Choose from these words to fill the blanks below:

poor, aggression, vicious, high, stable, endured, average, patriarchal, bonobo, help, political, reproduction, biological, strongest, aristocracy, cooperation, submission, stronger, privileged

•

almost all societies throughout history have been                       patriarchal

•

divided societies into men and women and                     privileged men over women

•

one would think that this is such a universal phenomenon, it probably results from a                     biological reason and not from a chance, historical event such as the way the caste system in India developed or racial tensions in America

•

theories of why most societies have been patriarchal

•

THEORY #1: men are physically                 stronger than women

•

by being stronger, men have generally used their strength to force women into                     submission

•

since most agricultural tasks require hard labor, this gave men more control of food production and economy than women, which led to more political power

•

problems with this theory

•

1. it's true only on               average that men are stronger than women, some women are stronger than some men

•

that men are stronger than women is true only in regard to certain types of strength

•

women generally have more stamina then men

•

women are generally more resistant to hunger, disease and fatigue

•

2. there's not direct relation between physical power and social relations in humans

•

people in the 60s are often more learned in political science and leadership and competently hold more                   political power than people in their 20s who are stronger

•

in most societies which owned slaves, the slaves have been stronger than their masters, yet their masters held power over them

•

Catholic popes, kings and Egyptian pharaohs were often must weaker physically than the people they ruled over, and they did not attain their position by brute, physical strength

•

even in organized crime, the big boss is often not the                   strongest man, yet he has social skills to know how to get younger and stronger men to do the dirty jobs

•

in chimpanzees: the alpha male wins his position by building a             stable coalition with other males and females, not just through violence

•

in fact, there is often an inverse relation to physical power and social power

•

those who did manual labor were larger and stronger and used their power more than kings, judges, and priests

•

the higher you are in the hierarchy, the less physical power you usually need

•

it was the social and mental skills which placed humans at the top of the food chain, not their physical strength, this is true also within the species

•

THEORY #2: dominance of men over women comes not just from strength but from                     aggression

•

men have evolved to be more willing to engage more in violence than women

•

men were the warriors and soldiers

•

used their control of warfare to get control of civil society as well

•

              vicious circle: men control war, therefore control civil society, therefore determine that there should be more war

•

studies show that cognitive natures of women and men are different

•

menu are on the average biologically tend more toward violence

•

this could be used as an argument that men are in general more suited to serve as common soldiers than women are

•

but it doesn't follow that the those who are in power to lead wars and civil society should necessarily be men

•

in most societies there was a gap between the various hierarchical groups, e.g.                       aristocracy never served as common soldiers and did not rise in the ranks

•

in Europe in 1400s-1600s, most common soldiers were recruited from         poor populations and countries, but princes and kings never served in the army

•

why didn't more women serve as generals and politicians since in order to manage an army, you don't need to be physically violent, you need stamina and perhaps the ability to be strict and resolute, yet these are characteristics that are shared quite equally among the sexes

•

a big war is very different than a brawl in the park, you don't have to be physically aggressive to succeed, but requires an extraordinary degree of cooperation and organization: you have to be able to make peace at home, alliances abroad, and the ability to know what is going through the mind of your enemies and allies

•

an aggressive muscleman would be a good choice as a common soldier, but not a good choice as a general, king, admiral or politician who needs to manage a war

•

because of their biological tendency to be less inclinced to physical violence, women are often better at these high-level skills than men, whereas men were in general better fitted to administering one-on-one violence, killing each other with axes on the battlefield

•

nevertheless, only very rarely throughout history were women able to gain         high positions of power, and we don't know why

•

THEORY #3: through millions of years of evolution, men and women developed different survival and                         reproduction strategies

•

men competed with one another to reproduce with women

•

therefore as a man, you ability to pass on your genes depended largely on your ability to defeat other men, and so men who passing on their genes were those that were generally the most ambitious, aggressive, and competitive

•

women, on the other hand, generally had little difficulty finding men who wanted to reproduce with them

•

women who were able to pass on their genes were those who               endured long pregnancies and spent years nurturing their children

•

during this time, women had fewer opportunities to look for food and required a lot of help and support, in other words, you needed a man or men

•

women had little choice but to agree to conditions the man set so that he would at least stay around and help you nurture your children

•

therefore women who were able to pass on their genes were those who were the most submissive caretakers

•

DIFFICULTIES with this theory:

•

women may have been dependent on help to nurture their children, but not necessarily on the         help of men

•

elephants and             bonobo chimpanzees, the dynamics between dependent and competitive males result in matriarchal societies

•

since females need help in raising children, they are obliged to improve their social skills and cooperate with others, hence they construct female social networks

•

the males do not have the same pressure to develop social skills

•

bonobo females are individually weaker than bonobo males but will gang up and try to beat any male who tries to gain too much power

•

so how did it happen than in the one species whose success depends above all on                       cooperation, that individuals who in general are less cooperative (men) control and suppress individuals who are generally more cooperative (women)