Disclaimer: I didn’t come up with all these ideas myself. It is mostly stuff I read and synthesized together in my own way. So, if you think any particular point I am making is plagarization, you are probably right. Also, if you are thinking a particular point is patently absurd and had to have originated from me, you are also probably right.

Also, when reading this post keep in mind that IMO the central problem of all lifeforms, including **** sapiens, is propagation of the gene pool, at the individual and population level. And much of our behavior, both instinctual and learned, can only be properly understood when viewed through this framework.

Anyways, the current narrative making the rounds right now is that the United States (and pretty much every other society that has existed the last 10,000 years or so) is an oppressive patriarchy that elevates men and suppresses women; and this inherently unjust and inequitable system can and should be made right through coercion and political fiat, especially in the higher echelons of our hierarchies. And in doing so it will pave the way for an inclusive, equitable, progressive utopia where we all will get along and live happily ever after (or something to that effect).

Looking at human society from a naturalistic, deterministic perspective (and keeping in mind the basic paradigm) one could assume that if something exists pretty much universally (in this case “the patriarchy”) in a population or in this case an entire species for thousands of years there is probably a strongly selected for adaptive reason. Interestingly, I think dynamics of the online dating marketplace may elucidate how human sexual dynamics may explain how successful human societies pretty much independently came to similar social dynamics, e.g. “the patriarchy” for the last several thousand years.

Anyways, what the swipe right culture has taught us (that to be fair most intellectually honest people already intuitively knew) is that human females are much more selective than human males, which makes perfect sense as the costs of reproduction are so much higher for females than males; and they have historically been responsible for bearing the labor of child rearing for the entirety of mammalian evolution. To cut to the chase, statistics seem to tell us that all else being equal the vast majority of females are only attracted to the top 15% of males, whereas males are much, much, much less discerning.

This would suggest that as opposed to being monogamous, humans may “naturally” in fact be polygynous, much like chimpanzees (and many other mammalian species). And my understanding is that study of pre-historic cultures indicates that proto-humans may have mostly practiced a form of “harem polygyny.”

However, we could imagine that such a dynamic that may have evolved and seem to work well when populations existed in small isolated groups/clans on the plains of East Africa, would not necessarily work very well when a technological innovation changed the rules of the game; in this case the shift from hunter/gatherer to settled, agrarian societies.

Specifically, polygynous societies probably severely limited absolute population size (which would be needed for highly labor intensive agriculture) and also propagated too much inter-society violence (in this case males continually jockeying and fighting for the favor of the harem and access to reproductive rights).

Faced with such a dilemna, evolution of a culture of “enforced monogamy” whereby young females are basically coerced by societal norms “against their nature” to settle early in their reproductive life on a single mate (who would probably be below their attraction standards in a different milieu) would seem to solve this dilemma. Coercion into 1:1 monogamous relationships and the separation of men into the public spheres (mostly as workers) and women as stay at home child carers (which I am sure we can all accept raising multiple small human children at once in such a setting would be more than a full time job) would maximize population growth; and coercing women to mate equitably so most males had access to reproduction would decrease inter-clan tension and violence.

I should note that I don’t think it is appropriate to view this as men vs women battle of the sexes. More likely, it was men AND women cooperating (and in many cases making sacrifices) to create a societal structure adapted to thrive in agrarian societies and raise progeny and perpetuate the gene pool successfully.

Accepting this to be the case, one could definitely argue that recent technological innovations have allowed us to break the chains of this patriarchal structure. That being said, “the patriarchy” survived universally for thousands of years because it worked and was pro-adaptive, given nurture (the environment and technology of the times) and nature (our biologically constrained behavior/instincts).

Ironically, “the patriarchy” may have also been a force that flattened hierarchies and reduced inequity within societies (ie. by allowing all members of society to participate in reproduction and de-incentivizing intra-society competition). It is not clear that current liberal ideology as it pertains to re-fashioning male-female dynamics, although well meaning, will be simarly pro-adaptive or achieve the ends it purports to. And there is some indications it flat out will not. I don’t think it is an accident that there is so much divisiveness, depression and angst, especially among young people today. Obviously, Trump isn’t helping things, but I think he is more a sign of the times than a causal factor of all the current societal issues. I also am not sure that it is an accident that the more we “dismantle the patriarchy” and “liberate” woman and work towards equity and inclusiveness; the more real power disparity seems to be increasing, especially between the “haves” and “have nots,” and this increase in “class” disparity seems to transcend gender and race.