So now you turn the argument into one about what is a primary, and what a tertiary, source. Slither and slide. Primary and secondary sources express the opinion of or provide an interpretation by the author, which is what the articles you cite do.

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology.

And you have yet to address 's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity?

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology. — Banno

Here is a quote from an article, Analysis: How did the patriarchy start - and will evolution get rid of it?, written by Professor Ruth Mace from UCL Anthropology. UCL is the University College of London, named University of the Year 2024, rated 2nd in the UK for research power, ranked 9th in the 2024 QS World University Rankings, and has graduated or staffed 30 Nobel Prize laureates. Professor Ruth Mace is a well respected anthropologist herself, being elected President of the European Human Behavior and Evolution Association. She focuses on the evolutionary ecology of human demography and life history.

“The origin of agriculture, as early as 12,000 years ago in some areas, changed the game. Even relatively simple horticulture necessitated defending crops, and thus staying put. Settlement increased conflict within and between groups. For example, the Yanomamo horticulturalists in Venezuela lived in heavily fortified group households, with violent raids on neighbouring groups and “bride capture” being part of life.

Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of warfare. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending.

As population sizes grew and settled, there were coordination problems. Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in warfare or serving the public good in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had.

As farming and herding became more intensive, material wealth, now mainly controlled by men, became ever more important. Rules of kinship and descent systems became more formalised to prevent conflict within families over wealth, and marriages became more contractual. The transmission of land or livestock down the generations allowed some families to gain substantial wealth.

Wealth generated by farming and herding enabled polygyny (men having multiple wives). In contrast, women having many husbands (polyandry) was rare. In most systems, young women were the resource in demand, because they had a shorter window of being able to produce children and usually did more parental care.

Men used their wealth to attract young women to the resources on offer. Men competed by paying “bridewealth” to the family of the bride, with the result that rich men could end up with many wives while some poor men ended up single.

So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters.

This lead to wealth and property being formally passed down the male line. It also meant women often ended up living far away from home with their husband’s family after marriage.

Women began to lose agency. If land, livestock and children are the property of the men, then divorce is almost impossible for women. A daughter returning to mum and dad would be unwelcome as the brideprice would need to be returned. The patriarchy was now getting a firm grip.

When individuals disperse away from their natal home and live with their new husband’s family, they do not have as much bargaining power within their new household than if they had stayed in their natal home. Some mathematical models suggest that female dispersal combined with a history of warfare favoured men being treated better than women.

Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.”

Apologies for the length of the quote.

Here is another quote from an article written by Angela Saint, and published on BBC. Angela Saini is a science journalist, who teaches science writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a Logan Nonfiction Program Fellow, a fellow of the Humboldt Residency Program, and a successful author of several books.

“Rather than beginning in the family, then, history points instead to patriarchy beginning with those in power in the first states. Demands from the top filtered down into the family, forcing ruptures in the most basic human relationships, even those between parents and their children.”

It seems that the patriarchy stems from men’s physical ability to fight wars. As Professor Ruth Mace writes, “As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending,” showing that men having the ability to protect society as a whole led to their success in the ensuing social hierarchy. Social hierarchy at the time would place the military at the top of social ranking, because the military actively protected society. This fact led to almost exclusively men being at the top of the social hierarchy.

Interestingly, it seems as if that the gender-specific stabilities of hierarchies may be an effect of a social structure that prioritized the military, as Mace writes, “Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.” This is certainly possible, though I do not see how the social dynamics of a “boys’ club” would not have been developed during hundreds of thousands of years of mostly exclusively male hunting groups. Hunting is also a skill that more or less requires physical ability, so this claim seems dubious to me, especially considering only 10,000 years for a major social evolution across most societies is simply too short of a time period.

And you have yet to address ↪wonderer1's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity? — Banno

This is quite a different discussion. For a discussion like this, I would rather you message me privately. Not that I have some like really extreme views, but this is dipping more into the personal, political, and religious sphere.

Both support the view that spare production allowed the development of a hierarchy. Neither is a tertiary source. Neither argues that hierarchy is a necessary result of masculine genetics. Neither supports your contention.

That societies are in the main hierarchical and patriarchic is not at issue. What is at issue is that this is necessary and unavoidable and good.

I would rather you message me privately. — ButyDude

Why? This is a philosophy forum. We can and should discuss such ethical issues openly. It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable. Present them for inspection.

Present them for inspection. — Banno

What are you, the Philosophy Forum police?

I agree that this is a place that ethics can be openly discussed, but if I personally object, you shouldn’t press me into sharing them unwillingly. By the looks of it, we are going to disagree miserably. I would rather contain such a conversation to private message for that reason.

Both sources support the notion that gender differences in strength allowed men to seize power, because they were the sole protectors of property through the military, which in turn, allowed them to control wealth and power in society.

You are either misreading or disregarding my evidence entirely. I gave you two reliable and credible sources.

All you have done to attack my argument is to say that I must use tertiary sources, and to divert from the topic by moving to my personal views on the topic.

It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable. — Banno

Attacking my personal ethics in an impersonal debate is uncalled for. You didn’t add to the knowledge on the topic. You didn’t put forth an argument. You didn’t engage me, and you did not dissuade me. I was hoping to have genuine dialogue that produced real knowledge and learning, but instead you simply attack my sources, and finally, you attack my personal ethics.

If you want to know, go research yourself.

If you want to talk ethics, message me. I’m more than willing, but I am not comfortable publicly discussing them with you specifically, judging by how our dialogue has gone so far.

You make ethical claims on a philosophy forum and then don't want to discuss ethics.

Go away.

Please, quote me and show me one exclusively ethical claim that I have made, that is not tangential to ethics or only partially ethical.

...exclusively... — ButyDude

The OP here makes ethical claims. They have been challenged as examples of the naturalists fallacy.

Stop pissing around.

You can’t find even one. Thank you for acknowledging that you attacked my personal ethics in a completely unreasonable manner to change the topic of discussion. Extremely petty and unbelievable.

You can’t find even one — ButyDude

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starving. Another particularly obtuse Lord challenged him, saying "If, as you say, there are thousands starving, then you should have no trouble naming one". — Banno

Your OP makes claims as to how society ought function. They are ethical claims.

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one. — ButyDude

No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap.

Sorry, I am not familiar with the term “OP.” My apologies.

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one.
— ButyDude
No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap. — Banno

Well, you haven’t seriously considered my argument in whole at all. You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society, and that male biology did not cause the patriarchy, but there is substantial evidence to prove that your claims are false. The only piece of evidence you provided me was a website explaining introductory anthropology. Other than that, all you have done is nitpick certain parts of my argument, and I continue to prove your small criticisms to be untruthful.

First, you should make your position clearer. Do you believe that the interpretation of society as a hierarchy of power structures, with men as oppressors and women as oppressed, is correct? Do you believe that the power structures are inherently oppressing women? — ButyDude

I ask you again. What is your stance on my original argument? Give me genuine feedback on my argument.

"OP" - opening post. The first post on this thread, in which you made various claims.

You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society — ButyDude

No. I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't.

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions.

Give me genuine feedback on my argument. — ButyDude

OP stands for Original Post - the one you started this thread with.

Have you looked into what constitutes a naturalistic fallacy? While you are at it you should look up appeal to nature.

Then, go back and look at your OP and see if you can recognize the ways that those fallacies apply.

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions. — Banno

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged.

For example, on the hierarchies point, is there a modern society that doesn’t have any hierarchy at all? And every nation has a military, because practically, more or less, a military is necessary for a nation, disregarding special cases like the Vatican City or Fiji, one a religious institution and the other an island with no motivations for any other nation to invade. Every military is hierarchical. So isn’t hierarchy, even if not necessary in society, necessary for society?

I am mainly attacking the notion that patriarchy rose out of a power grab by men, with the sole or main goal of controlling and oppressing women. I would argue that the power grab was not a grab, but it was a necessary filling of a power vacuum: the military. Without a military, a society would be looted, its women raped, its people and children slaughtered. Was it not necessary for men in these times to be the ones wielding power, in a time of constant war, rape, looting, and indiscriminate killing? This also means that in modern society today, without the threat of constant war and with institutions working for peace, we can move towards a more egalitarian state. I really want to argue the rising of patriarchy.

So I see the naturalistic fallacy, saying that if you naturally do something, then it ought to be done. Again, I am arguing that the rise of patriarchy was not an exercise of power with the main purpose of controlling/oppressing women. I would say that it was necessary many times for many societies around the world because of the need for a military. Take for example Europe in the Middle Ages. Constant war. Vikings ravaging, raping, and looting. Mongols indiscriminately slaughtering entire cities. Was it not necessary for a military to protect society? And would that military, because of its protection of its own society, not be rewarded with wealth and power? Governmentally, or organizationally, I don’t necessarily believe that a man was required for that. Take for example many queens throughout history, and especially Queen Tamara, the greatest ruler in Georgian history. I would say that the biological difference that naturally caused men to hold power in society was strength and efficient hierarchical organization.

The military was only good because it was necessary, not because it was natural. The example for this would be the modern day. America maintains a formidable military, but this does not even necessarily require physical strength as with such advanced technologies, like drones. Still requires hierarchical organization. But I would not argue that patriarchy is necessary or good in America because it is not necessary. But imagine if America lived in a historical time where we were a small nation, surrounded by other nations, who were constantly fighting wars with us. I would say that patriarchy would arise in this version of America because of the necessity of men, to fight wars and protect the society.

There are far more pressing and less banal issues in this world than resurrecting the nuclear family. For me, moving the world back toward that kind of conservativism is not the right step.

I would say that it was necessary many times for many societies.. — ButyDude

In what sense do you mean "necessary"?

Do you mean it in the sense of it being a matter of physical determinism? That would be an unusual position for a Catholic to take.

Do you mean that it's God's plan that his children war on and rape each other?

Something else?

It doesn’t need to be the resurrection of the nuclear family, but something needs to be done. There are too many single mothers, struggling their entire life, and too many fatherless children, suffering from the psychological effects of fatherlessness. It’s causing major problems, and unfortunately it is extremely difficult for modern families to raise children.

Yawn.

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged. — ButyDude

Yep. The views you espouse here are a manifestation of your more fundamental religious views, expressed elsewhere. You are not here to re-think. That much was obvious from your OP.

Puts me in mind of the feminist joke:

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?"

Wow dude, great. Seriously, you didn’t offer me any genuine feedback or information. I don’t even have the information to rethink my position because you were too lazy to cite evidence for your claims.

Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? It is also quite clear that you’re not religious, get over my religious beliefs.

Again,

I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't. — Banno

Look up “Catholic teaching on Just War Theory”.

I am not taking a Catholic stance on this, the necessity of patriarchy in past societies. Even at Catholicism’s height in Europe, society wasn’t Catholic in many ways.

There are alternative views, but not many alternative realities. Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji). Hierarchy is necessary for society.

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?" — Banno

Sadly, yes that is what I am arguing, that men were necessary for protecting society because of the constant war, rape, looting, killing, conquest. Obviously the world is much different now, but patriarchy did not arise in the modern world.

I am not taking a Catholic stance on this, the necessity of patriarchy in past societies. — ButyDude

You didn't answer my question. So I don't know what you mean by "necessity". Do you?

I mean that for that society to exist, a military was necessary, and because the military determined the state’s existence, access to resources, prosperity, etc., men had claim over wealth and power in society.

I believe that Just War Theory will uphold a society’s right to defend itself and provide for its people. There are special scenarios, and as a whole the Theory is not airtight, not even close yet. It is all tied into the ideas of upholding the Common Good, as an act of Social Justice.

No I do not mean it is “God’s plan.” That is almost a secular saying, that the events in our world happen because of God. Definitely not Catholic, though I am sure some Catholics say it, but that is usually a term used to give kids some sort of reason so they can deal with trauma, like a grandma dying.

Not sure what physical determinism is, but it does not sound like what I am arguing.

Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji). — ButyDude

It seems you don't know much about Fiji. Nor, oddly, the Vatican.

That there are no such examples does not show that there could not be such an example. Further, that there are no such examples does not mean that there ought not be such examples.

You have not demonstrated necessity, let alone obligation.

I mean that for that society to exist, a military was necessary, and because the military determined the state’s existence, access to resources, prosperity, etc., men had claim over wealth and power in society. — ButyDude

You are using "necessary" to explain what you mean by "necessary"?

I guess it is time to move on to circular reasoning.