the globe. I don't expect they ever will.

Why would they, and could you honestly say it would make sense if they did?

This of course, is representative of how "patriarchy" "theory" (yes, it is a theory, not an absolute) is sorely lacking as a universal description of structural oppression within societies anywhere. And this is why I and others hold it to the standard of a "theory" (though its proponents will just say "Patriarchy" with a capital P as dogma is often named). If it doesn't hold up to reality, it's either useless as a mere idea, let alone a theory, or in much need of improvement.

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hierophage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On average, men have superior physical strength and durability, important for certain types of jobs necessary to many of society's most basic functions. Muscle mass:

After adjusting for dimorphism in size (height), adult males have greater total lean mass and mineral mass, and a lower fat mass than females.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X07000371

Skeletal size, strength, and density (necessary for durability under load as well as for supporting larger muscles):

The larger skeleton achieved during growth in men produces a stronger bone than in women (i.e. a bone that tolerates larger absolute loads).

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/86/10/4576.full

The gender disparity within hazardous jobs is well known and can be summarized with the data on page 8 here, demonstrating the vast disproportion of work-related deaths of males:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0010.pdf

And in cases where ability to do the work cannot explain the gender disparity for a given job, this may well be attributable to women having the privilege of a greater range of career choices than men:

“Our study shows that it’s not lack of ability or differences in ability that orients females to pursue non-STEM careers, it’s the greater likelihood that females with high math ability also have high verbal ability,” notes Wang. “Because they’re good at both, they can consider a wide range of occupations.”

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/more-career-options-may-explain-why-fewer-women-pursue-jobs-in-science-and-math.html

You have still yet to provide citations I requested from you describing the masculine traits you brought up as being more detrimental than helpful. I'm sure you will deliver.

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I recognize that those sources establish two things

That there is some measurable difference in the in the body fat distribution, lean muscle mass, BMD and skeletal structure between men and women.
Men suffer a disproportionately larger number of fatal work injuries then women in the U.S.

The last article just doesn't seem directly relivent, and to reach your conclusion, we have to suppose a great deal about what is "truly" motivating these women, and I can't see how the researchers jumped to the conclusion that women have a "greater range of career choices" compared to their male counterparts (it seems to me that standardized testing scores are not the same a course performance and enrollment in college). Even stranger... how is the career choices of college bound men and women have any relation to the "disparity within hazardous jobs," which is more a product of social class then gender anyways...

However, nothing you've said supports the claim that men have always performed function necessary for society. Also, you've not supported the claim that women are either unable or unwilling to perform these function. Sorry, I don't buy this argument that "men built the world, and women are just tagging along." I mean, really, can you not come up with one job women have been historically obligated to perform, of which society would collapse without. One job in which women are disproportionately burdened... (have you guessed it yet?)

The thing is, even if there are bodily difference between men and women, is there any reason to suppose that women can't to dangerous jobs? Like, how is having less dense bones, and a little more body fat going to prevent you from working with dangerous equipment (15%) or driving delivery trucks (of which transportation incidents make up 41% of fatal occupational injuries). Furthermore, how is being a woman protecting you from homicide (10% of fatal occupational injuries). Furthermore, you assume that these dangerous jobs are necessary for a functioning society (because I know I would consider modernity a failure if my AmazonPrime packages arrived late.) I mean, there are plenty of reasons that labor is sexed, of which the biological and "female privilege" explanations are the worst (I'm not saying White, Burton, and Brudner's explanation for the sexual division of labor is the true explanation, I simply wanted to show you what a "good" explanation is compared to your woefully lacking explanation).

Your argument rests on an important assertion which I don't buy (as I mentioned above). The idea that (1) women don't do important work, and that (2) men must, are bad premises to start from. The 1st is bad because it actually erases the contributions that women have made to society despite the presence of patriarchy. The second is bad because it doesn't explain why some men get all the power and other men get none of it (there are lots of men who never have to build buildings, but they certainly get to own those buildings).

So you ask:

You have still yet to provide citations I requested from you describing the masculine traits you brought up as being more detrimental than helpful. I'm sure you will deliver.

To which I will! I was on my phone earlier, so I wasn't able to give you something of substance. However, first I need to critique something you said originally.

Qualities perceived as being masculine are necessary to the very foundation of societal coexistence, even if carried to the extreme, in rare cases, they can become a detriment. What you call "toughness", "insensitivity", and "callousness" are negative connotations for positive traits. How about "endurance", "objectivity", and "focus"?

Do not rephrase and redefine what I say to make your point. It is a bad rhetorical device, and shows intellectual cowardliness through a refusal to tackle the actual content of what I said. So, when I say "toughness", "insensitivity", and "callousness," I do not mean "endurance", "objectivity", and "focus" carried to the extreme. It's silly to assume that the things I list are those "positive" qualities taken to the extreme. Sensitivity is a quality of people, but objectivity isn't a quality of people, what you said was nonsense. (As a side note to your decision to use "endurance" will actually put you in conflict with radical feminists who agree with your existentialist understanding of gender. Because women have a higher percentage of bodily fat, they actually make for better hunters then men. You see, during the long hunt, you have to travel light. Large animals, take mammoths for example, can outrun humans. However, if you can keep the chase up, the large animal will tire itself out, and then the hunt is finished. From this logic women make for more important tribal members, not men. I don't agree with this logic.)

Now, you stated:

Especially in light of the fact that social and personality qualities which have been articulated with hegemonic masculinity (toughness, insensitivity, callousness, etc) are very damaging to the mental and physical health of men...

Citation needed.

Because you probably need the help, I will give you R.W. Connell's explanation of hegemonic masculinity:

The concept of 'hegemony', deriving from Antonio Gramsci's analysis of class relations, refers to the cultural dynamic by which a group claims and sustains a leading position in social life. At any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted. Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practices which embodies the currently accepted asnwer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.

Connell, R.W. (2005), "The Social Organization of Masculinity" Feminist Theory Reader. Routledge

Ok, so to support that "toughness, insensitivity, callousness, etc" are articulated (sorry for the po-mo speak if that's what confused you) with hegemonic masculinity, I give you Mike Donaldson's "What is Hegemonic Masculinity" (lucky you, he expands even further then I do on the contents of hegemonic masculinity):

More than fifty books have appeared in the English language in the last decade or so on men and masculinity. What is hegemonic masculinity as it is presented in this growing literature? Hegemonic masculinity, particularly as it appears in the works of Carrigan, Connell, and Lee, Chapman, Cockburn, Connell, Lichterman, Messner, and Rutherford, involves a specific strategy for the subordination of women. In their view, hegemonic masculinity concerns the dread of and the flight from women. A culturally idealized form, it is both a personal and a collective project, and is the common sense about breadwinning and manhood. It is exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internally and hierarchically differentiated, brutal, and violent. It is pseudo-natural, tough, contradictory, crisis-prone, rich, and socially sustained. While centrally connected with the institutions of male dominance, not all men practice it, though most benefit from it. Although cross-class, it often excludes working-class and black men. It is a lived experience, and an economic and cultural force, and dependent on social arrangements. It is constructed through difficult negotiation over a life-time. Fragile it may be, but it constructs the most dangerous things we live with. Resilient, it incorporates its own critiques, but it is, nonetheless, "unravelling."

Donaldson, M. (2013) "What is Hegemonic Masculinity" Theory and Society 22(5):643--657

Ok, and now my claim that hegemonic masculinity is "very damaging to the mental and physical health of men." Once again, you are a luck guy! Lots of feminists have talked about this! How hegemonic masculinity hurts gay men:

There are three main reasons why male homosexuality is regarded as counter-hegemonic. Firstly, hostility to homosexuality is seen as fundamental to male heterosexuality; secondly, homosexuality is associated with effeminancy; and thirdly, the form of homosexual pleasure is itself considered subversive... Such hostility is inherent in the construction of heterosexual masculinity itself. Conformity to the demands of hegemonic masculinity, pushes heterosexual men to homophobia and rewards them for it, in the form of social support and reduced anxiety about their own manliness. In other words, male heterosexual identity is sustained and affirmed by hatred for, and fear of, gay men.

ibid.

How hegemonic masculinity damages men's health:

Masculinity, in its hegemonic form, can have the effect that men avoid talking about health problems and do not consult health care, even when help is needed.This study had two aims: firstly to describe how young men relate to health, ill health, masculinity and their bodies, and secondly to investigate their abilities of self-care. [In the discussion] The idiom ‘real men don’t cry’ awakens the men’s sensitive sides. Crying was not an emotional expression that was believed to be exclusively available to women. A number of the men believed that crying was an entirely legitimate way of expressing emotions. They even described those situations where it was permissible for men to cry. This can be regarded as evidence of an awareness of the social pressure on men and how, within any given sociocultural framework, they are expected to behave.

Nobis, R. and Sanden I. (2008) "Young men's health: A balance between self-reliance and vulnerability in the light of hegemonic masculinity" Contemporary Nurse 26(2):205--217

I could go on... but I actually think that it should be obvious the other ways hegemonic masculinity hurts men...

[–]hierophage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The last article just doesn't seem directly relivent, and to reach your conclusion, we have to suppose a great deal about what is "truly" motivating these women, and I can't see how the researchers jumped to the conclusion that women have a "greater range of career choices" compared to their male counterparts (it seems to me that standardized testing scores are not the same a course performance and enrollment in college).

Why do you think that vastly more men do dangerous work than women, as evidenced by vastly greater rates of work-related illness, injury, and death? Is it because men choose to do this work, or because women choose not to do it? Perhaps sexual dimorphism comes into play with certain jobs. Perhaps men have less choice as to whether they want to spend their lives working for a wage or not, and therefore any job, no matter how hazardous, will do. Perhaps women, aware that this is sort of work is not expected of them simply choose not to do it because they don't have to, although they could if they wanted to and could meet the physical requirements for the job. I do agree that the particular article I cited is unrelated to hazardous jobs in particular, but I do see it as a glimpse into women's having a greater range of careers from which to choose (if they desire a career at all), which might explain in part why fewer women appear in such jobs. Nevertheless I concede on that particular citation. Back to hazardous work and back to your ideas about men's callousness and insensitivity.

Perhaps it's these traits of "toughness", "insensitivity", and "callousness" which are part and parcel of men's willingness to do such work. Perhaps the work wouldn't be done at all if men did not possess these traits. Traits which, as I'll go into more below, can express themselves in both positive and negative aspects.

Sorry, I don't buy this argument that "men built the world, and women are just tagging along."

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I ever say that women were not also doing other types of work which is necessary to the foundations of our society. Not once. I'm merely pointing out that the types of jobs which men do are the types of jobs in which a certain degree of emotional detachment can be not only helpful but can mean the difference between life and death. This is why I say "toughness, insensitivity, and callousness" are just negative connotations of traits which are positive in certain contexts, contexts which are in fact necessary in our society. You don't go running into a burning building to save lives if you are tender, sensitive, and attached. In general, you don't go putting yourself in danger without some suspension of your own emotions, such as fear or desire for self-preservation. A lot of the jobs which more men tend to do require this sort of thing, and I think these sorts of "masculine" traits allow them to do it effectively.

The thing is, even if there are bodily difference between men and women, is there any reason to suppose that women can't to dangerous jobs?

Not at all, so long as the particular job doesn't require a certain threshold of physical exertion, mainly working with large, heavy objects. (And sure, there are a few women who are perfectly capable of heavier physical work.) But for the most part, women still do not choose to do these jobs if they have any other choice, whether or not they impose such physical demands. Perhaps their lack of "toughness, insensitivity, and callousness" does not predispose them to that sort of work.

I mean, there are plenty of reasons that labor is sexed, of which the biological and "female privilege" explanations are the worst...

Again, this is not what I'm saying. I'm not saying female privilege is the cause for this division of labor. I'm saying it is the outcome. It is a mix of men's physical strength and ability to detach and become "tough, insensitive, and callous" when it is called for which can explain much of men's willingness to take on more hazardous, risky work. Because of this, women are less obligated and, for their own reasons, less predisposed to such work. In this way, they are privileged. Don't put the cart before the horse. The situation didn't arise because of privilege; privilege arose because of the situation.

Your argument rests on an important assertion which I don't buy (as I mentioned above). The idea that (1) women don't do important work, and that (2) men must, are bad premises to start from.

Again, I did not say that women don't do important work. I said that the masculine traits you cast in a negative light can help explain men's willingness to do work that is hazardous and nevertheless necessary. Never once did I make the claim that women don't also tend toward other types of important work. Not once. Re-read what I wrote and tell me where I said that. QED.

Second, I never said that men must do such work, but I do imply that, because of these masculine traits, they are more apt to do so. And, of course, gender is not always a binary, and some women actually take on such jobs willfully. But this is the exception, not the norm. Women tend toward other functions which, while just as important, tend to be less hazardous.

So, when I say "toughness", "insensitivity", and "callousness," I do not mean "endurance", "objectivity", and "focus" carried to the extreme. It's silly to assume that the things I list are those "positive" qualities taken to the extreme.

I'm challenging your definitions. Calling my challenge "silly" without addressing it further does not refute it.

I'm saying that "toughness, insensitivity, and callousness" are personality traits which can be perceived when a person is actually just emotionally detached. The reason for such detachment can be negative, but it can also be positive.

Sometimes what is perceived as, say, "cold and calculating", is really just "objective and focused".

Sometimes "insensitivity" is actually asserting the fleeting emotions of another individual as being insufficient justification to make some decision. For example, one can be seen as "insensitive" to the family of a homicide victim by arguing against the death penalty. While the person almost certainly places value has has empathy for the family, they also place great value in the principles of our system of due process. The ability to override appeals to emotion in order to do the right thing is a positive trait, not a negative trait.

And when I replaced "toughness" with "endurance", I wasn't talking about cardiovascular endurance. I was talking about the ability to take a licking and keep on ticking, so to speak. The ability to continue laboring after a lifetime of labor has left you with chronic back pain, for example. The willingness to endure the elemental forces which accompany some of the dangerous jobs which more men tend to do.

The radical feminist argument you made about female body fat allowing for long chases during the hunt is just absurd. Chasing an animal which is faster than you is a very poor hunting strategy; you want to ambush and you want to wield weapons which can be thrown faster than you can run (which requires upper body strength). If these radical feminists were really the ones leading tribes after mammoth meat, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be any remaining indigenous arctic peoples to speak of; they would have starved to death, burning more calories chasing the damn animal than the kill would have yielded. But that whole argument is a non sequitur and you already disagree with it, and so we digress.

Because you probably need the help...

Can we refrain from this kind of vitriolic undertone? You've already demonstrated that you're comfortable making unsupported assumptions about my arguments by putting words in my mouth; now you want to make assumptions about my ability to use Google or my intelligence or both. As I continue writing my response, I see you doing this several more times; it's not useful to the discussion at all. And by the way, it is your responsibility to provide citations for your assertions, not mine.

At any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted.

To the exclusion of women? Yes, certain forms of masculinity have always been exalted; certain forms of femininity have always been exalted too. What's your point?

As to the rest of the "hegemonic masculinity" stuff (I am perfectly fine with the word "articulated", by the way)... I alluded in my previous comment as well as in this response that these traits can take on negative expressions. But I also demonstrate where the emotional detachment in which these traits are rooted takes on positive expressions. Two sides of the same coin.

Now, regarding how expectations for men to play these roles can be harmful, I completely agree. Gender is not a simple binary. Besides these traits "blessing" men with an affinity to hazardous (but necessary) work, it is also unfair to expect every male to fit the same mould. Society as a whole, women included, has at many times displayed disregard or even blatant contempt for men who do not embody these traits. This social pressure is one of the core aspects of male oppression. It also makes sure our Amazon packages get delivered on time, that fires get put out, and that the lights stay on. But we can certainly do without the marginalization of men who, for one reason or another, do not fully embody the masculine role.

As an aside, much of this discussion has been committed to correcting misrepresentations of my arguments. Perhaps these were done because I was not clear enough in my original response, so I have attempted to correct that here. I'm sad to point out that some part of my response had to be in addressing your non-constructive insults. I hope we can continue the discussion from here without the false assumptions and personal attacks.

[–]spermjack_attack0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The radical feminist argument you made about female body fat allowing for long chases during the hunt is just absurd. Chasing an animal which is faster than you is a very poor hunting strategy; you want to ambush and you want to wield weapons which can be thrown faster than you can run (which requires upper body strength). If these radical feminists were really the ones leading tribes after mammoth meat, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be any remaining indigenous arctic peoples to speak of; they would have starved to death, burning more calories chasing the damn animal than the kill would have yielded. But that whole argument is a non sequitur and you already disagree with it, and so we digress.

"If women were in charge of hunting, humanity would be extinct." I don't think there is anywhere to go from here.

[–]hierophage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I simply said that the strategy posited by these radical feminists would not work very well.

You don't know anything about anything. Let me inform you:

Persistence hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters use a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the point of exhaustion. While humans can sweat to reduce body heat, their quadrupedal prey would need to slow from a gallop in order to pant. Today, it is very rare and seen only in a few groups such as Kalahari bushmen and the Tarahumara or Raramuri people of Northern Mexico. Persistence hunting requires endurance running – running many miles for extended periods of time. Among primates, endurance running is only seen in humans, and persistence hunting is thought to have been one of the earliest forms of human hunting, having evolved 2 million years ago.

So, you dismissed this argument out of complete ignorance. An especially embarrassing ignorance after you tried to assert this little claim:

now you want to make assumptions about my ability to use Google or my intelligence or both.

Now I'm making conclusions about both. I can only speculate as to why you've decided to speak out of complete ignorance on this subject. Maybe you're a filthy liar? Maybe you are some monstrous misogynist? Maybe you just like to feel like you know things, so you write long misinformed comments in response to my intelligent and thoughtful posts?

[–]hierophage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, let's go down this road. You're still choosing to ignore the rest of my argument. Even if I might be wrong on this one point, the rest of my argument stands unchallenged if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Now. Persistence hunting.

Was it used to hunt the mammoth? The best information I can find is that a common strategy was actually to ambush a herd near a cliff and drive the largest one they could off the cliff. This doesn't involve endurance running so much as ambushing and startling the animals. But there doesn't appear to be a solid consensus on how the mammoth in particular was hunted except that a lot of people armed with spears were used.

For how long was persistence hunting considered effective as better techniques and technology were developed? From your own citation, it is an ancient form of hunting which is very rarely seen in the modern age. Where it does happen today, it is done primarily by males, which still invalidates the original argument about women doing this sort of hunting.

(By the way, you claimed you didn't even agree with this argument to begin with, so why are you switching focus to this peripheral sidebar except to distract from my other, far more relevant arguments which you're still choosing to ignore?)

Does a higher ratio of body fat actually translate to greater ability in endurance running? The original argument appears to make the case that the body fat was useful for long pursuits in which food might be scarce, which still supports my point that expending more calories on a kill than it will yield is a losing strategy. And persistence hunting did not involve pursuits of such length. If this isn't how body fat is advantageous to persistence hunting, then I apologize for the misunderstanding and invite you to clarify your point.

Actually, I'll clarify it. According to this study, a greater body fat ratio can be measurably advantageous in endurance running. Yet the article still concludes that, from a physiological standpoint, men and women are at best equally equipped for endurance running, with men possibly having a slight edge. And, conclusively, men have still performed historically better in endurance running athletics, although recently women are beginning to close the gap. http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml

So where endurance running performance between the genders are relevant to this argument, the current science is inconclusive, but it certainly doesn't lend much credibility to the idea of women doing the persistence hunting in the past, let alone today where the technique still survives.

Now I'm making conclusions about both.

And this is where you prematurely declare victory and spew out bile about me and label me as sexist. All the while, the arguments I made regarding the masculine traits you regard as being strictly negative are completely unaddressed. Your strategy so far has been to misrepresent and distract. I don't expect this to change, but I look forward to your reply if you decide to start being honest and get back to the crux of the issue.

[–]Stephen_Morgan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghebert0012 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rottingchrist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	The term "patriarchy theory" is inconsistent with its own definition, as defined by its own proponents
Author	hierophage
Upvotes	2
Comments	31
Date	April 25, 2013 4:13 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1d2983/the-term-patriarchy-theory-is-inconsistent-with-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-term-patriarchy-theory-is-inconsistent-with.1611288 https://theredarchive.com/post/1611288

Comments