Dear god. Historical look at what patriarchy is & isn't is coming in at 4,500 words. Even the most tolerant editor will balk at this.
-
-
-
Replying to @djhc2
She does not, I'm afraid. I'm not a fan & also looking mostly at Christian societies from late medieval period on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Nor me, she's also v dated, but often still cited. Just curious, the v early stuff (pre-ag) interests me a lot. Looking forward to yours.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djhc2
I tend to go with an evolutionary psychological explanation for the origins of patriarchy - thinking of the other apes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @djhc2
And the tendency for them to be patriarchal when there is competition & conflict & matriarchal when there isn't - very simplistically.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Def in my court but that sounds much earlier? - de Waal, Dunbar, Wrangham, Hrdy etc. Mostly post-Lerner. Again, looking forward to yours.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djhc2
Not really. Not claiming patriarchy itself to be biological but evolved traits of men & women to favour patriarchy in conflict situations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
So does evolved male dominance become (sociological) 'patriarchy', as 'female' becomes 'woman' at some point in our evolution? I should wait
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djhc2 @HPluckrose
... for you to publish, or you'll end up tweeting 4,500 words ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.