Patriarchy vs matriarchy, the straight dope.
Contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, the female herd is neither interesting nor important in either of the two perspectives. Females are social objects, not social agents ; and this for very strong, fundamental reasons intricately tied to human biology -- meaning that no social convention or subjective conceit can possibly touch them no matter what happens or appears to be happening.
The difference between matriarchy and patriarchy arises strictly in the social valuation of males, and the creation of the male hierarchy.
The matriarchal approach posits that male value is established through mating, and male hierarchy is a reflection thereof (a dysfunctional ball of nonsense we've discussed before).
The patriarchal approach posits that male value is established by the group of males, as a function of male hierarchy, and mating is a reflection thereof.i
Consequently the patriarchal notion of rape will be "the taking of another man's property", whereas the matriarchal notion of rape will be "the taking of a woman [outside of the agreed upon arrangements in which her mating confers value upon the male]", a string of yakkity-yak which readily reduces to... "the taking of a woman", period.ii
Also contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, matriarchy is not "good for women". Matriarchy is not good for anyone, and exactly in the sense cheloids are not "good for the skin" : matriarchy is a degenerative process.
Matriarchy only manifests in groups where the instant value of males comes significantly under the historical value of males for that group ; this is not to be confused with "successful groups" -- matriarchy is what happens once a group that used to be successful is successful no longer.
Matriarchy is a purely economic result, driven by purely economic factors ; it is entirely apolitical, and rests utterly outside of any sort of group-bound agency howsoever defined. It eminently and fundamentally has absolutely nothing to do with "the treatment of women in society" or anywhere else -- females are not a driver, nor can possibly ever be a driver, of the workings of society in this sense. To put it bluntly : if you beat them, jail them or pillory them it matters not one whit ; for as long as you think mating in terms of female "choice" you're living in a matriarchy even if you're alone on an otherwise deserted island ; and this has absolutely nothing to do with any woman whatsoever. Conversely, if you think mating in terms of female obligation you're living in a patriarchy irrespective of how the "glass ceiling" (or any other broadly meaningless social conceit) is perceived.
In the end it all boils down to a very simple distinction among two strictly disjunct and absolutely male ways of thinking. Are you cool because your friends think you're cool and за честь должна считать Знакомство юнкерского хуя! or else are you a proud boyfriend/husband/father/cuck/whatever and your "friends" better agree (and if they don't fail to you're going to ask Mommy/facebook for a new set of "friends") ?
And of course, contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, this is not a choice in the sense that you may choose. If you live in type A societies you'll either be type A or a weirdo ; and if you live in type B societies you'll either be type B or a weirdo. Weirdos are definitionally socially irrelevant, irrespective of how you might flatter yourself, and there you go : history is made by great men in the very strict sense that until and unless there's a Great Leader to create a WoT in which you may be cool for being cool, you'll be cool for having been lucky enough for a princess such as Princess to have picked you.
That's it ; and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
———- And therefore a female mated with a loser will be held to explain herself ; while the soldier need not pay. [↩]
- This readily explains a whole pile of strange experimentally measured these days. As far as I know no other theory of society fits nearly as well. [↩]
Thursday, 3 May 2018
Is the choice covered here by female "choice" a matter of initiative or (personal) agency? Both?
Thursday, 3 May 2018
It's a matter of not having one, very much in the vein of the raped girl. "The year is 1872. You are being born in an Armenian-speaking land. Do you speak Armenian or are you mute ?"
Saturday, 5 May 2018
Oh, right. Somehow I keep dropping my "people, generally, suck" key-to-comprehension, to this day.
Sunday, 6 May 2018
Sucking aside, admitting a real situation with a binary choice, X-or-Y, and two socially-cultural interpretative dances A and B, whereby A proposes to interpret the binary choice as P-or-Q whereas B proposes to interpret the binary choice as R-or-S, whatever agent howsoever selected or constructed is never going to "have" the P-or-S choice.
In order for P to even be a "choice" such as it is in the first place (which is to say, in order for A to be hallucinable as P through socio-culturaly mediated psychosis) necessarily, afore the facts and as a matter of definition S must be excluded from the possibility of hallucinatory representations of alternate, fully psychogenic cvasi-realities.
Think of it in the terminology of Kuhn's "paradigms" of scientific research, if you prefer, but the point broadly remains : whether people suck or not, people do not have the ability to interact with reality while staying people, because the definitional component of peopledom is exactly the bizarre quality whereby one looks at a bitemark in an apple and sees a sexual invitation. Maybe it's a curse ? Whether it is a sexual invitation or not ; whether it is a curse or not : the bitten apple stays bitten, and the mix-and-match of branches from mutually exclusive constructive paralogies is not available.
Friday, 5 July 2019
So there's "nothing" you can do about it except to be that Great Leader.
Which is a bit of a roll of the dice. Not everyone is an Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar.
Friday, 5 July 2019
There is nothing "you can do about" anything, holy hell. Being is being, not "doing about".
This doing about business works well enough on simple and narrow problems, "what can you do about some fruit coming with the hard shell on the outside, like nuts unlike peaches ?" "get a nutcracker". There's nothing you can "do about" being born with a slit, that's just what you are.
The inescapable ridiculousness of modern man, whom, upon discovering excavators and backhoes work well enough at moving earth about now proposes to drive them all the way to such as place as to where they'll excavate ideas and backhoe abstracts. Why the hell not, right, it worked well enough moving that one big rock that one time, why shouldn't it extend linearly forever.
Friday, 5 July 2019
True, it is foolish to rail against reality, or pretend it does not exist.
But you wrote, "Matriarchy only manifests in groups where the instant value of males comes significantly under the historical value of males for that group..."
Are you saying that this degradation is something that just happens, against the choice of the males involved? It seems to me that while some of the cause can certainly be blindness to reality, or even history, some of it can also be attributed to laziness or corruption.
Friday, 5 July 2019
Well ok, it could be laziness, or corruption, or straight up bad luck. The Lido gets sanded, you know ?
Definitionally, he who can "do about" unsanding the city port is the Great Leader.