Lectures Watched
Since January 1, 2014
Hundreds of free, self-paced university courses available:
my recommendations here
Peruse my collection of 275
influential people of the past.
View My Class Notes via:
Receive My Class Notes via E-Mail:


Contact Me via E-Mail:
edward [at] tanguay.info
Notes on video lecture:
Three Theories of Gender Domination
Choose from these words to fill the blanks below:
biological, average, vicious, endured, aggression, cooperation, help, patriarchal, reproduction, strongest, stable, stronger, political, privileged, aristocracy, high, submission, bonobo, poor
almost all societies throughout history have been                       
divided societies into men and women and                      men over women
one would think that this is such a universal phenomenon, it probably results from a                      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                  than women
by being stronger, men have generally used their strength to force women into                     
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                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                    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                    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              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                     
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
               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.                        never served as common soldiers and did not rise in the ranks
in Europe in 1400s-1600s, most common soldiers were recruited from          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          positions of power, and we don't know why
THEORY #3: through millions of years of evolution, men and women developed different survival and                          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                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          of men
elephants and              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                       , that individuals who in general are less cooperative (men) control and suppress individuals who are generally more cooperative (women)
The Context of History and Our Extended Human Family
How Walking Upright Led to Better Social and Cooperative Skills
The Importance of Fire and Cooking
Why Did Other Human Species Become Extinct?
The Cognitive Revolution and the Beginning of Human History
The Language of Homo Sapiens
How Fictive Language Enabled Larger Social Groups
The Power of Imagined Realities
How the Ability to Tell Stories Enabled Humans to Cooperate in Massive Groups
The Cognitive Revolution and the Variety of Human Communities
Spiritual Beliefs of Early Humans
Politics and Warfare of Pre-Agricultural Societies
45,000 Years Ago: Human's Decimation of Australia's Large Mammals
14,000 BC: Human Migration to the Americas
Agriculture: The Good and the Bad
10,000 BC: Agricultural Revolution
The Origins of Agriculture
The Code of Hammurabi and Other Imagined Realities
Inter-Subjective Reality and Romantic Consumerism
The Human Brain's Outsourcing of Mathematics
Unjust and Imagined Hierarchies
Imagined Hierarchies in History
Culturally Defined Gender
Three Theories of Gender Domination
The Direction of Humankind: Global Unity
The Essence of Money
The History of Money
The Historical Definition of Empire
The Relationship between Science, European Imperialism and Capitalism
Science, Capitalism and European Imperialism
Columbus: Last Man of the Middle Ages, Vespucci: First Man of the Modern Age
European Empires, Science, and Capitalism
How Capitalism is Based on Trust in the Future
On the Interdependence of Science and Capitalism
How Capitalism Enabled Small European Countries to Explore and Conquer the World
The Relationship Between Capitalism, the Slave Trade, and Free Market Forces
Industrialization, Energy and Raw Materials
The Second Agricultural Revolution and its Effect on Animal Treatment
The Ethics of Capitalism and Consumerism
On Limitless Energy Resources and the Hegemony of Modern Time Schedules
State/Market vs. Family/Community
Humankind's Rigid and Violent Past, and Flexible and Peaceful Present
Reasons for Our Current Unprecedented Era of International Peace
Three Theories on the History of Happiness
Psychological and Biological Happiness
Measuring Human Happiness
The Future of Cyborgs and Robots
What Do We Want to Want?