No, and we've already talked about this - and boy, talk about foisting your ideology and biases into the equation. Foragers are some of the most innovative people on the planet - but they don't feel the need to use that innovation to build cathedrals. Instead, they work about 15-25 hours per week and spend the rest of the time relaxing, enjoying the children of the tribe, playing, napping, etc.
Patriarchy did drive what we might think of as "civilization" but that also came with a social cost.
"Patriarchy brought about not just stratification between men and women, but rather, an entire class system that had not previously existed. Some men gained wealth and power, but nearly always at the expense of others around them.
Most of the great achievements of a patriarchal society took place on the backs of the people who were oppressed by it. This includes the unpaid labor of women, who kept homes and raised children, freeing up the men in their lives to focus on ideas and innovations, as well as the free labor of slaves, in many cases. The great railroads of America weren’t built by the men who financed them. They were built by the coolies who did the backbreaking labor for a meager wage.
The Carnegies and the Vanderbilts of the world may have worked hard and used their ingenuity to form their empires, but they also exploited their workers. Hundred-hour workweeks were common until they were abolished by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, but it took 50 years of agitation to get the Act passed because there was significant resistance to it from the patriarchs of industry. Patriarchal stratification means that some people count more than others and that many times employees are used as if they were just another resource to be maximized. Henry Ford only advocated for the 40-hour workweek because he realized it would help sales."
So, yes, clearly I'm in favor of a social system that is not based in a dominance hierarchy - not least of which for all the ways that this hurts men. I have a son and I care about his future in this culture. But at the same time I'm not advocating for a Paleolithic or modern forager culture, which wouldn't make any sense in the modern age for most people. I'm simply noting it as a way to show that we haven't always lived this way and so we do have possibilities available to us to tweak our culture towards a less hierarchical and socially stratified one.
"There is already some evidence of this as business models that are less top-down become more widely adopted. In addition, new psychological guidelines have been issued for ways to assist men who have been harmed by the expectations of masculinity in a domination-based culture. Elite military groups like the Navy Seals find it more practical to operate with a much flatter hierarchy.
In special operations, the pace at which we must move, learn and even change moves far too quickly for a traditional hierarchy. The Naval Special Warfare community, where regular military rank of course exists, is still a much flatter organization. Senior leaders do the leading, while most of the important managerial tasks are delegated to the lower ranks. Junior team members are empowered with great deals of responsibility and the autonomy to make decisions. Is it always perfect? Of course not. But with a culture founded on trust and extreme levels of accountability, this teamwork mechanism works very well.
The same applies to today’s business organizations. Especially in highly competitive environments. Forbes
If you find that troubling or problematic, I’d sure like to know why?
