I had a conversation a few days back about order in society. Little did the person realize he was talking to a reformed material scientist (cue maniacal laughter).
I like modeling things and society is of great interest for me. One of the things I have noticed is men form hierarchies and women form equalities to perform tasks.
one-on-one women being slotted into hierarchies just does not work. If one woman suspects the other woman thinks she's better than another there will be war, better for them to just cooperate as equals. Women are also territorial. If a woman has a man and the other women don't, the woman with the man has the most status. As she has the most resources at her disposal.
A woman who knows about male hierarchies knows she is prime status material. she pretty much slots herself under alpha males arm and she is the most powerful creature in the room. If she doesn't position herself promptly she'll be at the bottom of the hierarchy.
So in our society we have nearly equal numbers of women and men, so people pair bond. And the hierarchies of men are in place. And the society is more or less stable.
Think of it as a crystalline lattice, like diamond, are male hierarchies. when you add women, you have individual households where there is a husband and wife. think of this society like the nucleus of an atom, neutrons and protons co-existing in a nucleus. the neutrons shielding the protons from their mutually repulsive fields.
Now you can have an extremely stable society if its a stable isotope of some element. it'll be come unstable when the ratio of neutrons to protons is too low or if there are too many neutrons.
When a society breaks down as in revolution, the male hierarchies break down. however if you have enough neutrons insulating the protons (I haven't assigned either gender to being protons or neutrons - and in the nucleus, last i checked, the nucleides are all exchanging particles anyway, which may result in the 'strong' force.)
The reason for this piece of hypothesis, and thats all this is - although i think its a fascinating field of research, is because i would joke at libertarians and anarchist friends - why didn't Afghanistan, Libya or Iraq form stable societies when their govts were taken out? They'd all mutter something about oh the society was a mess already.
Society is made up of interactions between men and women. My point is, yes laboring the point again, if you raise the power of women during your revolution, you may avert producing an unstable society.
There's no doubt human beings are primarily social. Our strength is in our ability to cooperate to get things done. And this is why we live in houses, have lots of technology and understanding, we are social beings who love communicating & cooperating.This is also true when it comes to finding a partner
. We say we fall in love and there is no point in dissecting the relationship further. But really what we are mainly looking for is companionship, someone who can and will work with us, help us, to communicate with, someone who is on our side, someone who will make our lives happier by giving us meaning and a reason for living. Not all relationships will fulfill all those things and people draw on a whole lot of other attributes
when picking a partner, like appearance, sexual attractiveness, wealth, occupation, age, education, interests, intelligence, whether they have a criminal past, gambling, or other addictions, whether they'd been married before... When I was picking a partner I had a list longer than both arms. Yes and we get married to reproduce too, but these days we mainly want a companion to love and to be loved by us, especially in western countries.The function of marriage, in all cultures, has always been the commitment to someone for the purposes of raising children.
And of course children also give those same things that we find in a partner, a reason for living. Children make our lives meaningful too.
Originally marriage was a form of cementing alliances amongst the wealthy. But the idea of marrying for love has been something that has developed more recently. And even more recently, the idea of marrying not for the purposes of raising children at all has been admitted into the concept of marriage with gay marriage acceptable in many western countries and US states. Love is far more important than
money and the importance of love is placed at naught when compared to something like the economy. My point is love is way more important than money. Love gives us a reason to live, purpose and happiness. If we were all chasing happiness rather than money, the 1% would give up their miserly pursuits and adopt generosity in an attempt to be happier.Until very recently, the only function a woman really had was to get her MRS degree with her education. Women either become wives and hence mothers or nuns. I remember the despair I felt
as a teenager at the prospect. My mother sent me to a prestigious private schools where she thought I would learn deportment and the kinds of things young women learn at Swiss finishing schools. Instead I learned critical thinking, that in ancient Sparta they left new born babies on hillsides to see if they survived a night in the wild. If the baby survived it was deemed fit enough to be a Spartan. We also were told to question what a day is to God. And I also learned that women could choose their own path in life.When my mother married her only requirement in a partner was that he was wealthy and was good at making money. The only thing she wanted from marriage was children. She got everything she wanted. She worried I would never find a husband because I was too smart and men don't like smart women. I was worried I'd end up a boring old housewife like her.Don't marry men for money, but have a good heart, who you enjoy being with and who will help you. Of course these were some of my requirements. Yours may be different. Of course I am in the rare position of never having lived in poverty so my perspective may be skewed and perhaps I have my mothers determination to thank for that state.Similarly, I have found men have never been put off by my brain. If anything its been an asset in separating the chaff from the wheat. If a man is daunted by my brain, he'd soon bore me anyway. What I've found though doing research, the best men to marry are no older than perhaps 30 or 32 at the most. If they've not married and they're older than that, they either are mommy's boy, gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just means they prefer a different gender), or think they are too cool to marry. Check if he's been married before or had a significant relationship already. Of the two genders, men are way more monogamous, men mate once and you'll always be a comparison to his first. Men pair bond with a woman in their mid to late 20s but before their mid 30s and will be attached to her for the rest of their life. One guy I met on his third marriage said 'our first is 40 years old this year'. 'Our' as in he and his first wife. Their marriage has been over for over 18 years, yet he doesn't refer to his kids as 'his' kids, but 'our' kids.
And this is the most recent example I've seen. Whether a man is faithful in his marriage or not, he mates for life. When you find a suitable man, make sure he has been lightly hurt before. Why? He won't appreciate what he's got otherwise, but listen to him to make sure he hasn't already pair bonded already. If you marry a man who is older, no doubt he thinks he loves you, but once he gets you, he'll no doubt be looking for his next wife as soon as he gets you. For example Newt Gingrich or any number of Hollywood marriages.While women are always portrayed as the major pair-bonders, not so much. They pair-bond when they are raising children, but they will move onto other men without difficulty.
Men have always been portrayed as the ones with all the advantages in a relationship and this is also been their strength. The true advantage is to women who live longer when they are not married. It is men who live longer when they are married and remain so.
While women may go onto to lose their ability to reproduce, they will always be a desirable partner because they offer companionship. They make men's lives meaningful.Men without women are often portrayed as foot loose and fancy free are often the ones who are the big losers when it comes to divorce. Homeless people are primarily men, people who go on to get off the street are primarily women, the best employees are married men, men who are married are least likely to get involved in crime. Don't be fooled, men need women more than women need men.