There's a consistent trend, sadly.So misogyny and civilization pretty much go hand in hand?
There's a consistent trend, sadly.
I wouldn't be so deterministic. Tendentially gender-equal (for a given value of the term) civilizations are clearly possibile, since modern society in many places seems to be trending there.No matter what climate conditions exist, most civilizations will eventually become patriarchal?
1) It is questionable that matriarchal societies even ever existed in the first place.Just have humanity remain as primitive as possible. No matriarchal society has ever achieved anything of worth.
I wouldn't be so deterministic. Tendentially gender-equal (for a given value of the term) civilizations are clearly possibile, since modern society in many places seems to be trending there.
In pre-modern tech conditions, differentiated gender roles are likely to play a bigger part no matter what, but that does not prevent recognizing women as people with inherent dignity equal to men even if they tend to engage in different activities than most men (which is a trend seen even in those modern societies, such as Sweden, where little formal normative expectations about that are in place).
Of course, pre-modern societies were often highly stratified in ways other than gender, so a lot of males, too, were hardly seen as possessing much inherent dignity as well.
1) It is questionable that matriarchal societies even ever existed in the first place.
2) It is probably "something of worth" for half of humanity not to be treated like property or dependents under tutelage (to them at the very least), and I fail to see why this would require remaining "primitive".
It seems to me that of most everybody seems to be caring about coronavirus killing people, I mean, a large portion of the entire planet is enacting an almost unprecedented global lockdown in order to stop the virus from killing more. This seems hardly an example of men's lives being undervalued.The flip side is men have no inherent value which is why nobody cares about coronavirus killing more men, Domestic violence against men, sexual assualt of men, workplace injuries, lower life expectenacy, higher suicide rate, experiencing higher rates of violence, war, conscription of male children etc
It seems to me that of most everybody seems to be caring about coronavirus killing people, I mean, a large portion of the entire planet is enacting an almost unprecedented global lockdown in order to stop the virus from killing more. This seems hardly an example of men's lives being undervalued.
While all the issues you mention exist and deserve consideration, I would not say that there is any society past or present where males, as a gender, are collectively regarded as without inherent value.
I am completely at loss at the notions of male ideals opposed to female ideals.We have different definitions of patriarchy then. My definition is a society where men dominate politics, business and the military. Actually doesn't even have to be men but the male ideals such as individualism, freedom and equality of opportunity are elevated over female ideals of collectivism, security and equality of outcome. Treating half of humanity like shit doesn't go hand in hand with one gender being the drivers of civilization/society. Treating half of humanity like shit just makes you a piece of shit.
Yes people are caring in general. But if women were the predominant victims I think there would be more of a buzz about that. Just think about articles when civilians are killed in war. Women are lumped in with children, teenage boys and civilian males with soldiers.
Well from an evolutionary perpective men are easily replaced. That's a fact.
I am completely at loss at the notions of male ideals opposed to female ideals.
Historically, the male gender dominated society in most cases, and this very often translated precisely into treating women like shit. While I agree that this is not a deterministically necessary correlation (and argued as much upthread) the historical record would prove, in your terms, that males across space and times have consistently been huge pieces of shit. Since I do not believe that, I prefer to think that structurally stratified and hierarchical social patterns by gender do tend to lead to people (very often, but certainly not exclusively, women) to be treated as shit, regardless of how well-meaning and benevolent the individual members of the dominant category are.
To clarify with an example not related to gender at all: I think we can easily agree that slavery would suck even if there were a hypothetical society where all slaveowners happen to be paternalistically benevolent.
It is certainly a distinct possibility, and one that was often speculated about in imaginary matriarchies across history (think of the myth of the Amazons). However, there are interesting counterexamples, such as Aristophanes' comedies (to remain within Ancient Greece) featuring gender role reversals that do not translate into men treated brutally (but don't let me get started on the complicated topic of how to interpret those texts). And there are tons of literary speculation on the topic in countless cultures.Anytime there is an underclass, the underclass is often mistreated.
So thus would a matriarchy be downright brutal to men?
This is true in patriarchy to some degree as well.Are you saying in a matriarchy, men would be treated as little better than sperm donors?
It is certainly a distinct possibility, and one that was often speculated about in imaginary matriarchies across history (think of the myth of the Amazons). However, there are interesting counterexamples, such as Aristophanes' comedies (to remain within Ancient Greece) featuring gender role reversals that do not translate into men treated brutally (but don't let me get started on the complicated topic of how to interpret those texts). And there are tons of literary speculation on the topic in countless cultures.
Given how humans in general often behave horribly, a matriarchal society has clearly the potential for creating horrible ways to treat men (not that patriarchal societies ever had a shortage of that). I definitely do not think that women in general possess any inherently better (or worse) moral attitude than men. For all genders, it gets shaped by societal conditions and values.
I think this may be the place to mention @Salvador79 's excellent TL "The Book of the Holy Mountain", an alt-historical, and fascinatingly plausible, attempt to imagine a pre-modern real matriarchy (one that is not downright that horrible to men to be fair, but certainly devalues them as a gender).
I don't think that climate or geography are that much of a determining factor.Elizabeth Bathory and Elena Ceausescu are two examples of women being just as cruel as men.
But what quirk in climate or geography could've led to a woman dominated world?
The true benefactors of patriarchy are a small percentage of men and women. Think of conscription during Vietnam. Rich elite males getting out being conscripted and sending young men to their death while no women were conscripted.
Conscription for women if fairly exceptional across space and time, both in war and peace (though I think it is more common as wartime emergency measure). While women routinely serve in modern professional military forces, the only country I know of that systematically conscripts women is Israel - and even there, there are more exemptions for women and it is rarer for them to see frontline service.The true benefactors of patriarchy are a small percentage of men and women. Think of conscription during Vietnam. Rich elite males getting out being conscripted and sending young men to their death while no women were conscripted.