The male's-eye view of history (the male rearward gaze?) is a pretty bleak read for a woman. Takes you back to Lévi-Strauss's relegation of women to commodities exchanged, stolen, and fought over by men, as raw materials of reproduction, status, and labor. If humans are just fancy animals that use their cerebral cortex for new forms of dominance and self-propagation, why do we have to be conscious? How conscious are we?
But how could the church have known that was going to happen? I haven’t read the book but there’s a gap in the explanations. Perhaps there is something about the nature of the religion which demands more distance between men and women who are to be married?
"But how could the church have known that was going to happen?"
Consequences are not the same as intentions. Maybe acquiring land was an unintentional by-product. There might have been a self-reinforcing spiral: by being strict on monogamous marriage the church acquired land, and then it had more incentive to be strict on monogamous marriage, through which it acquired more land etc.
If planning to write about how women have it hard, this is a worthwhile read. Woman up!?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwJSDbZGVtSrnBXspBQmWxSjPC
cannot access
Hmmm ... try this link https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/why-im-worried-about-the-rise-of?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=746128&post_id=140112889&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=16gkv&utm_medium=email
Well, there went my morning. I've only read two of these so far and my head is so full I can hardly hold it up. Great stuff, thank you.
This is excellent, Misha.
Thanks!
Wondering if you're going to get into "elite overproduction" and the de facto disinheriting of younger sons.
The male's-eye view of history (the male rearward gaze?) is a pretty bleak read for a woman. Takes you back to Lévi-Strauss's relegation of women to commodities exchanged, stolen, and fought over by men, as raw materials of reproduction, status, and labor. If humans are just fancy animals that use their cerebral cortex for new forms of dominance and self-propagation, why do we have to be conscious? How conscious are we?
Well written
Are you saying the priests pushed their MFP to take over more land?
I think Henrich makes the case that the church muscled in on culture and land and power
But how could the church have known that was going to happen? I haven’t read the book but there’s a gap in the explanations. Perhaps there is something about the nature of the religion which demands more distance between men and women who are to be married?
"But how could the church have known that was going to happen?"
Consequences are not the same as intentions. Maybe acquiring land was an unintentional by-product. There might have been a self-reinforcing spiral: by being strict on monogamous marriage the church acquired land, and then it had more incentive to be strict on monogamous marriage, through which it acquired more land etc.
If it was to the disadvantage of Christians they would have adopted a different religion