/lit/ - Literature

>>20681391

As mentioned, institutionalized power de-emphasizes strength and aggressiveness. It means a social relationship driven by institutionalized power removes the main advantages men have regarding to women, and explains why Western societies have become so driven by women lately. Essentially, the playing field has been equalized by the removal of the element that gave men an advantage. The only place where male power remains relevant is at the very top or the very bottom of society.

The very bottom, because it's marginalized, and as such institutions haven't permeated it strongly. They still rely on community leaders, gang leaders, and other relationships that are primarly driven by direct power. The very top, because, by definition, those that are on the top don't have anyone overseeing them. At best, they answer to their peers, which is a much smaller group instead of a larger institution. That's why state leaders (specially "rogue state" ones), top CEOs, top bankers, military leaders, all of those tend to be men - because in the position they're at, they're not subjected to many forces that remove the advantages of male aggressiveness.

A note of feminism: feminism is a consequence, not a cause, of female emancipation. The development of industrial society and institutional power freed women because it removed the need they had to attach themselves to a man, or the direct power men had over them. Feminism is born from the growing economic power of women that originated from this emanciupation. What feminism is is an additional disciplinary tool for institutions to control those subjected to them, so it's useful as another way for institutions to perpetuate themselves.

>>19596126
>Are science and religion mutually exclusive?

Not necessarily, but often in practice. Religion is based on a set of claims that encompass both philosophical/metaphysical statements and historical ones. The philosophical/metaphysical statements are the easiest to reconcile with science because they deal with things beyond the scope of science as such, but the historical ones ARE subject to scrutiny by the scientific method since they deal with concrete events that supposedly took place in the world.

Christianity depends as much on the historicity of Jesus, his miracles and the resurrection as it depends on, say, the logical argument for God as presented by Aquinas. If Christ didn't exist, or performed no miracles, or didn't rise from the dead, Christianity as we know it is false, even if hypothetically Aquinas's argument were irrefutable. And determining whether Christ existed, performed miracles or rose from the dead is well within the realm of science, or at least historical research.

This does not mean that religious people can't contribute to science, which they often did. Especially since scientists often tend to focus on specific parts of science, which means that it's rare for it to get into open conflict with one's overall larger picture of life. Plus we compartmentalize things often.