“You keep trying to make it sound like I’m inventing this stuff.”
Sorry. My intention was to make it sound like Hannah Devlin, the author of the article you cited , invented this stuff, not you. You are a great deal more clever and inventive than Ms. Devlin. I would never mistake her second rate inventiveness for yours.
“There’s more than just this one study…”
True. However, I can only respond to the one that you cited. The conclusions reached in the article you cited are that the leading nations of the world have reached their position by practicing a system that impedes their progress, and that chimpanzees would be as smart as humans if they practiced Feminist ideology. What more can be said about these conclusions?
“…it was a high price to pay for such progress…”
Benefits often come with a price. Each individual must determine for himself or herself whether the benefits are worth the price. For myself, I have determined that the benefits of modern civilization are worth the price. You have apparently decided otherwise.
“…there are always going to be dissenters. Academia is notoriously hierarchied and obsessed with dominating one’s peers.”
You seem to be arbitrarily characterizing those who support Feminist ideology as serious scientists and those who challenge it as “dissenters” who are “obsessed with dominating their peers.”
Thank you for alerting me to the fact that scientific dissenters’ sole motivation is to rise to the top of the dominance hierarchy. I will return the favor by listing a few scientific dissenters for you to be wary of:
Barry Marshal and Robin Warren
………..
“Refusing to believe any data that disagrees with your entrenched premises…”
That is only half correct. I am equally skeptical of data that agrees with my entrenched premises.
My “entrenched premise” is simple:
I recognize no obligation (on anyone’s part) to conform one’s conduct, one’s thoughts or the content of one’s conversations to Feminists’ expectations. That’s all there is to my “entrenched premise.”
None of the data that you have cited challenges that position. That position holds regardless of how prehistoric social systems were organized. I neither dispute nor affirm the description of prehistoric cultures offered by the anthropologists that you have cited. I approach their findings with the same skepticism with which I would approach anthropologists whose findings conflict with the ones you have cited (and I have no doubt that there are some who do challenge those findings. You acknowledge as much when you refer to “dissenters.”). There is no scientific proof that I am obligated to conform to Feminists’ expectations.
I am skeptical towards the idea that a particular social order will be adopted by an entire population in response to the advocacy of a faction of activists. However, as an advocate of liberty I consider you at liberty to try, as long as you don’t infringe upon my liberty in the process. I consider myself at liberty to actively oppose your efforts if I anticipate that the results would be contrary to my best interests. We are each at liberty to vigorously advocate for our own best interests, may the best interests win.
I am not convinced that it is practical to apply a prehistoric form of social organization to a modern society or that if it were successfully applied I would find that order to be preferable to the current one. In a modern society there will be those who, because of the common human character flaws that I have listed in previous comments, will seek to advantage themselves at others’ expense. None of the data that you have cited challenges that understanding. I doubt that individuals will desist in attempting to gain advantage over others because a particular system of organization has been applied. Nevertheless, you are welcome to advocate whatever modifications in social order you believe to be practical and preferable as long as your advocacy stops short of applying restrictive or coercive measures intended to force my, or anyone’s, compliance.
“ The high rate of suicide amongst emotionally alienated men speaks directly to this price for men.”
The issue of suicide provides an example of how politics corrupts science. Feminists attribute men’s suicidal tendencies to “patriarchy” and can cite “data” to prove it. Men’s advocates attribute them to Feminism and can also cite “data” to prove it. I, personally, doubt that either of the two is a cause of suicide. Factors that lead to any instance of suicide are many, varied and complex. Of the five individuals with whom I was acquainted who committed suicide during my life, all were men. Four of the five cases involved serious mental illness (three involved schizophrenia and one severe depression); the fifth involved complex personal issues surrounding chronic physical ailments. Neither Feminism nor patriarchy had anything to do with their decision to end their lives. This illustrates why I don’t trust “scientific” findings when they are susceptible to influence by political activists, no matter what side of the issue the findings support.
I trust science, but I don’t necessarily trust scientists.
“…Women as wives under this system were not social adults…”
This particular non-scientific, subjective judgement is from the article that you cited in your “History of Patriarchy”.
The cited article that also states:
You expressed serious objection to that statement:
Is this an instance of…?
…“Refusing to believe any data that disagrees with your entrenched premises…”
……….
“In the end, patriarchy gives only a few men access to power in society…”
In the end, the centralized leadership necessary to organize a massive population provides opportunity for those in positions of leadership to exercise massive amounts of power and use it to advantage themselves; power corrupts. This would occur within a massive population that is centrally organized regardless of the system under which it is organized.
…and most men some small access to power in relation to women…”
“…robbing all men of core aspects of their humanity.”
Not quite all men. I know a few, myself included, who seem to have all their core aspects intact.
“ — but they do entertain me…”
If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with ……… entertainment.
