Well, keep in mind that this post, despite its name, is part of my thread with JS Kasimir, not a direct entry in my thread with you. But I hope it is helpful.
Ok...I got around to reading it and here's the thing:
At the end of the day, people have the natural tendency to form hierarchies. That is what is intrinsic to human nature. We do this no matter who we are and where we are and what political or religious views we have. Statistically speaking, the hierarchies most commonly found today and perhaps throughout history and even prehistory are patriarchies. That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature or even the best way of doing things.
Meritocracies are just one way of forming hierarchies. The law is not what would create this, per se, but culture--which would in turn impact laws, if needed. But we all know laws can be fickle, and no system is ever pure or perfect. Things adapt and change with time, another thing that is intrinsic to human nature.
The only systems that should blatantly be changed or modified are those that are directly harmful to any group(s) of people, whether that's through law or through cultural shifts.
So it seems to me that, in light of this response, you would need to focus on...
>>That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature
Since that is what we agreed to debate. I can easily do another series on 'best', but while we are doing the 'intrinsic' debate, I am focusing on the things that are intrinsic. And these include, as I have started to list (I have not yet begun to debate :) ), many things that point toward patriarchy.
I look forward to you attempting to bring forward things that, naturally and intrinsically, militate against the things that I have pointed out point toward patriarchy. Unless you wish to try to say that the things I have pointed out don't actually point in the direction I state.
Sure, patriarchy is statistically common, as I said, but to try to delve into every tiny element that drive humans toward patriarchies is not only futile but probably impossible. Further, given that alternative research is sparse, again, this becomes difficult, unless one were to rely on smaller populations (hence my example of corporations), in which meritocracy is much easier to find.
Well, I said right in the beginning that you had taken for yourself a difficult (read: impossible) task. But I am not looking for 'research', but even just plain arguments. Not argumements for what you want (you meaning your generation) but arguments for what parts of human nature you believe could point to something other than patriarchy.
And I would love answers to my questions about meritocracy. If you are saying that you would like it to grow as a culture, then I'm all with you, since I believe that patriarchy will do well in any culture that accepts meritocracy. It will also set limits on the meritocracy, obviously, but it will thrive. Are you saying that you aren't shooting for a meritocracy enforced by law? So the hardware store owner can hire all men for his hardware section?
This raises the whole question of how humans form hierarchies in the first place, followed by questions of culture which can either cement, alter, or wholly change a system of hierarchy. How patriarchies, meritocracies, etc. thrive are largely due to culture, which you mentioned in the aspect of social reproduction.
Historical examples of meritocracies are difficult to find on a national or governmental scale, but have existed--ironically, within patriarchal societies (e.g., the early eastern Roman empire). Culture cemented a form of male-leaning meritocracy, with laws shifting to further allow for people to have more opportunity in their day-to-day lives and professions.
The question of family roles, marriage, paternal investment, and general culture in a meritocracy are certainly important to address. One commenter/writer brought up the aspect of women marrying for status to jump the line, which could bring about its own social norms for women. Promoting paternal investment would pose its own challenges. However, given that as I earlier stated that meritocracies have never really been promoted on a national scale, it would largely be guesswork as to what would happen, and would evolve--as most cultures do--from a variety of factors.
Laws are difficult to enforce without the creeping up of bias, and in terms of managing people socially and/or economically, becomes an impossible task. In the economy, "letting the markets reign" would perhaps be the best thing to do. Even today, someone can hire as many men as they'd like--theoretically, forever, as one would have to actually sue the company for it to come under legal inspection. Now, whether the company survives or not against market competition is never certain, but the rates of survival will most likely be decreased to some degree if one does not hire based on skillset. In a national meritocracy, the same concept would apply. The law is best kept limited in many aspects, keeping the government from becoming Big Brother.
Also, I'm glad you've been enjoying this discussion. I felt like I was in over my head at first, but it's been a good opportunity to lay out my thoughts and analyze them.
Which post did they reply to? I don't get notifications.
Yes, marrying for status would be a huge part of the system. Again, it would tend to happen (tend, not guarantee) based upon ones family.
You certainly have a challenge. It seems to me that the hardest challenge for you, based upon your writing so far, is moving from 'what I want' to 'what will happen naturally'. So far most of your writing has seemed, to me, to be saying 'Yes, patriarchy will happen naturally, but I don't like it, so let's fight against it'... which concedes my point from the get go :)
My guy, I am going to need to re-read this when I have like an hour.
This feels like it could be a standalone.
Perhaps a follow up is in order.
Well, keep in mind that this post, despite its name, is part of my thread with JS Kasimir, not a direct entry in my thread with you. But I hope it is helpful.
I saw that part, it's intriguing nonetheless.
What did you find intriguing about it?
Ok...I got around to reading it and here's the thing:
At the end of the day, people have the natural tendency to form hierarchies. That is what is intrinsic to human nature. We do this no matter who we are and where we are and what political or religious views we have. Statistically speaking, the hierarchies most commonly found today and perhaps throughout history and even prehistory are patriarchies. That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature or even the best way of doing things.
Meritocracies are just one way of forming hierarchies. The law is not what would create this, per se, but culture--which would in turn impact laws, if needed. But we all know laws can be fickle, and no system is ever pure or perfect. Things adapt and change with time, another thing that is intrinsic to human nature.
The only systems that should blatantly be changed or modified are those that are directly harmful to any group(s) of people, whether that's through law or through cultural shifts.
So it seems to me that, in light of this response, you would need to focus on...
>>That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature
Since that is what we agreed to debate. I can easily do another series on 'best', but while we are doing the 'intrinsic' debate, I am focusing on the things that are intrinsic. And these include, as I have started to list (I have not yet begun to debate :) ), many things that point toward patriarchy.
I look forward to you attempting to bring forward things that, naturally and intrinsically, militate against the things that I have pointed out point toward patriarchy. Unless you wish to try to say that the things I have pointed out don't actually point in the direction I state.
Sure, patriarchy is statistically common, as I said, but to try to delve into every tiny element that drive humans toward patriarchies is not only futile but probably impossible. Further, given that alternative research is sparse, again, this becomes difficult, unless one were to rely on smaller populations (hence my example of corporations), in which meritocracy is much easier to find.
Well, I said right in the beginning that you had taken for yourself a difficult (read: impossible) task. But I am not looking for 'research', but even just plain arguments. Not argumements for what you want (you meaning your generation) but arguments for what parts of human nature you believe could point to something other than patriarchy.
And I would love answers to my questions about meritocracy. If you are saying that you would like it to grow as a culture, then I'm all with you, since I believe that patriarchy will do well in any culture that accepts meritocracy. It will also set limits on the meritocracy, obviously, but it will thrive. Are you saying that you aren't shooting for a meritocracy enforced by law? So the hardware store owner can hire all men for his hardware section?
This raises the whole question of how humans form hierarchies in the first place, followed by questions of culture which can either cement, alter, or wholly change a system of hierarchy. How patriarchies, meritocracies, etc. thrive are largely due to culture, which you mentioned in the aspect of social reproduction.
Historical examples of meritocracies are difficult to find on a national or governmental scale, but have existed--ironically, within patriarchal societies (e.g., the early eastern Roman empire). Culture cemented a form of male-leaning meritocracy, with laws shifting to further allow for people to have more opportunity in their day-to-day lives and professions.
The question of family roles, marriage, paternal investment, and general culture in a meritocracy are certainly important to address. One commenter/writer brought up the aspect of women marrying for status to jump the line, which could bring about its own social norms for women. Promoting paternal investment would pose its own challenges. However, given that as I earlier stated that meritocracies have never really been promoted on a national scale, it would largely be guesswork as to what would happen, and would evolve--as most cultures do--from a variety of factors.
Laws are difficult to enforce without the creeping up of bias, and in terms of managing people socially and/or economically, becomes an impossible task. In the economy, "letting the markets reign" would perhaps be the best thing to do. Even today, someone can hire as many men as they'd like--theoretically, forever, as one would have to actually sue the company for it to come under legal inspection. Now, whether the company survives or not against market competition is never certain, but the rates of survival will most likely be decreased to some degree if one does not hire based on skillset. In a national meritocracy, the same concept would apply. The law is best kept limited in many aspects, keeping the government from becoming Big Brother.
Also, I'm glad you've been enjoying this discussion. I felt like I was in over my head at first, but it's been a good opportunity to lay out my thoughts and analyze them.
Which post did they reply to? I don't get notifications.
Yes, marrying for status would be a huge part of the system. Again, it would tend to happen (tend, not guarantee) based upon ones family.
You certainly have a challenge. It seems to me that the hardest challenge for you, based upon your writing so far, is moving from 'what I want' to 'what will happen naturally'. So far most of your writing has seemed, to me, to be saying 'Yes, patriarchy will happen naturally, but I don't like it, so let's fight against it'... which concedes my point from the get go :)
Lol, anything can happen naturally if we let humans do what they want. They create laws, weapons, poetry, and all other sorts of things if left alone.
And the commenter posted under my "Merit & Men" article--the writer Strategy Pattern.
By the way I have very much been enjoying our discussion, and people seem to be following it.
>>But we all know laws can be fickle, and no system is ever pure or perfect.
Not only can they be fickle, but they can (indeed pretty much always do) have 'unintend consequences'.