I apologize for the long post! Couldn't resist this subject.......
Yes we ALL need to dismantle outdated gender scripts. Amen to that!
When I was reading the post, I saw some things that were missing from the polls and research. In my 40 years as a psychotherapist and 56 years of marriage across 3 husbands, my observations are different than the 'experts'.
The polls and research are not asking men "WHY" they want a relationship, and "WHAT" they desire to get out of a relationship, breeding children and what are they grieving more of after a split up.
Here's what I've observed and experienced:
they miss playing with their kids and coaching them (especially sons, i.e., Little League baseball)
they miss clean clothes, linens, dishes that they didn't have to clean
they miss a tidy house that they didn't have to clean
they miss not doing the grocery shopping they didn't have to do
they miss home-cooked meals that they didn't cook
they now have to do all those things themselves, and
they have to pay child support (the biggest ouch - so many nasty games are played around it)
I have seen in almost all cases men drop the children from a previous marriage when they have children from a subsequent marriage. The kids from the previous marriage suffer greatly.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I would be convinced if more men took the role of partner, rather than just hide behind their wage earner/head of household identity
Girls and boys are raised differently from the crib. Boys are taught to "buck up" and "not cry" whereas girls are not disciplined when they cry over spilt milk (so to speak). I wonder, what would happen if boys and girls were raised alike? Would there be a next generation if girls were raised like boys?
Once men step up to a "partnership" role and acknowledge women earn more money than they, once hermeneutic labour is added to the mix, things have the best chance to go really well.
White men in the U.S. are now in the racial minority and they're trying like crazy to regain their superiority status and reign supreme over women and non-Whites (JD Vance, e.g.). It's going backward right now!
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and no need to apologise! I agree that surveys and studies often miss the deeper layers. It’s clear by now that men and women tend to approach relationships with very, very different expectations. Until that shifts—and men begin to expect partnership rather than servitude—we're going to keep running into the same old problems.
You said: "Romantic relationships might be the only socially acceptable outlet for closeness and vulnerability for men, yes, but at the same time, many still expect women to do the work they require without reciprocating in kind."
Men are lazy in this area. In the past, I was lazy in this area and I know I am not alone.
Men think they communicate, think they are good at communication. Many are not. There is nothing wrong with learning how to communicate better. It changes your life in many areas, and not just in relationships.
Often a man goes from one relationship to another. Where what he needs to do is find a good friend.
Thank you for the kind words and your honesty. Communication is certainly the foundation of any relationship. But none of us, women included, are born expert communicators. It’s a skill like any other, and one we can—and should—keep developing, especially if we want to connect with others on a deeper level.
Thank you for writing this! Even as an outspoken feminist with a deep interest in the gendered mismatch in emotional & mental labour, it amazes me how I get drawn into the same dynamic over and over again in all styles of relationships with men. This is partially because even addressing the sexist imbalance in a productive way, paradoxically becomes another element of emotional labour - it is so easy for most men to disengage from any conversation that puts more responsibility on them - let alone emotional responsibility - that we tiptoe around the topic.
I would love to see more male-led efforts to promote and create healthy male friendships, emotional awareness and deconstruct the taboos around male emotions and misogyny. This work cannot and should not come from women alone.
I’m glad you mentioned the AI girlfriend situation. They mostly seem designed to gratify fetishes and provide support with no expectations. As a former young man myself, I know how powerful a draw this must be.
We desperately need structures that provide men emotional education in a way that will take, so they can actually be good partners for women.
Women don’t need men - they need us. Yet, they refuse to fight for our safety & treat their precious dogs better. The idea that they are capable of loving us is a lie, a construct to control us.
- rape is basically legal, <5% of reported cases are prosecuted
- caring for a female having a miscarriage is illegal in half the country, >35% of pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage
- #1 cause of death of US women is murder by their current or former male domestic partner
You might need to update the miscarriage percentage, depending on your definition
Latest data I read was that 2/3s of conceptions fail
I've tried to explain it to bible humpers like this; Mother's body does a DNA test on the results of conception. The first ever conception routinely fails as their body isn't actually prepped for it (my paraphrase). However, even after that we're talking 60%+ failure rate
Medically they are all called abortions, even when the clump of cells is less than 200 cells in total (the Blastocyst phase). Maybe we should call it Ctrl-Alt-Del, or reset baby making system? Nah, bible humpers don't like facts
Absolutely, gender scripts do my head in. I feel we have been so focused on teaching little girls that they can be the boss that we’ve forgotten to teach little boys that it’s ok to cry and be emotional
I have a close friend who married a French man, and he is one of the most emotionally dramatic people I have ever enountered in my life.
Yet she still parrots the old trope, "I'm the emotional one; he's the rational one."
Not only does this create a false dychotomy between emotions and reason, but it also negates the fact that he's literally the most emotional guy I know!!!
Having lived in both France and Italy, I’ve met quite a few men who were like that, too. But I really doubt they see themselves that way. They get to be ‘passionate’ or ‘driven,’ while women displaying the same emotions (or just a fraction of them) are dismissed as ‘hysterical’ or ‘irrational.’
Actually, my own 40 years in practice has convinced me that the problem is marriage and it inherent insistance on monogamy that has wharped our gender relationships.Because sex, love and emotional intermacy are very different to each other but have all been bundled together to keep humans locked into a control pattern for the benefit of the economics designed by Patriarchy.What I call the 'biological imperative' for males of all species is to plant seed. For women it i to nurture. Women are hormonally cyclic. Men less so. The result being that for large swaths of a womans life, sex is a secondary concern. Shoving us in non negotiable contracts with each otherfor life was bound to drive us apart. And nuts. However, calling it all Love does not make it so forever. It's not love, it's sex. Love is a heart thing that can be applied to anything, sex not included. Mountains, cats, friends, plants. And then there is intimacy, another misnomer. Sex is definitely not always intimate. Think rape, or 'faking it' for women Some of the most deeply intimate experiences I have is when a client trusts me enough to tell me their pain. Communication of the honest variety being the main component, it can happen between strangers on a park bench.
When we separate these all up, we have a wealth of experience open to us with no need for binding legal restriction.
As far as children are concerned, women have historically, mainly, brought their offspring up together, supporting each other, as the men are off doing something else. And now we are back to a looser, more indigenous way of being, before Patriarchy, and its religiously controlled tools of suppression of the natural, fucked us up. Maybe we should hold the whole thing more loosly and enjoy it together or separately. But that would destroy the Patriachal Order. Do we care? If you have managed to read this far, thank you.
support. Men don't give it because they are taught that is being a 'girl' which is their worst insult. Patriachal influence for centuries has shrunk their emotional and sensory responses to their genitals. Read Steve Biddulph. Theres a lot of work been done around this issue. This is not their fault. But the institution of marriage locks women into a contract with them that is doomed to leave women needs unmet most of the time. We have to stop trying to get blood out of a stone. Marriage doesn't work. So.....women are turning to each other for support which has ever been the case, whether its child support or emotional support. Men dont like the 'ball and chain' that doesnt work anyway, and women have been driving themselves bonkers trying to make the current system work. There were many ancient cultures, including the Celtic one, that worked without it. The women decided who to breed with if they wanted to bu didnt have to be tied to them till death because the community supported the chidren and the mother. Wasn't a life sentence to a a child. She could then join battles alongside the men, if she chose or anything else. Men didnt have to pull their hair out for need of a fuck because there were plenty to accomodates them. Not just one poor woman at home washing his cloths, making his tea, changing the baby,and then ervicing him when shes too tired to stay awake. But hey! If getting blood out of a stone is your thing, whether its trying to get sex out of a reluctant tired wife, or emotional support from a Patriachally blocked bloke, carry on.
Referring to an ancient culture such as the Celtic one does not work: there were far fewer people on the planet then, life expectancy was +/- 20 years, and life was primitive. We cannot compare our high-tech society to a primitive one because they are completely different. Further, in the Celtic culture, expectations on men were different from women: the male leader of a Celtic tribe had to have a perfect body for instance; any scar or other malady disqualified him. And there were only about two chieftesses in present-day England and Scotland--the rest were men.
Interesting drivel. If one benefits from the patriarchy, it surprises none that you believe that allowing men the freedom to wander around the world dropping his seed into any woman suckered by his charms. Or, by force as is often the case.
You are so deep in this, your writing makes it clear, there is no way for you to conceive of the view from the other side. Fathers raise children too; Boys and tomboys need to learn their responsibilities. The ones you don't believe in; Be free, wander and propagate. Strictly bull.
It occurs to me that this is the same mindset of the entitled few during the Middle Ages. Nobles siring bastards throughout the land, and making the society better by using himself as a genetic base.
I am a woman born and bred. What I am suggesting is based on research and experience with misogyny, personal and proffessional. Society as it stands traps people into not exploring other options. The Iroquois had a great system that the American Constituion was based on. The main male in a childs life was the uncle and the support system was the tribe and family. Its a shame we have been brainwashe into not looking further. The current mixed or bonus family is already happening as we realise we dont have to stay trapped where we women dont get our needs met because our men cant or dont want to. Alternative? Try something else!
And that "something else" is best described as Matriarchy. Unfortunately, that word has been tarnished by patriarchy, so most academics and philosophers like Riane Eisler have had to resort to using various euphemisms and covers for it. But there are still some out there who truly tell it like it is without hiding behind anything at all. The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and William Bond come to mind, for example. And while the late, great Buckminster Fuller didn't actually use the word that I know of, he implied it in his 1968 article, "Why Women Will Rule The World", and why that will be a good thing for everyone, men included.
And by the way, dear readers: there has never, ever been a society where women had sexual freedom but men did not, not even under the most full-blown Matriarchies ancient or contemporary, even though there were and still are many societies where the reverse was true unde patriarchy.
The Iroquois were an aggressive warrior society. They brutally kicked tribes out of their homelands. The Wyandotte (aka Huron) were kicked out of Canada and went to Oklahoma via Michigan, Ohio, and Kansas. The Ojibwa were forced from Ohio to Minnesota via Illinois and Wisconsin.
By agreement amongst the Eastern tribes, the wisest tribe was the Wyandotte. Eastern tribes had them moderate their tribal conferences. The Iroquois are not known for their wisdom; they're known for their murderous raids and their greed. The Iroquois wanted all the fur trade money for themselves and did not share. They're not really the romanticized American Indian ideal that we think of.
Yes. But I think the Iroquois Confederacy that joined 7 tribes together after that, and because of that, became an amazing matrialinial society where all land was ceded to the women, because they realized that the men were unable to stop the bloodshed. Women were given major votes on all think and votes on behalf of their children also. This all happened under the leadership of Deganawida caled The Peacemaker. Worth researching.
Convince the woodland tribes, who were eventually forced onto the prairie because of the Iroquois wars, that the Iroquois are a harmonious saintly tribe. BTW, the three fires tribes had no knowledge of the prairie environment or any other means to survive.
Out of the Iroquois wars came the Confederacy which was Matralinial.
The reason male leaders had to have perfect Celtic bodies was to be chosen to breed because it was the WOMEN that chose their breeding partners. There wasn't the social control of marriage as it is in Patriachy. It was ruled by the seasons with the tribe rearing the children. They were not the property of the father.
Patriachy means The Rule of the Fathers. Archeologically, it began about 5000 years ago. It was that ideology that made the fuck up we have today. That is indisputable. It hasn't always existed and doesnt have to continue, though bringing it down will be no easy task. At the rate Patriachy has and is fucking the ecosystem, we probably wont have tonwait too long. All systems the get beyond sustainability collapse. That’s what we're in now.
It is that sort of collapse that Daganawida saw was happening to the tribes that stimulated the Confederacy to be formed from the seven tribes. Pity the U.S. of A hadnt listened to him more instead of allowing the European model, and men to rule the land.Thats my belief.
If you want to read my book about it you can buy it on Amazon. “The Infinite Compass- A Journey into Wisdom”. Bless
And to anyone who is quick to disagree, well, remember that marriage and monogamy were invented by men (for their own benefit, not women. No matter how much some men like to gaslight and DARVO it via patriarchal reversal.
While your comment can come across as a bit too gender essentialist to the point of bordering on misogyny or at least androcentrism, you still make some good points nonetheless. For example, I do think you are at least partly correct about the traditional expectation of strict and lifelong monogamy by default being at least part of the problem. Monogamy and non-monogamy are not a binary, but rather more or less on a spectrum with most people of all genders falling somewhere in between. And already nearly half of Gen Z today see strict monogamy as outdated, and even more seem to believe that that it shouldn't be the ideal or the default, so the tide is gradually turning in that direction regardless.
Yes. I have been espousing the 'spectrum' concept now for some time. Not only with gender, but neuro-diversity too. We are all on a spectrum of everything. It is in the grey rather than the black and white that the creativity thrives. In the concepts of Psychosynthesis, as developed by Assagioli, my base training, the either/or is the base of life's triangle. It's a starting point. It is the apex, where the two lines meet, what I call the AND, that we are urged by evolution to travel towards. We can do the either/or two-step for ever and never get anywhere (except exhaustion). Creativity, and everything that it is, requires growth that comes from finding the way between, and through, (hence the name of my first book "The Way Through") again and again. It's nemesis is ideology.
The Queer movement, while not perfect, and open to its own ideological dead ends, is a step towards freeing up the species. We cannot stay in the binary in anything, while being pushed by time and entropy towards growth. The end result of not moving on is irrelevance on all levels. Physically and conceptually.
I apologize for the long post! Couldn't resist this subject.......
Yes we ALL need to dismantle outdated gender scripts. Amen to that!
When I was reading the post, I saw some things that were missing from the polls and research. In my 40 years as a psychotherapist and 56 years of marriage across 3 husbands, my observations are different than the 'experts'.
The polls and research are not asking men "WHY" they want a relationship, and "WHAT" they desire to get out of a relationship, breeding children and what are they grieving more of after a split up.
Here's what I've observed and experienced:
they miss playing with their kids and coaching them (especially sons, i.e., Little League baseball)
they miss clean clothes, linens, dishes that they didn't have to clean
they miss a tidy house that they didn't have to clean
they miss not doing the grocery shopping they didn't have to do
they miss home-cooked meals that they didn't cook
they now have to do all those things themselves, and
they have to pay child support (the biggest ouch - so many nasty games are played around it)
I have seen in almost all cases men drop the children from a previous marriage when they have children from a subsequent marriage. The kids from the previous marriage suffer greatly.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I would be convinced if more men took the role of partner, rather than just hide behind their wage earner/head of household identity
Girls and boys are raised differently from the crib. Boys are taught to "buck up" and "not cry" whereas girls are not disciplined when they cry over spilt milk (so to speak). I wonder, what would happen if boys and girls were raised alike? Would there be a next generation if girls were raised like boys?
Once men step up to a "partnership" role and acknowledge women earn more money than they, once hermeneutic labour is added to the mix, things have the best chance to go really well.
White men in the U.S. are now in the racial minority and they're trying like crazy to regain their superiority status and reign supreme over women and non-Whites (JD Vance, e.g.). It's going backward right now!
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and no need to apologise! I agree that surveys and studies often miss the deeper layers. It’s clear by now that men and women tend to approach relationships with very, very different expectations. Until that shifts—and men begin to expect partnership rather than servitude—we're going to keep running into the same old problems.
Abt to do the same!
The point isn’t that men want love and relationships. The point is that they want love and relationships with no reciprocity or accountability.
Exactly. I think this disconnect is the issue in nearly every doomed hetero relationship.
Good article and well thought out.
You said: "Romantic relationships might be the only socially acceptable outlet for closeness and vulnerability for men, yes, but at the same time, many still expect women to do the work they require without reciprocating in kind."
Men are lazy in this area. In the past, I was lazy in this area and I know I am not alone.
Men think they communicate, think they are good at communication. Many are not. There is nothing wrong with learning how to communicate better. It changes your life in many areas, and not just in relationships.
Often a man goes from one relationship to another. Where what he needs to do is find a good friend.
Thank you for the kind words and your honesty. Communication is certainly the foundation of any relationship. But none of us, women included, are born expert communicators. It’s a skill like any other, and one we can—and should—keep developing, especially if we want to connect with others on a deeper level.
well said!
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT
Thank you for writing this! Even as an outspoken feminist with a deep interest in the gendered mismatch in emotional & mental labour, it amazes me how I get drawn into the same dynamic over and over again in all styles of relationships with men. This is partially because even addressing the sexist imbalance in a productive way, paradoxically becomes another element of emotional labour - it is so easy for most men to disengage from any conversation that puts more responsibility on them - let alone emotional responsibility - that we tiptoe around the topic.
I would love to see more male-led efforts to promote and create healthy male friendships, emotional awareness and deconstruct the taboos around male emotions and misogyny. This work cannot and should not come from women alone.
Agreed. For things to truly change, we definitely need more men to step up and actively deconstruct these harmful norms.
I’m glad you mentioned the AI girlfriend situation. They mostly seem designed to gratify fetishes and provide support with no expectations. As a former young man myself, I know how powerful a draw this must be.
We desperately need structures that provide men emotional education in a way that will take, so they can actually be good partners for women.
Glad to see an article that isn't inherently anti-men and has started to discuss the argument in an ethical, compassionate way. More like this please
Women don’t need men - they need us. Yet, they refuse to fight for our safety & treat their precious dogs better. The idea that they are capable of loving us is a lie, a construct to control us.
- rape is basically legal, <5% of reported cases are prosecuted
- caring for a female having a miscarriage is illegal in half the country, >35% of pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage
- #1 cause of death of US women is murder by their current or former male domestic partner
You might need to update the miscarriage percentage, depending on your definition
Latest data I read was that 2/3s of conceptions fail
I've tried to explain it to bible humpers like this; Mother's body does a DNA test on the results of conception. The first ever conception routinely fails as their body isn't actually prepped for it (my paraphrase). However, even after that we're talking 60%+ failure rate
Medically they are all called abortions, even when the clump of cells is less than 200 cells in total (the Blastocyst phase). Maybe we should call it Ctrl-Alt-Del, or reset baby making system? Nah, bible humpers don't like facts
Everything I have heard about men's stunt emotions are gradually fading into nothingness.
If anything men are more emotional than women from my observation, especially when they are being ignored.
Their stunt comes from women's weaknesses and the moment we stop being weak, the facade falls.
Great piece 🙏
Thank you!
Interesting data, presented with your even hand, per usual.
Thank you, David!
That is true, i do crave love and relationship.
Absolutely, gender scripts do my head in. I feel we have been so focused on teaching little girls that they can be the boss that we’ve forgotten to teach little boys that it’s ok to cry and be emotional
I have a close friend who married a French man, and he is one of the most emotionally dramatic people I have ever enountered in my life.
Yet she still parrots the old trope, "I'm the emotional one; he's the rational one."
Not only does this create a false dychotomy between emotions and reason, but it also negates the fact that he's literally the most emotional guy I know!!!
Absorbed misogyny is so real.
Having lived in both France and Italy, I’ve met quite a few men who were like that, too. But I really doubt they see themselves that way. They get to be ‘passionate’ or ‘driven,’ while women displaying the same emotions (or just a fraction of them) are dismissed as ‘hysterical’ or ‘irrational.’
Absolutely! Drives me nuts.
So sensible and half gives me hope
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Actually, my own 40 years in practice has convinced me that the problem is marriage and it inherent insistance on monogamy that has wharped our gender relationships.Because sex, love and emotional intermacy are very different to each other but have all been bundled together to keep humans locked into a control pattern for the benefit of the economics designed by Patriarchy.What I call the 'biological imperative' for males of all species is to plant seed. For women it i to nurture. Women are hormonally cyclic. Men less so. The result being that for large swaths of a womans life, sex is a secondary concern. Shoving us in non negotiable contracts with each otherfor life was bound to drive us apart. And nuts. However, calling it all Love does not make it so forever. It's not love, it's sex. Love is a heart thing that can be applied to anything, sex not included. Mountains, cats, friends, plants. And then there is intimacy, another misnomer. Sex is definitely not always intimate. Think rape, or 'faking it' for women Some of the most deeply intimate experiences I have is when a client trusts me enough to tell me their pain. Communication of the honest variety being the main component, it can happen between strangers on a park bench.
When we separate these all up, we have a wealth of experience open to us with no need for binding legal restriction.
As far as children are concerned, women have historically, mainly, brought their offspring up together, supporting each other, as the men are off doing something else. And now we are back to a looser, more indigenous way of being, before Patriarchy, and its religiously controlled tools of suppression of the natural, fucked us up. Maybe we should hold the whole thing more loosly and enjoy it together or separately. But that would destroy the Patriachal Order. Do we care? If you have managed to read this far, thank you.
👎🏻 lots of misogyny in here.
What I'm reading is that you think men and women need different things from a marriage; men need freedom and women need someone to care for.
I wonder how many women would find such a man a turn on.... There's no security, for one thing -- security for one's self and offspring.
Don't think it'd work for women. It has worked for men for eons though
Ok. I get it. But women want emotional
support. Men don't give it because they are taught that is being a 'girl' which is their worst insult. Patriachal influence for centuries has shrunk their emotional and sensory responses to their genitals. Read Steve Biddulph. Theres a lot of work been done around this issue. This is not their fault. But the institution of marriage locks women into a contract with them that is doomed to leave women needs unmet most of the time. We have to stop trying to get blood out of a stone. Marriage doesn't work. So.....women are turning to each other for support which has ever been the case, whether its child support or emotional support. Men dont like the 'ball and chain' that doesnt work anyway, and women have been driving themselves bonkers trying to make the current system work. There were many ancient cultures, including the Celtic one, that worked without it. The women decided who to breed with if they wanted to bu didnt have to be tied to them till death because the community supported the chidren and the mother. Wasn't a life sentence to a a child. She could then join battles alongside the men, if she chose or anything else. Men didnt have to pull their hair out for need of a fuck because there were plenty to accomodates them. Not just one poor woman at home washing his cloths, making his tea, changing the baby,and then ervicing him when shes too tired to stay awake. But hey! If getting blood out of a stone is your thing, whether its trying to get sex out of a reluctant tired wife, or emotional support from a Patriachally blocked bloke, carry on.
The contemporary Mosuo also comes to mind as well.
Referring to an ancient culture such as the Celtic one does not work: there were far fewer people on the planet then, life expectancy was +/- 20 years, and life was primitive. We cannot compare our high-tech society to a primitive one because they are completely different. Further, in the Celtic culture, expectations on men were different from women: the male leader of a Celtic tribe had to have a perfect body for instance; any scar or other malady disqualified him. And there were only about two chieftesses in present-day England and Scotland--the rest were men.
Interesting drivel. If one benefits from the patriarchy, it surprises none that you believe that allowing men the freedom to wander around the world dropping his seed into any woman suckered by his charms. Or, by force as is often the case.
You are so deep in this, your writing makes it clear, there is no way for you to conceive of the view from the other side. Fathers raise children too; Boys and tomboys need to learn their responsibilities. The ones you don't believe in; Be free, wander and propagate. Strictly bull.
It occurs to me that this is the same mindset of the entitled few during the Middle Ages. Nobles siring bastards throughout the land, and making the society better by using himself as a genetic base.
Why does that make me think of EVs?
Jay is a woman, not a man btw. Why do some people find that so hard to believe?
ps. I find it VERY concerning that this human has “Clients”.
I am a woman born and bred. What I am suggesting is based on research and experience with misogyny, personal and proffessional. Society as it stands traps people into not exploring other options. The Iroquois had a great system that the American Constituion was based on. The main male in a childs life was the uncle and the support system was the tribe and family. Its a shame we have been brainwashe into not looking further. The current mixed or bonus family is already happening as we realise we dont have to stay trapped where we women dont get our needs met because our men cant or dont want to. Alternative? Try something else!
Something else, like partnership rather than patriarchy
And that "something else" is best described as Matriarchy. Unfortunately, that word has been tarnished by patriarchy, so most academics and philosophers like Riane Eisler have had to resort to using various euphemisms and covers for it. But there are still some out there who truly tell it like it is without hiding behind anything at all. The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and William Bond come to mind, for example. And while the late, great Buckminster Fuller didn't actually use the word that I know of, he implied it in his 1968 article, "Why Women Will Rule The World", and why that will be a good thing for everyone, men included.
And by the way, dear readers: there has never, ever been a society where women had sexual freedom but men did not, not even under the most full-blown Matriarchies ancient or contemporary, even though there were and still are many societies where the reverse was true unde patriarchy.
I shall seek out Bucky's article. Sounds like an important read. Thank you.
And a brilliant woman, I might add 😊
The Iroquois were an aggressive warrior society. They brutally kicked tribes out of their homelands. The Wyandotte (aka Huron) were kicked out of Canada and went to Oklahoma via Michigan, Ohio, and Kansas. The Ojibwa were forced from Ohio to Minnesota via Illinois and Wisconsin.
By agreement amongst the Eastern tribes, the wisest tribe was the Wyandotte. Eastern tribes had them moderate their tribal conferences. The Iroquois are not known for their wisdom; they're known for their murderous raids and their greed. The Iroquois wanted all the fur trade money for themselves and did not share. They're not really the romanticized American Indian ideal that we think of.
Yes. But I think the Iroquois Confederacy that joined 7 tribes together after that, and because of that, became an amazing matrialinial society where all land was ceded to the women, because they realized that the men were unable to stop the bloodshed. Women were given major votes on all think and votes on behalf of their children also. This all happened under the leadership of Deganawida caled The Peacemaker. Worth researching.
Convince the woodland tribes, who were eventually forced onto the prairie because of the Iroquois wars, that the Iroquois are a harmonious saintly tribe. BTW, the three fires tribes had no knowledge of the prairie environment or any other means to survive.
Out of the Iroquois wars came the Confederacy which was Matralinial.
The reason male leaders had to have perfect Celtic bodies was to be chosen to breed because it was the WOMEN that chose their breeding partners. There wasn't the social control of marriage as it is in Patriachy. It was ruled by the seasons with the tribe rearing the children. They were not the property of the father.
Patriachy means The Rule of the Fathers. Archeologically, it began about 5000 years ago. It was that ideology that made the fuck up we have today. That is indisputable. It hasn't always existed and doesnt have to continue, though bringing it down will be no easy task. At the rate Patriachy has and is fucking the ecosystem, we probably wont have tonwait too long. All systems the get beyond sustainability collapse. That’s what we're in now.
It is that sort of collapse that Daganawida saw was happening to the tribes that stimulated the Confederacy to be formed from the seven tribes. Pity the U.S. of A hadnt listened to him more instead of allowing the European model, and men to rule the land.Thats my belief.
If you want to read my book about it you can buy it on Amazon. “The Infinite Compass- A Journey into Wisdom”. Bless
And to anyone who is quick to disagree, well, remember that marriage and monogamy were invented by men (for their own benefit, not women. No matter how much some men like to gaslight and DARVO it via patriarchal reversal.
While your comment can come across as a bit too gender essentialist to the point of bordering on misogyny or at least androcentrism, you still make some good points nonetheless. For example, I do think you are at least partly correct about the traditional expectation of strict and lifelong monogamy by default being at least part of the problem. Monogamy and non-monogamy are not a binary, but rather more or less on a spectrum with most people of all genders falling somewhere in between. And already nearly half of Gen Z today see strict monogamy as outdated, and even more seem to believe that that it shouldn't be the ideal or the default, so the tide is gradually turning in that direction regardless.
Yes. I have been espousing the 'spectrum' concept now for some time. Not only with gender, but neuro-diversity too. We are all on a spectrum of everything. It is in the grey rather than the black and white that the creativity thrives. In the concepts of Psychosynthesis, as developed by Assagioli, my base training, the either/or is the base of life's triangle. It's a starting point. It is the apex, where the two lines meet, what I call the AND, that we are urged by evolution to travel towards. We can do the either/or two-step for ever and never get anywhere (except exhaustion). Creativity, and everything that it is, requires growth that comes from finding the way between, and through, (hence the name of my first book "The Way Through") again and again. It's nemesis is ideology.
The Queer movement, while not perfect, and open to its own ideological dead ends, is a step towards freeing up the species. We cannot stay in the binary in anything, while being pushed by time and entropy towards growth. The end result of not moving on is irrelevance on all levels. Physically and conceptually.