Fallible wrote:Now why in the world might men seek leadership more?

to avoid getting henpecked?

Fallible wrote:Also, that women ‘shouldn’t’, and that this belief is held by both men and women still. Women lag behind, rather as they do in football proficiency. As you probably know, women’s football drew enormous crowds, more than men’s matches, until they were banned from playing on any Football Association pitch. Now, women’s football is seen as a joke because surprise surprise, the skills have suffered.

I did NOT know that about women's football and TBH had to google check it to make sure you weren't pulling my leg! Well, there we go, isn't that something. I know I personally thoroughly enjoy watching England's women's team...perhaps moreso even than the men's so it jibes for sure....I don't see it as a joke however, anymore so than the men's game at least. Banned were they...FFS

Anyway, more thinking from me needed on this topic lest I blunder. In the meantime that documentary referenced in the OP is up on iPlayer (along with around 500 others - serious SARS2 lockdown fodder) and is called "Anna: the woman who went to fight ISIS."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/documentaries/a-z

Fallible wrote:Also, that women ‘shouldn’t’, and that this belief is held by both men and women still. Women lag behind, rather as they do in football proficiency. As you probably know, women’s football drew enormous crowds, more than men’s matches, until they were banned from playing on any Football Association pitch. Now, women’s football is seen as a joke because surprise surprise, the skills have suffered.

[gregory]
If women were meant to play football, they’d have their tits somewhere else.
[/gregory]

Keep It Real wrote:Perhaps there are more male leaders largely because males tend to be more inclined to seek leadership and/or are simply generally better at it, as with chess and drum and bass producer professionals?

Are you really, really sure - pinky swear - that this is a serious thread?

If it is - why did you write this?

Spearthrower wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Perhaps there are more male leaders largely because males tend to be more inclined to seek leadership and/or are simply generally better at it, as with chess and drum and bass producer professionals?

Are you really, really sure - pinky swear - that this is a serious thread?

If it is - why did you write this?

Yes, I'm sure (see "airstrike fatality" in OP) - the reason I wrote that...ummm, because...thoughts in my brain? Misplaced and erroneous thoughts, quite possibly, granted, especially RE my bold. The "inclination" bit seems to meet with some agreement so far however, and if the Record Breakers theme tune is to be believed "dedication's what you need (if you wanna be a record breaker (succesful - ed)) - and how can one have dedication in the cause of achieving a leadership role if one is not inclined to seek it.

felltoearth wrote:
[gregory]
If men were meant to ride a horse, they’d have their dick somewhere else.
[/gregory]

Fixed...

Alan B wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
[gregory]
If men were meant to ride a horse, they’d have their dick somewhere else.
[/gregory]

Fixed...

At least the testes.

Not a Bill Forsyth fan I suppose.

Keep It Real wrote:

blindfaith wrote:

Perhaps there are more male leaders largely because males tend to be more inclined to seek leadership and/or are simply generally better at it,

Any evidence for this statement?

Nope. Just seems at least plausible given that the alternative is an endemic systematic underground cloak and dagger hidden agenda/secret society called, perhaps: MEN FOREVER KEEP THE WOMEN OUT OF POWER! for which there is also no evidence, at least as far as I'm aware.

Or the alternative that aliens mind-controlled us into making a society in which leadership fell to men in order to suppress us as a species for which there is also no evidence, at least as far as I am aware.



Or, you know, there might be other non-fictional alternatives?

Yeah, I over cooked that "secret society" stuff, as I've already said, and true that, there may well be alternative and less hyperbolic definitions, so we're back to one element of the questions posed in the OP - can somebody please define The Patriarchy as it exists in 2020 UK?

Svartalf wrote:

Fallible wrote:Now why in the world might men seek leadership more?

to avoid getting henpecked?

Oh yes, of course.

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Perhaps there are more male leaders largely because males tend to be more inclined to seek leadership and/or are simply generally better at it, as with chess and drum and bass producer professionals?

Are you really, really sure - pinky swear - that this is a serious thread?

If it is - why did you write this?

Yes, I'm sure (see "airstrike fatality" in OP) - the reason I wrote that...ummm, because...thoughts in my brain? Misplaced and erroneous thoughts, quite possibly, granted, especially RE my bold. The "inclination" bit seems to meet with some agreement so far however, and if the Record Breakers theme tune is to be believed "dedication's what you need (if you wanna be a record breaker (succesful - ed)) - and how can one have dedication in the cause of achieving a leadership role if one is not inclined to seek it.

Well, ask yourself some questions.

Who defines what leadership is?
Who decides what qualities leadership represents?
In what contexts is leadership conceived?
Who is being led?

Or think about other forms of bigotry, for example black emancipation in the U.S. - for over a century, african americans had been denied education - even basic literacy - self-ownership, income, opportunities, and freedom... so when the idea comes up that perhaps they shouldn't be owned as slaves, plenty of people within the system suggested it was for their own good because they clearly weren't capable of managing on their own being unable to read or write, being poor, and not having had responsibilities for their own well-being within the previous systems. Similarly, early 20th century studies about comparative intelligence routinely rated african americans as being of lower intelligence than whites, ignoring that the tests used to evaluate intelligence were the kind of tests white people were familiar with from the education system they'd had from early childhood, while african americans had had no such prior experience, let alone a generational cultural expectation of education, freedom, responsibility etc.

Perhaps little girls in the UK today are told they can be anything they want to be, but it wasn't true of the preceding generations which are still alive. Even my ultra-progressive, intellectual high-school Head-Master held an assembly where he talked about women's rights and the importance of equality in society, then offered a prize if anyone could answer the question he posed (a challenge he set each week with a Mars bar as a prize) - what one job can't a woman do? I thought I was assured that Mars bar with the answer that the one job a woman can't do is 'no job' and thereby was sorely disappointed - not from missing out on the Mars bar but with him - when he said I was wrong and the one job a woman can't do is be the Pope. Even something forward thinking like him was susceptible to obvious patriarchal bollocks.

Keep It Real wrote:can somebody please define The Patriarchy as it exists in 2020 UK?

It's what it's always been: the weight of history and tradition in cultural and social institutions preferentially privileging men over women, and that doesn't mean 'men are guilty' because women uncritically thought/think it too, nor does it mean there's some stealthy agenda by men to keep the womenfolk down. The fact is that these systems damage all of us - if women hadn't been denied the vote, educations, careers etc. for centuries, who knows where we'd be today not having curtailed 50%+ of our cultural, social, and intellectual output?

Great posts Spearthrower, I'll let them brew in my cerebral cooking pot in parallel with my latest cup of tea and then perhaps I'll have something to add.

The OP is fairly ignorant of the facts around how “the” patriarchy (the article is misplaced in my opinion, as patriarchy isn’t definite but highly contextual) affects men. There is a lot of information out there about how it negatively affects men as much as women.

That's true, I hold my hands up - it had never crossed my mind that TP ( ) negatively impacts men...that's just not in the narrative I've encountered its discussion/mention to date, it's all been about men keeping women down for their privilege/selfish gains and to women's detriment.

Q: Who wears the trousers?
A: Is there only one pair?

Men used to kill the bear, women kept the cave warm and suckled the young. Old habits die hard, evidently, but we are trying.

laklak wrote:Men used to get killed by the bear, women kept the cave warm and suckled the young. Old habits die hard, evidently, but we are trying.

Fixed it for you.

Is this actually true? Do we know that only men hunted?

Fallible wrote:Is this actually true? Do we know that only men hunted?

Know? No. But it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the available evidence.

Perhaps most tellingly is the widespread signs of skeletal damage in male remains from neanderthals and early modern humans that's not present in females (although there are clear signs of human violence against females as well as males) suggesting a much more robust physically demanding life-style. It doesn't ensure that only men were hunters and women were cave-keepers, but it does suggest that whatever males were doing, it caused them to sustain an awful lot of broken bones.

Then there's the comparative element, looking at extant groups of hominids like chimps, males much more frequently hunt than females. Intriguingly, when female chimps hunt, they more typically use tools than males who just go batter the living shit out of the target prey with their hands. This is due in no little part to the fact that females rear young - young infants cling onto mama, and it wouldn't typically be a sound idea - evolutionarily speaking - for her to put them in harm's way. Considering how even within recorded history, most human females were married young and turned into incessant baby-rearing machines, and given that our ancient ancestors lived shorter, tougher lives, I think it's safe to assume that in ancestral hominids and H sapiens until very recently (perhaps even still), women were the primary care-givers to infants and children, and consequently took part in safer activities.

I'd say it's fair to think there's a biological basis for the gender discrepancy built into our societies historically, but it doesn't mean that the value system is or should be built in, nor that we can't think our way out of our sociobiological heritage.