Chris Doss :
Hell, I just think when you get right down to it the reason human societies are usually run by men is probably the same reason cow herds are led by bulls and hyena packs are led by female hyenas (hyenaettes?). The hominid known as homo sapiens is "built" with that tendency. It was selected for, or accidentally arose, in evolution for whatever reason. If you stuck 50 people on a desert island and left them there for 50 years, the society that emerged would probably be patriarchal. If civilization ended tomorrow, the society that emerged in 100 years would probably be patriarchal.
(I hope I don't have to mention the is/ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy here.)
^^^^^^ CB: Actually, the evidence supports the opposite of what you say. Human societies are characterized by equality between the sexes for the first 190,000 years of the species homo sapiens. What was selected for was equality or equivalence ( equity between differences, the original dialectical unity of opposites) between the sexes with matrilineality, tracing the families through the women. Equality between the sexes was an adaptive advantage.
When we abolish male supremacy , we will get back to the original tendency of species-being.
^^^^^^
Hey, how is it that homo sapiens sapiens is apparently the only gendered species in the world that has somehow miraculously escaped behavioral relations between the genders being influenced by biology? Did God come down and decree, "for the cows and hyenas and chickens it applies, but at homo sapiens it stops!"? Or is the reason the lions occupy the social apex of the lion pack because they are jealous of the ability of the lionesses to produce cubs and resent their moms?
^^^^^^ CB: I think you are confusing general differences between the human sexes that do not inherently lead to social dominance of one sex by the other. The fact that only females have children is a biological difference between females and males that doesn't imply that one sex should be generally socially dominant over the other. There is a division of biological labor, but sexes with complementary roles in reproduction or even production doesn't imply a hierarchy between the complementary parts.
Durkheim calls it organic solidarity. Is your heart "higher" than your brain or your liver ? They have different functions, but that difference doesn't imply a hierarchy between them.
^^^^^
--- Miles Jackson > I can't resist the bait here. CB will probably
> provide some
> anthropological perspective, but here's my take, based on the
> historical and cross-cultural evidence that I'm aware of: