Wouldn't you think people would have a preference for societies that don't dominate?
The suffering girls and women are currently going through is inexcusable. Men have made laws about what women can and can't do with their bodies, laws that cover Trans, that keep medicine from people, regulate which bathrooms they can use. In 2024 there were 66,615 pregnant rape victims that did not have access to GYN doctors (Journal of American Medical Association). No notice of how many rapists were charged.
Until mid 1970s women couldn't open a charge account without their husbands signature. From birth girls are treated differently than boys. Restricted physical movement, and differences in what they can say and do.
It is a LONG LIST, but the reality is girls/women are taught not to assert themselves, or move with confidence through society, and be open about WHO they are. At least 10 or 12 countries have women as presidents, premiers. New Mexico state, after they have a woman governor, now has childcare, and everyone is covered by medical.
Always found it odd that men have to dominate, and they don't understand they would like it better if people were not tied to gender roles.
Appreciate the research. Would like people to not make laws about abortion, gender issues, Trans. They have no right to, but men dominate, and so are sanctioned to interfere with female lives.
Thank you for the post. Good to see someone thought about the difference.
If men gave birth, I believe the world would be a a very different place. Even if they shared equally in domestic and child-rearing duties and women had equal opportunities in the paid workforce the world would be vastly improved. That's my conclusion after 71 years on this planet as a female. It's obviously not all biology.
The disconnect is the difference between liking societies that don't dominate and being able to either establish them, defend them, or both against those who want domination. That takes power but a lot of what I see currently going on in the opposition mostly hasn't been about acquiring that.
Dominance. That’s the key to everything. It’s the key to patriarchy, to capitalism, to colonialism, and even to men’s views of their personal relationships with women. It’s often packaged as stewardship or even love and protection, but in the end it’s about control.
The truth many refuse to confront is that a significant barrier to electing a woman as President of the United States is not qualification, experience, or leadership ability — it is fear.
Too many men are uncomfortable with strong, decisive women who challenge traditional power structures and expectations about who is “supposed” to lead.
That discomfort turns into skepticism, harsher scrutiny, and double standards that male candidates rarely face.
Until society fully accepts strength, authority, and confidence as qualities that belong equally to women, the path to the presidency will remain harder for any woman who seeks it.
Great article! The part about the "dominance" model vs. the "partnership" model is similar to what George Lakoff described in 1999 as the "strict father" vs. the "nurturant parent." I can understand how the "dominant" or "strict father" model is based on ancient biology; the big question is whether human societies will ever become "civilized" enough to get past it. History has shown that a great many matrilineal societies (the Arawak of North America, for example) were eventually conquered by dominant male-led societies. The perilous situation in which we currently find ourselves is a perfect example of male dominance gone out of control. It will be interesting (as well as frightening) to see what happens in the next few years.
Fascinating analysis. Thank you for presenting it here. What I find missing is mention of what I think are the vast majority of men who have little to no interest in such dominance. There have been plenty of male leaders who have not governed or ruled with such cruelty. I grew up with Eisenhower as president, for just one example. Sure, he made mistakes; we’re all human, but It’s always the most egregiously corrupt leaders who get the most attention.
No one ever seems to write about the men who faithfully pay their child support every month. We are invisible. Only the ones who refuse are highlighted in the press.
So what I see is a world with a clear majority of people, men and women alike, who help others when the chips are down, work low level jobs their whole lives to benefit others, or stay home to raise the children, and get little to no appreciation from society at large.
When the economy falters, they say, “just keep shopping; the economy needs you.” When there’s a war, it’s historically been the men who are either encouraged or forced to join the military, to submit themselves to the risks of physical or mental injury or death. Patriarchy says it’s honorable to fight for your country. And when the war is over, their needs are poorly attended to or their remains come home in a coffin and are buried with a little flag placed on their plot every Memorial Day.
So, I don’t fault your analysis, as far as it goes. I’m just wondering about what is missing - about the basic decency of ordinary people, men and women alike.
Well, men like us are at the bottom of the hierarchy and so are not visible or effectual in changing it.
I was working in Silicon Valley companies in the 1970s and 80s and I can vouch for the high level of performant masculinity and chest beating of the men who rose to the highest status. The only 2 women I knew who entered the VC community did so by marriage.
OTH the best line and group managers I worked for were women. They understood that the people they managed had biological and emotional needs and were much more likely to foster a mutual loyalty than the men I worked for.
I'm glad to hear you had good female bosses, and you'd be surprised how what you just wrote can bring others to think about certain men flying under the radar, but who also could use some acknowledgement and appreciation. Don't underestimate your own impact. Dare to be seen and heard. You have assets to contribute. I think the world is reader than ever for thoughtful, collaborative men.
I also appreciated Christopher's article, a rare look into the differences in how women and men lead or build societies or coalitions.
My main purpose for this comment, however, is to tell you I truly appreciate your mentioning the men who choose to partner and collaborate with others in honorable ways instead of dominate others. Talk about your unsung heroes! I've noticed they've been missing from all the talk about the Epstein files and corruption in so many adult males in Trump's cabinet and so many unprincipled GOP congressmen.
In recent months, for awhile there, all white males, or all older white males were taking a generalized public "hit," as were all Christians and billionaires until people started learning to narrow the groupings to the actual culprits. But yes, men simply living seemingly ordinary lives with good family values who are not cutthroat in business or spending all their days in the gym are often overlooked. So thank you for doing your part to be a decent human being that does his part to help create a civilized society.
It's much like in any family; the good kid often goes unnoticed. We have to be better at catching our kids doing things right and mention it when we do. In my experience kids do much better with incentives and rewards than they do with punishments. Anyway, I digress.
The article prompted me to think about the women who were/are in positions of leadership and power in their democratic countries, such as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the U.K., former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the current President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum. I wonder if the day will ever come that we'll see a female president in the WH, but if one does arrive there she will most certainly be scrutinized for every decision she makes, assassinated because she's making too many changes or still only be accepted in that role should she choose to rule in the manner previous males have modeled for her, and if not, she must go.
As a woman, nothing has been more disappointing or disturbing having watched women in positions of power in Trump's administration like Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and others doing a madman's bidding and betraying the rule of law and failing to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
Anyhow, I do agree with you good men and good women are side-stepped all too often - though I definitely was proud that one of the seemingly good guys, Christopher, cared enough to raise the question of whether or not sexism had stopped women from reaching the top levels of gov't. Bravo!
I also think about a woman in the White House. And I am also concerned about how she would be perceived and treated (respected, criticized, or vilified). When Barack Obama was elected and broke the color barrier, opposing factions made it their mission to block and frustrate his every effort, alas.
But perhaps my more significant concern has to do with the inherent dilemmas within the job itself. Here we have the most populous democracy on earth, by far, and, in my opinion, it has become impossible to lead it well from a single office. Doing good things has became increasingly difficult and making serious errors has become increasingly more likely.
If my analysis and intuition are correct, hierarchies of all kinds are on the way out, world wide, as we go forward from here.
Our mission now is to share power, rather than seek to concentrate it. The women and men who embrace this change will likely be “leaders” in the sense of good models and mentors for others, known more by word of mouth and reputation, rather than by making the top story of the evening newscasts.
If someone offered me the presidency, I would turn it down because I’m inherently not qualified. I’m a US born citizen alright, but I’m officially a pacifist. (In 1970, I was drafted into the Army. In the first week of basic training, we were taught how to kill enemy combatants with a bayonet. My vivid imagination of what that would be like left me recoiling in horror. The experience changed my life. I applied for certification as a non combat conscientious objector - a status that was eventually approved.)
But the President of the United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces! The job literally requires making decisions to send troops and destructive military hardware into battle to destroy, injure, and kill others.
Patriarchy has taught us to use violence as the ultimate way to settle differences. It is now time to leave all that behind. I sincerely hope and expect that people across the world, of every race and gender, will increasingly reject that tradition as we make our way into the future.
Well, here's the thing that I think some people don't understand. Patriarchy hurts men and women equally. When a society is set up to only value dominance, than half of what we all need is always missing. As you point out, the men who incorporate caring and valuing partnerships, don't get the same level of validation in a patriarchal system.
"This might just indicate that men are a bit too emotional and hormonally driven to be trusted with power (joking)." Joking aside, this made my day.Thanks
Christopber, as usual a very needed perspective on the big picture. For an even deeper dive on other societies where there was a balance of power and women held checks and balances about war, read Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality by Anthropologist and Professor Peggy Reeves Sanday. She not only looked at which societies had more equality but why did those societies develop in that way vs. ones where there was more violence. She shows how historical experiences drives societies, create their origin myths, etc. that indicate violence vs. peace
This is right on the money. Dominance by any distinct population is fatally flawed; ultimately, patriarchal systems have to be replaced. Cooperative systems won’t come about until religious precepts which justify them (male superiority) are upgraded.
Another important aspect to consider is that in a patriarchy, it is essential know who your father is so as to determine your place in the hierarchy. Therefore, women's reproduction must be controlled at all cost. In a matriarchy it's not so important. Your mother is the one who gave birth to you, so your lineage is clear.
One correction: Kim Il-sung was Kim Ju-Ae's great-grandfather. Her grandfather was Kim Jong-Il.
The hormonal aspect of this is interesting... Poor Trump! All his losses in the past month or so must be leaving him a chemical eunuch! No wonder he's thrashing around like a wounded bull.
Just yesterday I was reading about Tsarina Elizabeth and Catherine the Great, who both took the Russian throne in coups, and ruled in the manner of Russian tsars (capriciously). Those still aren't examples of women building a dictatorship, but they do prove that women can be willing absolutists. Humans aren't to be trusted with unchecked power, regardless of sex.
There is a reason the Haudenosee felt the fairly combined input of females and males was needed to come to any conclusion under consideration by the whole. Their society was based on that arrangement, as I understand that society. I did not live in it, so there you go. But, what is needed, I maintain, is that the free concourse of women and men where all decisions affecting the outcomes under consideration for this race is necessary (that would be all decisions to action and belief). We can see what women have done in this article by Mr. Armitage. We can see what men have done. These things are over long time and across this world. Where we see 1/2 of the population excluded from providing open and free communication, we see what we have seen in the dictatorial dominance based actions in human society over long time. If we wish to change those outcomes, we will have to change the structure and beliefs of all world societies. We are running out of time.
I would love to see a follow up article that addresses what positive, respected roles men can have in a women-led (or co-equal-led) society that would use this testosterone fluctuation constructively (eg. hunters in hunter-gatherer cultures). Today, in our culture, the seems to be a dearth of pro-social rites of passage, and the may be one (biological) reason we see so much individual violence.
I love this article and your convo with Michael Ian Black. It's wonderful to understand your evolution toward understanding who you want to be rather than who you're expected to be. Girls have a lot of the same struggles. I always struggled to fit in. I was never a girlie girl, although I always looked like one. I was tall, thin and had square shoulders, so I was the opposite of what you describe about your struggles with being masculine. I preferred working with tools and building things. A powerful internal combustion engine is beyond exciting. I must make it difficult for a man to feel like a man, because I quickly evolved into a proactive, take-charge, make-it-happen person at 25 years old in the 1970s when I became a single mom of two daughters who were 2 years old and 8 months old. Women were just beginning to have a voice, but not much of one. It was a rugged journey with a lot of barriers, but I persevered and learned a lot. I appreciate that you and Michael opened up and became vulnerable to your audience. I work every day to help my husband understand that true intimacy is strongly attached to a partnership where there is honesty, reliability and respect. He is driven to express himself through covert passive-aggressive pathways that are truly destructive to a partnership and marriage. Still, we have stayed true to the marriage and have been together for 26 years. I know he will be enlightened by your article and the convo with Michael Ian Black. Thank you for your amazing insight and your well-researched articles that are thought provoking and informative. I have recommended you to my friends who also enjoy your intellectual pieces. Thank you for all that you are and for everything you share!
Wouldn't you think people would have a preference for societies that don't dominate?
The suffering girls and women are currently going through is inexcusable. Men have made laws about what women can and can't do with their bodies, laws that cover Trans, that keep medicine from people, regulate which bathrooms they can use. In 2024 there were 66,615 pregnant rape victims that did not have access to GYN doctors (Journal of American Medical Association). No notice of how many rapists were charged.
Until mid 1970s women couldn't open a charge account without their husbands signature. From birth girls are treated differently than boys. Restricted physical movement, and differences in what they can say and do.
It is a LONG LIST, but the reality is girls/women are taught not to assert themselves, or move with confidence through society, and be open about WHO they are. At least 10 or 12 countries have women as presidents, premiers. New Mexico state, after they have a woman governor, now has childcare, and everyone is covered by medical.
Always found it odd that men have to dominate, and they don't understand they would like it better if people were not tied to gender roles.
Appreciate the research. Would like people to not make laws about abortion, gender issues, Trans. They have no right to, but men dominate, and so are sanctioned to interfere with female lives.
Thank you for the post. Good to see someone thought about the difference.
🗽🇺🇲🇺🇦
If men gave birth, I believe the world would be a a very different place. Even if they shared equally in domestic and child-rearing duties and women had equal opportunities in the paid workforce the world would be vastly improved. That's my conclusion after 71 years on this planet as a female. It's obviously not all biology.
But it is biology - biology is why women and not men do give birth, and why for seahorses and some fish species, males can give birth.
The disconnect is the difference between liking societies that don't dominate and being able to either establish them, defend them, or both against those who want domination. That takes power but a lot of what I see currently going on in the opposition mostly hasn't been about acquiring that.
Dominance. That’s the key to everything. It’s the key to patriarchy, to capitalism, to colonialism, and even to men’s views of their personal relationships with women. It’s often packaged as stewardship or even love and protection, but in the end it’s about control.
The truth many refuse to confront is that a significant barrier to electing a woman as President of the United States is not qualification, experience, or leadership ability — it is fear.
Too many men are uncomfortable with strong, decisive women who challenge traditional power structures and expectations about who is “supposed” to lead.
That discomfort turns into skepticism, harsher scrutiny, and double standards that male candidates rarely face.
Until society fully accepts strength, authority, and confidence as qualities that belong equally to women, the path to the presidency will remain harder for any woman who seeks it.
Great article! The part about the "dominance" model vs. the "partnership" model is similar to what George Lakoff described in 1999 as the "strict father" vs. the "nurturant parent." I can understand how the "dominant" or "strict father" model is based on ancient biology; the big question is whether human societies will ever become "civilized" enough to get past it. History has shown that a great many matrilineal societies (the Arawak of North America, for example) were eventually conquered by dominant male-led societies. The perilous situation in which we currently find ourselves is a perfect example of male dominance gone out of control. It will be interesting (as well as frightening) to see what happens in the next few years.
Fascinating analysis. Thank you for presenting it here. What I find missing is mention of what I think are the vast majority of men who have little to no interest in such dominance. There have been plenty of male leaders who have not governed or ruled with such cruelty. I grew up with Eisenhower as president, for just one example. Sure, he made mistakes; we’re all human, but It’s always the most egregiously corrupt leaders who get the most attention.
No one ever seems to write about the men who faithfully pay their child support every month. We are invisible. Only the ones who refuse are highlighted in the press.
So what I see is a world with a clear majority of people, men and women alike, who help others when the chips are down, work low level jobs their whole lives to benefit others, or stay home to raise the children, and get little to no appreciation from society at large.
When the economy falters, they say, “just keep shopping; the economy needs you.” When there’s a war, it’s historically been the men who are either encouraged or forced to join the military, to submit themselves to the risks of physical or mental injury or death. Patriarchy says it’s honorable to fight for your country. And when the war is over, their needs are poorly attended to or their remains come home in a coffin and are buried with a little flag placed on their plot every Memorial Day.
So, I don’t fault your analysis, as far as it goes. I’m just wondering about what is missing - about the basic decency of ordinary people, men and women alike.
Well, men like us are at the bottom of the hierarchy and so are not visible or effectual in changing it.
I was working in Silicon Valley companies in the 1970s and 80s and I can vouch for the high level of performant masculinity and chest beating of the men who rose to the highest status. The only 2 women I knew who entered the VC community did so by marriage.
OTH the best line and group managers I worked for were women. They understood that the people they managed had biological and emotional needs and were much more likely to foster a mutual loyalty than the men I worked for.
I'm glad to hear you had good female bosses, and you'd be surprised how what you just wrote can bring others to think about certain men flying under the radar, but who also could use some acknowledgement and appreciation. Don't underestimate your own impact. Dare to be seen and heard. You have assets to contribute. I think the world is reader than ever for thoughtful, collaborative men.
I know I sure am.
👏🏼
*readier
I also appreciated Christopher's article, a rare look into the differences in how women and men lead or build societies or coalitions.
My main purpose for this comment, however, is to tell you I truly appreciate your mentioning the men who choose to partner and collaborate with others in honorable ways instead of dominate others. Talk about your unsung heroes! I've noticed they've been missing from all the talk about the Epstein files and corruption in so many adult males in Trump's cabinet and so many unprincipled GOP congressmen.
In recent months, for awhile there, all white males, or all older white males were taking a generalized public "hit," as were all Christians and billionaires until people started learning to narrow the groupings to the actual culprits. But yes, men simply living seemingly ordinary lives with good family values who are not cutthroat in business or spending all their days in the gym are often overlooked. So thank you for doing your part to be a decent human being that does his part to help create a civilized society.
It's much like in any family; the good kid often goes unnoticed. We have to be better at catching our kids doing things right and mention it when we do. In my experience kids do much better with incentives and rewards than they do with punishments. Anyway, I digress.
The article prompted me to think about the women who were/are in positions of leadership and power in their democratic countries, such as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the U.K., former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the current President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum. I wonder if the day will ever come that we'll see a female president in the WH, but if one does arrive there she will most certainly be scrutinized for every decision she makes, assassinated because she's making too many changes or still only be accepted in that role should she choose to rule in the manner previous males have modeled for her, and if not, she must go.
As a woman, nothing has been more disappointing or disturbing having watched women in positions of power in Trump's administration like Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and others doing a madman's bidding and betraying the rule of law and failing to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
Anyhow, I do agree with you good men and good women are side-stepped all too often - though I definitely was proud that one of the seemingly good guys, Christopher, cared enough to raise the question of whether or not sexism had stopped women from reaching the top levels of gov't. Bravo!
Christy, Thank you for your perspective!
I also think about a woman in the White House. And I am also concerned about how she would be perceived and treated (respected, criticized, or vilified). When Barack Obama was elected and broke the color barrier, opposing factions made it their mission to block and frustrate his every effort, alas.
But perhaps my more significant concern has to do with the inherent dilemmas within the job itself. Here we have the most populous democracy on earth, by far, and, in my opinion, it has become impossible to lead it well from a single office. Doing good things has became increasingly difficult and making serious errors has become increasingly more likely.
If my analysis and intuition are correct, hierarchies of all kinds are on the way out, world wide, as we go forward from here.
Our mission now is to share power, rather than seek to concentrate it. The women and men who embrace this change will likely be “leaders” in the sense of good models and mentors for others, known more by word of mouth and reputation, rather than by making the top story of the evening newscasts.
If someone offered me the presidency, I would turn it down because I’m inherently not qualified. I’m a US born citizen alright, but I’m officially a pacifist. (In 1970, I was drafted into the Army. In the first week of basic training, we were taught how to kill enemy combatants with a bayonet. My vivid imagination of what that would be like left me recoiling in horror. The experience changed my life. I applied for certification as a non combat conscientious objector - a status that was eventually approved.)
But the President of the United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces! The job literally requires making decisions to send troops and destructive military hardware into battle to destroy, injure, and kill others.
Patriarchy has taught us to use violence as the ultimate way to settle differences. It is now time to leave all that behind. I sincerely hope and expect that people across the world, of every race and gender, will increasingly reject that tradition as we make our way into the future.
Well, here's the thing that I think some people don't understand. Patriarchy hurts men and women equally. When a society is set up to only value dominance, than half of what we all need is always missing. As you point out, the men who incorporate caring and valuing partnerships, don't get the same level of validation in a patriarchal system.
"This might just indicate that men are a bit too emotional and hormonally driven to be trusted with power (joking)." Joking aside, this made my day.Thanks
Christopber, as usual a very needed perspective on the big picture. For an even deeper dive on other societies where there was a balance of power and women held checks and balances about war, read Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality by Anthropologist and Professor Peggy Reeves Sanday. She not only looked at which societies had more equality but why did those societies develop in that way vs. ones where there was more violence. She shows how historical experiences drives societies, create their origin myths, etc. that indicate violence vs. peace
I'll have to check that book out.
Thanks for the recommendation and for reading, Janet 🌲🌲🌲
I'd also recommend Before War by Elisha Daeva http://beforewar.com
This is right on the money. Dominance by any distinct population is fatally flawed; ultimately, patriarchal systems have to be replaced. Cooperative systems won’t come about until religious precepts which justify them (male superiority) are upgraded.
Thoughtful commentary. Thank you.
Another important aspect to consider is that in a patriarchy, it is essential know who your father is so as to determine your place in the hierarchy. Therefore, women's reproduction must be controlled at all cost. In a matriarchy it's not so important. Your mother is the one who gave birth to you, so your lineage is clear.
One correction: Kim Il-sung was Kim Ju-Ae's great-grandfather. Her grandfather was Kim Jong-Il.
The hormonal aspect of this is interesting... Poor Trump! All his losses in the past month or so must be leaving him a chemical eunuch! No wonder he's thrashing around like a wounded bull.
I’ve read that as Nazis experienced losses at the end of WW2, the men experienced erectile dysfunction en masse.
Just yesterday I was reading about Tsarina Elizabeth and Catherine the Great, who both took the Russian throne in coups, and ruled in the manner of Russian tsars (capriciously). Those still aren't examples of women building a dictatorship, but they do prove that women can be willing absolutists. Humans aren't to be trusted with unchecked power, regardless of sex.
There is a reason the Haudenosee felt the fairly combined input of females and males was needed to come to any conclusion under consideration by the whole. Their society was based on that arrangement, as I understand that society. I did not live in it, so there you go. But, what is needed, I maintain, is that the free concourse of women and men where all decisions affecting the outcomes under consideration for this race is necessary (that would be all decisions to action and belief). We can see what women have done in this article by Mr. Armitage. We can see what men have done. These things are over long time and across this world. Where we see 1/2 of the population excluded from providing open and free communication, we see what we have seen in the dictatorial dominance based actions in human society over long time. If we wish to change those outcomes, we will have to change the structure and beliefs of all world societies. We are running out of time.
In general, women have far less problems with their egos and things like narcissistic personality disorders than men.
Thank you for this article!
I would love to see a follow up article that addresses what positive, respected roles men can have in a women-led (or co-equal-led) society that would use this testosterone fluctuation constructively (eg. hunters in hunter-gatherer cultures). Today, in our culture, the seems to be a dearth of pro-social rites of passage, and the may be one (biological) reason we see so much individual violence.
I love this article and your convo with Michael Ian Black. It's wonderful to understand your evolution toward understanding who you want to be rather than who you're expected to be. Girls have a lot of the same struggles. I always struggled to fit in. I was never a girlie girl, although I always looked like one. I was tall, thin and had square shoulders, so I was the opposite of what you describe about your struggles with being masculine. I preferred working with tools and building things. A powerful internal combustion engine is beyond exciting. I must make it difficult for a man to feel like a man, because I quickly evolved into a proactive, take-charge, make-it-happen person at 25 years old in the 1970s when I became a single mom of two daughters who were 2 years old and 8 months old. Women were just beginning to have a voice, but not much of one. It was a rugged journey with a lot of barriers, but I persevered and learned a lot. I appreciate that you and Michael opened up and became vulnerable to your audience. I work every day to help my husband understand that true intimacy is strongly attached to a partnership where there is honesty, reliability and respect. He is driven to express himself through covert passive-aggressive pathways that are truly destructive to a partnership and marriage. Still, we have stayed true to the marriage and have been together for 26 years. I know he will be enlightened by your article and the convo with Michael Ian Black. Thank you for your amazing insight and your well-researched articles that are thought provoking and informative. I have recommended you to my friends who also enjoy your intellectual pieces. Thank you for all that you are and for everything you share!
Victoria
My grandmother would have loved you. She always said women would be better at ruling the world.