Better Way To Live?

[Nick0678]

18 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

imagine the suicide rate in that family if for some reason they lost everything.. hehehe

Yes i understand how you think of it but they can't.  That is a fear/idea that only people like us have because we have been raised and taught to think of that, their billions are secured in so many ways that it is practically impossible to happen.

[Luna Bliss]

16 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

So are you saying that a collage of Bezos and Musk placed on your wall so that you could gaze at daily would not help your situation?

🤣

For someone who claims to be so empathetic, you always try to turn my situation into a joke. It still isn't funny. Just stop.

Silent....really?  If you've read anything I've written at all you know I champion the poor whenever someone disparages them.

I did not turn your situation into a joke, I turned Paul's perception that people are poor because they don't appreciate Bezos and Musk enough into a joke. 

But let's drop it...I don't want to argue.  I only want you to know I was not joking about your situation of poverty in any way...quite the opposite as I was making fun of those who believe people are poor because they weren't able to embody the characteristics of a Musk or Bezos -- there are many who believe this drivel, unfortunately, and they blame the poor for their plight. It's disgusting. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Ceka Cianci]

15 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

Yes i understand how you think of it but they can't.  That is a fear/idea that only people like us have because we have been raised and taught to think of that, their billions are secured in so many ways that it is practically impossible to happen.

Oh I know they are old money, But I just wouldn't want to be so high up that I could never touch the ground..

I like appreciating what I have and enjoy the little things..

Myself, I think when you come from nothing, then the whole world is your oyster..  I never wanted to be rich or to be famous I just wanted a horse..

I'm pretty rich in horses now.. By that I mean I have plenty of them. hehehe

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Nick0678]

19 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Myself, I think when you come from nothing, then the whole world is your oyster..  I never wanted to be rich or to be famous I just wanted a horse..

 

Yes you are satisfied with the way your life is, i understand that. All i ever wanted was a boat but never managed to get it.

(it's a bit above my pay grade)

(* oh and a crew for that of course and some of the best champagne that money can buy on a daily basis while i spend every day of my life visiting all capital cities of the world plus a few others and i think i would also want a G7 Private Jet, no more cheap flying, oh and last but not least World Peace  ☮️  That looks like Mercedes-Benz but it is actually peace )

Edited November 6, 2021 by Nick0678

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Nick0678 said:

Yes you are satisfied with the way your life is, i understand that. All i ever wanted was a boat but never managed to get it.

(it's a bit above my pay grade)

(* oh and a crew for that of course and some of the best champagne that money can buy on a daily basis while i spend every day of my life visiting all capital cities of the world plus a few others and i think i would also want a G7 Private Jet, no more cheap flying, oh and last but not least World Peace   )

I was out on a 92ft yacht before on Lake Michigan a few years ago.. They had their own crew and  It was a nice boat..

We went up and down the lake shore.. The city is really beautiful looking at it from the water at night..

One thing that was burnt into my brain was, They had diamonds put into the corners and the middle of dining room table..

That's the first thing that pops into my head when i see big boats like that.. I wonder if they have diamonds put into their table too.. hehehe

I felt really out of place though, mainly because I didn't know anyone.. There was core friends there and then us outsiders.. hehehe

I hate when someone feels obligated to introduce me to someone.. I'm like, you don't have to do that, I'm fine!  hehehe

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

So, perhaps we need to look at the small social unit to determine where the worst of this hierarchical abuse began...

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Top-Down_Structures_of_Rule_Are_Not_the_Necessary_Consequence_of_Large-Scale_Organization

David Graeber:

"Jared Diamond notwithstanding, there is absolutely no evidence that top-down structures of rule are the necessary consequence of large-scale organization. Walter Scheidel notwithstanding, it is simply not true that ruling classes, once established, cannot be gotten rid of except by general catastrophe. To take just one well-documented example: around 200 AD, the city of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico, with a population of 120,000 (one of the largest in the world at the time), appears to have undergone a profound transformation, turning its back on pyramid-temples and human sacrifice, and reconstructing itself as a vast collection of comfortable villas, all almost exactly the same size. It remained so for perhaps 400 years. Even in Cortés’ day, Central Mexico was still home to cities like Tlaxcala, run by an elected council whose members were periodically whipped by their constituents to remind them who was ultimately in charge.

The pieces are all there to create an entirely different world history. For the most part, we’re just too blinded by our prejudices to see the implications. For instance, almost everyone nowadays insists that participatory democracy, or social equality, can work in a small community or activist group, but cannot possibly ‘scale up’ to anything like a city, a region, or a nation-state. But the evidence before our eyes, if we choose to look at it, suggests the opposite. Egalitarian cities, even regional confederacies, are historically quite commonplace. Egalitarian families and households are not. Once the historical verdict is in, we will see that the most painful loss of human freedoms began at the small scale – the level of gender relations, age groups, and domestic servitude – the kind of relationships that contain at once the greatest intimacy and the deepest forms of structural violence. If we really want to understand how it first became acceptable for some to turn wealth into power, and for others to end up being told their needs and lives don’t count, it is here that we should look. Here too, we predict, is where the most difficult work of creating a free society will have to take place." (https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/)

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

For instance, almost everyone nowadays insists that participatory democracy, or social equality, can work in a small community or activist group, but cannot possibly ‘scale up’ to anything like a city, a region, or a nation-state. But the evidence before our eyes, if we choose to look at it, suggests the opposite. Egalitarian cities, even regional confederacies, are historically quite commonplace.
 

Some time ago, after hearing about states dealing with problems caused when requirements established by public-democracy referendums ended up fundamentally conflicting with each other, I had a thought:

"In a republic, in theory, the leaders are answerable to the people...but who are the people answerable to?"

It's entirely possible in an egalitarian society for irresponsibility to be distributed equally.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

To take just one well-documented example: around 200 AD, the city of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico, with a population of 120,000 (one of the largest in the world at the time), appears to have undergone a profound transformation, turning its back on pyramid-temples and human sacrifice, and reconstructing itself as a vast collection of comfortable villas, all almost exactly the same size. It remained so for perhaps 400 years.

And after that the society apparently self-destructed hundreds of years before the Spaniards arrived in Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan

There's one thing to bear in mind when we talk about non-"civilized" societies that we find living in harmony with the land: we find them. The societies that didn't manage to maintain balance with their resources are bits of broken pots and fossilized bones. There's nothing magical about "non-civilized" societal structures.

[Luna Bliss]

On 11/6/2021 at 2:51 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

Some time ago, after hearing about states dealing with problems caused when requirements established by public-democracy referendums ended up fundamentally conflicting with each other, I had a thought:

"In a republic, in theory, the leaders are answerable to the people...but who are the people answerable to?"

It's entirely possible in an egalitarian society for irresponsibility to be distributed equally.

I find it difficult, having grown up in Western society, to even imagine what an egalitarian society would be like here. Those who basically only know this society tend to be like the proverbial fish in water. I mean even the smaller units of organization in the U.S. (States vs Federal) don't enable equality.  As you said, it's only in theory that the leaders are answerable to the people -- in reality we know that's very limited as they are beholden to the larger forces that purchased them -- they all too often trick their constituents into believing they have their interests at heart while brainwashing them to vote against their very own interests with the result of those at the top hoarding more and those at the bottom not getting what they need in order to live a decent life.

I can't imagine how an egalitarian society would be just as irresponsible, as a truly egalitarian society would not be compromised by larger forces outside of their own sphere that have the potential to go against their own needs. It's not like there would be no conflict -- there would just be more truth in sorting the issues out, and without truth there is little ability to see reality.

So, sadly, it seems we can't easily imagine a new way by using existing conceptual structures which define governmental processes -- they have been corrupted by those in power and are now used to manipulate us. I'm interested in what Quinn proposes because it takes us outside of our usual conceptions...outside of this culture of violence, this hierarchy we live in where so many are treated like 'things' without agency and needs of their own which should be responded to.

[Luna Bliss]

On 11/6/2021 at 3:03 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

On 11/6/2021 at 1:33 PM, Luna Bliss said:

To take just one well-documented example: around 200 AD, the city of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico, with a population of 120,000 (one of the largest in the world at the time), appears to have undergone a profound transformation, turning its back on pyramid-temples and human sacrifice, and reconstructing itself as a vast collection of comfortable villas, all almost exactly the same size. It remained so for perhaps 400 years.

And after that the society apparently self-destructed hundreds of years before the Spaniards arrived in Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan

There's one thing to bear in mind when we talk about non-"civilized" societies that we find living in harmony with the land: we find them. The societies that didn't manage to maintain balance with their resources are bits of broken pots and fossilized bones. There's nothing magical about "non-civilized" societal structures.

Graeber used the example of Teotihuacan to demonstrate that previous anthropological theories of how we developed are false (standard knowledge is that we progressed from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies to nation states with top-down governance and inequality in a clear, linear fashion). But his example of Teotihuacan shows that the process is much more fluid, as they turned their back on the pyramid-temple organization with top-down power arrangements into a "vast collection of comfortable villas" reminiscent of tribal arrangements.

Not sure if you're implying Teotihuacan was not a great society because it collapsed, but I don't think it's the survival length of a culture that automatically makes it a great one -- it's the quality of life enjoyed by a culture that makes it superior, fostered by an egalitarian structure which lacks the violence inequality perpetuates.

However, if the greatness of a society is measured by length of survival it's actually the tribal societies, their way of living overall, that have lasted longer than Western society. Western society has been around a mere drop in the bucket compared to tribes who lived 3 million years before the advent of Western Civilization. Not necessarily any one specific tribe -- the comparison is between tribal styles of living vs Western society styles.

While it's true the communities that aren't able to live in balance with nature end up dying (like Teotihuacan, which they suspect died due to drought), it's also true that if one species overruns another in an ecosystem then all the other species die and the species that overran them eventually dies too because it has nothing left to eat. Preserving, enhancing, and expanding one organism on the planet (humans) at the expense of all others is proving to be a disaster -- we have to take care of what sustains us if we want to survive. Most Native cultures were so much better at living within their bounds -- in those I've studied there was no notion of endless progress and the attempt to hoard increasingly more.

[Luna Bliss]

It looks like this theory by the anthropologist Marija Gimbutas is more accepted now, via new data and research, highlighting the peaceful societies in Old Europe before people from the Steppes north of the Black sea invaded, source of the Indo-European languages and societies based on hierarchy and violence (about 4400 BCE).
I like this because it demonstrates our warlike, patriarchal society based on violence and hierarchy isn't a given or natural state of humans, and so there is the possibility to change back to a more egalitarian and peaceful society:

....Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis about the spread of Indo-European languages from the steppes north of the Black Sea by invaders she called “Kurgans,” from a word of Slavic origin which refers to their characteristic burial mounds. Gimbutas spoke of these as “big man” graves, arguing that they marked the appearance of a new cultural group into Europe—one that was patriarchal, patrilineal, and warlike. Before their arrival, the people Gimbutas called “Old Europeans” buried their dead in communal graves, with grave offerings indicating no great difference in wealth or status and no domination of one sex over the other. Gimbutas argued that the “Kurgan” people introduced Indo-European languages into the lands they conquered, as well as new cultural systems based on domination of warriors and kings over the general populace and the domination of men over women. She stated that the Kurgan invasions of Europe began about 4400 BCE and lasted for several millennia.

https://feminismandreligion.com/2017/12/11/marija-gimbutas-triumphant-colin-renfrew-concedes-by-carol-p-christ/

[Theresa Tennyson]

31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I like this because it demonstrates our warlike, patriarchal society based on violence and hierarchy isn't a given or natural state of humans, and so there is the possibility to change back to a more egalitarian and peaceful society:

 

What species were the warlike patriarchal types members of?

[Luna Bliss]

22 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

What species were the warlike patriarchal types members of?

I could just as easily ask you what species the more peaceful and egalitarian tribes and so called "Old European" societies pre-4400 BCE belong to, or what species various peaceful Aboriginal tribes in existence today belong to.
In other words, humans have the capacity to be both peaceful and warlike, and it is our culture which determines this and not whatever biological species we belong to.

More current research in evolution shows that cooperation was just as much a part of humankind's development as competition was. Yet this belief in the 'survival of the fittest' used to justify violence & domination with the notion that 'might makes right' remains. It's a very useful credence for abusers, justifying the apparent god-given nature of their domination so that they can remain on top of the hierarchy with all the spoils and keep those at the bottom levels in their place.

The patriarchy and war inherent in a dominator culture are not universal, normative, and the only way to organize societies.
Only the strong survive? No...only those who learn how to cooperate with what surrounds them survives. We only need to look at the encroaching climate collapse for proof of that.

Riane Eisler, among many others, defines dominator culture vs the more egalitarian partnership culture, and proposes solutions for how to shift further to the partnership model on the dominator/partnership continuum.

"Riane Eisler presents dominator culture as a cultural construction of the roles and relations of women and men, where men "dominate," or are in control within society. Regardless of the location, time period, religious beliefs, or advancements in technology, a society might follow the dominator culture model. Eisler characterizes dominator culture as featuring four core elements:

    an authoritarian social and family structure
    rigid male dominance
    a high level of violence and abuse
    and a system of beliefs that normalizes such a society[5]

The dominator model is framed in contrast to the partnership model. In a sort of reversal of the elements of dominator culture, the partnership model is characterized by:

    organization according to the ideals of a democratic structure
    equal partnership between men and women
    a lack of tolerance for abuse and violence
    and belief systems that validate an empathetic perspective[5]

By juxtaposing dominator culture with partnership culture, Eisler creates a continuum between the two. She argues that where a society falls on this spectrum influences its culture, beliefs, and actions. Adherence to dominator culture affects people from a personal to a public level, as seen in its societal impact.[1]

The prevalence of dominator culture has shifted over time. Eisler claims that, in the prehistory of humans, partnership used to be the norm. In both the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods, there are examples of matriarchal societies preceding patriarchies. British archaeologist James Mellaart, for example, reported a Neolithic site with many female images and no signs of destructive warfare for almost 1000 years.[1] For thousands of years, people lived in these peaceful partnership societies, until warlike nomadic tribes disrupted the balance with their dominator cultures. Since then, fluctuations between dominator and partnership societies have occurred over time, but the primary shift has been towards dominator culture".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominator_culture

 Interesting podcast:
https://www.themythicmasculine.com/episodes/riane-eisler

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

In other words, humans have the capacity to be both peaceful and warlike, and it is our culture which determines this and not whatever biological species we belong to.

 

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

FINALLY.

Now, let's hypothesize that in a violent conflict between a "partnership" tribe and a warlike nomadic "dominator" tribe of equal size, the "dominator" tribe would have an advantage because: warlike. This would explain the "shift to dominator culture."

What could the "partnership" tribes do to increase their odds of survival?

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

FINALLY.

Now, let's hypothesize that in a violent conflict between a "partnership" tribe and a warlike nomadic "dominator" tribe of equal size, the "dominator" tribe would have an advantage because: warlike. This would explain the "shift to dominator culture."

What could the "partnership" tribes do to increase their odds of survival?

Take self defence classes?

Edit: warlike tribes would necessitate their neighbours organising to resist them with training and equipment. Similar to the development that happened to tribes around the Roman Empire. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Aethelwine

[Luna Bliss]

22 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

On 11/9/2021 at 9:04 AM, Luna Bliss said:

In other words, humans have the capacity to be both peaceful and warlike, and it is our culture which determines this and not whatever biological species we belong to.

 

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

FINALLY.

Now, let's hypothesize that in a violent conflict between a "partnership" tribe and a warlike nomadic "dominator" tribe of equal size, the "dominator" tribe would have an advantage because: warlike. This would explain the "shift to dominator culture."

What could the "partnership" tribes do to increase their odds of survival?

I'm sorry to cause you to sigh in exasperation because I can't seem to keep up with your far superior knowledge on the subject, but I will try since I hate to cause anyone such pain...

But on to answering your question...it's not so easy to sort out how the partnership model would survive as would be the case in the 'tribes' scenario you painted where 'sides' are confronting each other in battle. These dynamics are embedded in society via all relationships and institutions. Riane Eisler has great suggestions though on how to become more of a partnership culture vs the dominator culture that is currently more prevalent. Basically, both individually and through our institutions, we enhance the characteristics she lists in the Partnership model and we decrease the characteristics stated in the Domination model.
The struggle has always been underway, and is ongoing. I will do my part and make a call to my congressperson today to complain about the new voting restriction laws which limit the ability of some citizens to vote -- those on the bottom levels of our hierarchy with less means. 

Anyway, this website by Riane Eisler has some great ideas on how we can facilitate a partnership culture vs the violent, abusive dominator culture:

Domination

    In groups and out groups
    Hierarchies of domination
    Power maintained by force and fear
    Inequality
    Ignores economic value of caring
    Violence and abuse

Partnership

    Everyone matters
    Hierarchies of actualization
    Increase in liberty and expression
    Equality: gender, race, etc
    Care is valued economically
    Human flourishing and creativity

Partnerism is...
1. A socio-economic system where all relationships, institutions, policies, and organizations are based on principles of equitable partnership that supports linking rather than ranking and hierarchies of actualization rather than hierarchies of domination.

Partnerism is...
2. The opposite of a domination system, where hierarchies of domination are maintained through fear and force in all areas, from families and education to economics and politics.

Partnerism is...
3. The perspective required to develop our human capacity to care for people, regardless of gender, race, and other categories, and to care for nature.

Partnerism is...
4. A new social category that transcends conventional ones such as capitalism/socialism, Right/Left, religious/secular, and Eastern/Western.

Partnerism is...
5. A system in which the work of caring for people, starting in infancy, and caring for nature is highly valued and rewarded in both the market and non-market economic sectors, regardless of gender.

more...   
https://www.partnerism.org/#partnership-scale-page

Edited November 10, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

But on to answering your question...it's not so easy to sort out how the partnership model would survive as would be the case in the 'tribes' scenario you painted where 'sides' are confronting each other in battle. These dynamics are embedded in society via all relationships and institutions.

 

It really isn't that hard to figure out. The "partnership" tribes could partner with other "partnership" tribes because: partnership. This would increase their numbers and their potential strength. They could also move closer together to be better able to defend themselves and each other. They could start forming groups to specialize in defense, etc.

And heigh-ho, you have a civilization.

You might have somehow gotten into your head that I'm opposed to the ideals of cooperation. Nothing could be further than the truth. My problem is how you seem to be saying "nuclear family bad, tribe good, civilization bad" without any real support because, well, these dynamics are embedded in society via all relationships and institutions.

Yes, most - probably all - civilizations have been flawed. But that isn't necessarily the fault of the process of civilization. Civiilizations are of necessity very cooperative.

Take the idea of money. Instead of giving the potter a pig in exchange for a new pot and having them mutter, "Great. Another pig. Where were all the pigs last month when I needed them," the customer can give a token in exchange for the pot, which could be exchanged for a pig at a future date, or some other needful thing. Everyone needs to cooperate in order to make the process work. Yes, there are excesses in the pursuit of money, but there could also be excesses in the pursuit of pots and pigs.

[Luna Bliss]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:12 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

It really isn't that hard to figure out. The "partnership" tribes could partner with other "partnership" tribes because: partnership. This would increase their numbers and their potential strength. They could also move closer together to be better able to defend themselves and each other. They could start forming groups to specialize in defense, etc.

And heigh-ho, you have a civilization.

You might have somehow gotten into your head that I'm opposed to the ideals of cooperation. Nothing could be further than the truth. My problem is how you seem to be saying "nuclear family bad, tribe good, civilization bad" without any real support because, well, these dynamics are embedded in society via all relationships and institutions.

Yes, most - probably all - civilizations have been flawed. But that isn't necessarily the fault of the process of civilization. Civiilizations are of necessity very cooperative.

Take the idea of money. Instead of giving the potter a pig in exchange for a new pot and having them mutter, "Great. Another pig. Where were all the pigs last month when I needed them," the customer can give a token in exchange for the pot, which could be exchanged for a pig at a future date, or some other needful thing. Everyone needs to cooperate in order to make the process work. Yes, there are excesses in the pursuit of money, but there could also be excesses in the pursuit of pots and pigs.

It's not the size of a group that's important, it's how that group of any size organizes itself to meet the needs of its members.

I don't think I've ever said I was against the process of civilization itself, though I have mentioned problems that occur when a group becomes large (the inability to have empathy with less-known aspects of the social system one has no direct experience with). And I have said there are problems with WESTERN civilization -- not the process of civilization itself, but instead the elements of Western civilization that cause harm.
How could one even be against the process of civilization, as civilization is just what naturally happens when a group of people becomes larger -- that group becomes organized and develops a system in the way all parts of that system (the people within it) relate to each other. To be against the process of civilization itself would be like saying one is philosophically against the wind.

Part of the confusion arises because many scholars believe it was the very process of civilization itself, inherent in changing from the smaller hunter-gatherer society to a larger agricultural one, that caused the problems of abusive hierarchal inequality. This is because with agriculture we were able to obtain a surplus from our labor unlike hunter-gatherer's who just wondered around discovering food in the wild, and we then developed a sense of ownership of that surplus food and needed militaries to protect it, and with ownership on our minds we developed this top-down hierarchy where some were deemed as more important and deserving than those who didn't own excess grain. Even women then began to be seen as something to own, along with nature itself and animals.

While the above may well be the way Western civilization developed beginning 6000 or so years ago, a system of exploitation where an unjust hierarchy of abuse called 'dominator culture' was created in the process, I don't think it has to be so and newer research appears to have proof that it was not always the case when societies moved from smaller social units (tribal) into the larger ones we call civilization. Whether this latter research is true or not, hierarchy in and of itself does not mean some within that hierarchy have to be treated badly -- instead it can mean there are simply different roles for different people according to whatever skills they possess, having no relationship with whether one skill is better than the other and so deserving special treatment. 

Anyway, I do understand why some people say civilization in and of itself is bad if they're unaware of newer research which apparently demonstrates some civilizations, as they moved from hunter-gatherer to a larger society, did not have an abusive power structure where some at the top were allowed to dominate those deemed less worthy.
Most research indicates Western civilization, beginning around 6000 or so years ago, has been abusive to the bottom levels of a hierarchy however, and I find it a bizarre argument for those who champion the amazing qualities of say, a popular classical musician of the time, to claim the beauty of civilization while a good percentage of the population in that civilization is dying from hunger or having life opportunities thwarted in major ways. If a civilization is created with violence in mind, the domination of the few by the many and causing harm for so many of its citizens, placing profit before people, I have a hard time calling it a good type of civilization.

In Quinn's parable I opened with, he is equating civilization with an abusive type of hierarchy, as this seems to be the norm when tribal groups changed into agricultural and hierarchal societies -- certain people were deemed less worthy and placed at the bottom of the heap to be owned by those of higher rank.

I think what Quinn advocates is a new kind of civilization where the abusive type of hierarchy doesn't exist. This is the way most tribal societies were organized -- in an egalitarian manner. He is advocating for taking some of these positive characteristics inherent in so many tribal societies and incorporating them into our current civilization. He calls it a 'new tribalism' but I don't see where he advocates the formation of small groups -- it has nothing to do with social size but rather a nod to the healthier ways of most tribal societies.

Developing a new way of organizing our society (more egalitarian with less power concentrated at the top that we can't affect) is crucial at this point in time. This is because not only is exploitation repulsive due to causing those with less power to suffer needlessly, it is our allowing some at the top to have too much power (think oil companies) that will likely cause extinction of most life on earth if we don't manage to wrest control from them.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:12 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

You might have somehow gotten into your head that I'm opposed to the ideals of cooperation. Nothing could be further than the truth. My problem is how you seem to be saying "nuclear family bad, tribe good, civilization bad" without any real support because, well, these dynamics are embedded in society via all relationships and institutions.

No I've never thought you were opposed to the ideals of cooperation.
Mainly I'm against the nuclear family because there is little oversight when a parent or spouse becomes abusive as was the case in an extended family or tribe living together who could keep a watchful eye. In addition, the more people you have caring for children the better, so restricting the home to only one or two caregivers places an undue burden on parents and shortchanges children who need more support. I'll leave out the fact that the nuclear family was created so men could control women easier for another discussion.

I don't think everything tribal is all good -- I think the foundation we built Western civilization on is bad  ( where some profit at the expense of others, profit before people, and more). Again, I am saying that we need to incorporate certain characteristics more prevalent in tribal existence so that we have an egalitarian society.

The reason I am stressing the embeddedness of 'dominator culture' within groups and individuals is to point out there are ways we can combat this any time we choose in order to make a difference. We have the power to change from a primarily 'dominator culture' to one  with more partnership characteristics that don't abuse those we place at the bottom of a hierarchy.

In fact, we have been struggling with overthrowing 'dominator culture' for centuries -- the overthrowing of the monarchy where kings rule us from a top-down position of absolute authority and the civil rights struggles in more recent years are good examples.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Luna Bliss