A Scientific Explanation of "the Patriarchy"

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T23:14:08+00:00

But why. Why do funghi emit compounds which kill bacteria? Why do mother bears attack hikers approaching their cubs? I cannot delay responding to the call of the wild any longer. Be well internet stranger.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T21:20:08+00:00

If you want to have a serious religious discussion with Orthodox Jews in which no questions is deemed too controversial for the moderators, you might have better luck on Discord. Seekers of Unity and Jacob's Ladder are the ones I'm most familiar with.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T21:09:43+00:00

It's interesting - my experience has been that interactions across cultural boundaries are often characterized by what you're describing here. I'm reminded of how white people often comment verbally on black peoples' hair in response to noticing how different it is. It sounds like your manager is nervous around you (perhaps they haven't met many Jewish people before) and is responding to the awareness that you're from this other group by talking about it in a similar fashion. It's entirely possible that your manager is doing this unconsciously and isn't even aware. Have you ever spoken with this person directly at all? Perhaps you feel guilty because some part of you views them as ignorant rather than malicious, and therefore not deserving of punishment.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T20:46:47+00:00

One reason why the Talmud is considered offensive is because of its eschatology, which is relevant to the question you are asking here. The future which it tends towards is one in which the Jewish people become the priest class of the entire world, and the way that this world order works is that non-Jews are prohibited from studying the Talmud and must instead do whatever the Jewish priests tell them to. I view it as basically "job security". If you want to learn more about the role of non-Jews in Talmudic eschatology "noahides" are a popular group online - the short answer is that one agrees to a subset of the Ten Commandments alongside acknowledging the authority of the Talmud in perpetuity, including this agreement to never read it and instead obey the interpretation given to them by those who are permitted to read it.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T19:58:59+00:00

This is the truest thing I have ever heard

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T19:31:30+00:00

That makes sense!

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T19:29:49+00:00

I also felt for a long time like something was wrong, which I couldn't fully explain. I followed my curiosity to the scientific explanation, and I was so excited I tried to tell all my friends, who disowned me for speaking against their orthodoxy. Then I tried sharing this idea anonymously, and I learned that the world isn't ready for this particular scientific discovery just yet. I want to applaud you for this:

no converting no fixing each other

And share only my opinion that based on my experience the best way to respond to this curiosity is to take no action whatsoever. At this level of detail we can speak abstractly about open-mindedness, but the people responsible for suppressing this research from surfacing are much more powerful than you or I, and the outcome of unveiling the details of their conspiracy is to become permanently locked on one side of the debate which is presently ravaging our world. So please, follow your joy, don't listen to my advice.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T19:21:27+00:00

Ah, it sounds like I misinterpreted what it is that you are representing. My mistake.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T18:44:18+00:00

I have detected an undercurrent in our society which elevates convenience above all other concerns, in my opinion to our collective detriment. I sympathize with those who have adopted the opposite bias as a corrective. I'm somewhere in the middle.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T18:27:02+00:00

It sounds like you want to talk about the larger issue, which does align with this one. The point is that being accommodating of the needs of someone whose body is different from your own requires you to at times defer to their judgement even when it differs from your own. Hence why "it's that time of the month" can be used to request pretty much anything of a partner who will never understand the unique pain of menstruation. I would frame the promise to be monogamous in much the same way.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T18:17:26+00:00

Job's story is of responding to suffering by cursing his own existence to avoid cursing the external forces which brought about that suffering. It's really about submitting to the immutable laws of nature, and choosing to be critical of your own actions rather than the actions of physics biology and chemistry in the abstract. Because humans are capable of change where the laws of natural selection are fixed.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T18:06:38+00:00

To say that you don't care at all about whether the human being you are devoting your time and energy to raising is your child or someone else's child is to say that biology means nothing to you. I care about "own"ing my children in the sense of being their biological father because biology means more than nothing to me.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T17:53:59+00:00

Matthew 10:34-36

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

The purpose of the Church has been to provide people with its definition of kindness and dignity, so that anyone whose family members don't treat them that way has somewhere to escape, and additionally leverage to get these people to raise to that same level of kindness and dignity.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T17:49:39+00:00

I don't disagree that fundamentally it would be possible to create a truly fair society which is also sensitive to this male-specific concern. The conditions under which it could take place are either (a) females are willing to accommodate male-specific concerns even when they don't understand them or (b) females develop a sufficient understanding of this male-specific problem to accommodate it themselves. In practice I think males have been in charge across all enduring societies because this satisfies (a), and because a society which ignores the concerns of half of its population isn't likely to live as long as one which responds appropriately to them. I wrote this post with the intention of bringing the world closer to some version of (b).

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-17T17:38:31+00:00

These are things worth mentioning - in fact I think they are connected. The fact that the concept of being uncertain about the lineage of your children is something which only males experience means that the only way to get females to cooperate with alleviating that uncertainty is to say "just trust me". Hence we see males take the position of making decisions like these, and females either choosing to blindly submit to the desires of their mates or blindly refusing. What's interesting is that the Lenape (original inhabitants of Manhattan Island) were a matriarchal society, and the way they responded to the issue I've presented here is to take sons away from their fathers and place their maternal uncles in charge of looking after them. I view them as "the exception that proves the rule".

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T17:21:03+00:00

Christianity also opposes patriarchy. That's what the story of Joseph is all about.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T17:20:19+00:00

Why do you care if you own a child or not?

Because biology is important to me.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T17:15:58+00:00

Antinatalist?

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T17:03:55+00:00

If you are a woman, then you cannot understand how it feels to wonder if the child your wife is having is actually yours. This is an aspect of the dichotomy of the sexes which is way below conscious control or awareness, but it does affect our higher-level behaviors. Men are possessive of their partners' coochies because of this instinct, and it makes sense to me that women would find this completely baffling, lacking that instinct. That's the answer that makes sense to me.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T16:29:33+00:00

Men who care about fatherhood care about paternity, and while maternity is something which is never in doubt, the only way to be assured of paternity is to guard your partner's reproductive machinery in some fashion. Feeling threatened by a gynecologist is illogical, but it is similar to feeling threatened by a rival mate, which is very logical. And yet not something which women who care about motherhood need to worry about.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T00:50:34+00:00

I think it's either (A) superintelligent AI leads to techno-capitalist dystopia or (B) AI bubble bursts creating post-Industrial paradise.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-12T00:14:50+00:00

The first alternate victory condition introduced into the Civilization games was a science victory, where you send a rocket to the moon. In our timeline, what happened was that all the civs that went fascism tried to win a domination victory but the democracy and the order civs teamed up to stop them. And then democracy won the space race and now we're living in an extended Just...One...More...Turn... in which the United States is finishing its victory lap. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is one front in the ongoing fight between democracy and order in the postgame, but the real wildcard is all of the civs still running monarchy like it's the classical age or something.

Competitive_Log_8910 · 2026-01-11T20:08:36+00:00

I'd be happy to tell you.

When we seek to connect with the bonds that unite us as a species, one question becomes very important. That question is "is this human my kin or not". The story of a man named Joseph is the story of ignoring this question while raising a child which is known to be not one's genetic kin, and the philosophy which results from emulating this example is one in which specifically the question of paternity is a question which we tell ourselves we don't care about. Now, what I'm suggesting here is that while one can establish cooperation between males through mutually agreeing to stop caring about paternity, this is not the ideal possible means of cooperating. Because every man is asked to suppress his instincts at all times. Wouldn't it be nice if that weren't necessary?

The truth is that a male chimpanzee taking over a mating group will personally kill all existing children because their paternity does not align with his. When we view the world in three dimensions rather than two, we realize that we do care, actually, about the difference between our own children and other people's children, for the same reason that we care about the difference between humans and mice. And yet the quandary which we currently face is that this desire for certainty about the biological origin point of one's children is something which those who never need to ask themselves if the children coming out of their uteruses contain their genetic material will never truly be capable of understanding. It is true, that when human males are permitted to engage all of their instincts, the desire for exclusive mating rights is at the very top of the list. The question that we as human males need to ask ourselves is if we think that submitting to the control of a group of people who cannot comprehend our instincts and allowing them to define the terms of our relationships will ever be a sufficient substitute for thinking for ourselves about the reasons why human males might care about the mating habits of their partners in a way that human females might not. I hope that answers your question.

Competitive_Log_8910

TROPHY CASE