/lit/ - Literature

>>21552313
In this situation I'd want to be Roger but in reality I'd be Piggy

Dumb book. IRL they'd unite as a band of brothers, which is the proper subject for any group Robinsonade.

>>21552313
All fatties deserve execution. There's nothing more damaging to the world than a greaseball going around eating everyone's food.

>>21552416
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYebOCCoTYM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways

>>21552422
Having bodily stored energy would be a benefit in a castaway situation.

>>21552313
I’m literally piggy and yes most people would have killed me given the chance at that age.

How did Piggy stay fat on the island

>>21552553
They were only there like two weeks

Wasn't he Ralphs only friend? Everyone else on by one abandoned him and then tried to murder him IIRC

>>21552416
Wrong. They were Bri*ish and already live on an island all their lives so this is how it would play out

>>21552313
Anyone else notice how Apocolypto completely ripped off the ending?

>>21552313
>he didn't really contribute
much as i hate doing other peoples' homework for them...
...he represents Prometheus, gifting Fire to mankind and then being punished for it

>>21552313
No, I’m not a child murder. So I don’t know why you think I’ll kill piggy.

>>21552422
go away Jack

>>21552313
>he didn't really contribute
he was the only one contributing dyer

>>21554159
Does he? He isn't punished for the fire though.

>>21556369
Alright. We kill you for not contributing.

>>21556369
>he isn't punished for the fire though
>he's only killed by a boulder
in a linear sense, no he wasn't killed for gifting them with fire, but literature doesn't always work in a linear fashion.
he was the only kid with glasses; technology. We know there are other ways to make fire, but the kids never utilize those ways, instead relying on the glasses. And like with Prometheus, never showing any gratitude but instead tormenting him.

there's almost a sort of patriarchy vs matriarchy theme in the book, Jack embodying the patriarchal "warrior" group (which Jack was obsessed with, even though there was literally no point to having warriors/military at all on an island they were the sole inhabitants of), and Ralph representing the matriarchal.
yes, i know there were no women on the island, but aside from that they still had qualities that one could find in matriarchies.

>>21552313
I think Simon's schizophrenic episode was the only good part of this book... convince me otherwise.

>>21557666
I actually liked the humor of all things, it made me sensibly chuckle at a few points

>>21552313
>>21557247
that's retarded. Piggy had all the good ideas for survival: making a fire, making a sundial, getting food. He was the best survivalist, and his ideas kept getting shut down or stolen. That's a patriarchal attribute. Piggy was in no way a matriarchy.

watch this video and tell me he acted like a female.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkSKosQOSmY

I mean to reread this, but I'm scared it won't be as fun as when I read it as a kid.

>>21558220
civilization began with the matriarchy. War started with the patriarchy.
you're completely right though that Piggy had many of the best ideas for survival, you're wrong in thinking it's the patriarchy that does that too. All patriarchy does is make war more gruesome and bloody, and enslave people.

>>21558220
taking modern day women/feminists is not the definition of 'matriarchal'. Also, your video could easily be scripted like the vast majority of reality tv shows.
>no, see it says "reality" in the name, therefore it's 100% real and unscripted!
maybe, but again, modern day women, just because they're female, do not necessarily equate to 'matriarchy'. You'd have to go back in history to find that.
agriculture didn't begin with men, but with women (we're talking prehistorical times).
large scale war and armies started with men.

And just like in Lord of the Flies, having a military is the equivalent of Jack's playing at war, complete with body paint, all the made up rules and traditions, and pointless. The island is Earth, the boys were alone on the island and had no one to fear. Jack hyped up the fear of the Monster to solidify his power over the other boys, to justify having an army. We're alone on the Earth, Earth is our 'island' and there is no Monster here either, but still we have a bunch of Jack-types playing at war when there's no cause to.
>we need militaries because bad people exist
>we need Jack to defend us from Jack
Ralph and Piggy just wanted to exist peacefully on the island until rescue came, Jack and his types didn't want to be rescued but instead to rule.

>>21558250
>civilization began with the matriarchy. War started with the patriarchy.
Source: my ass

>>21558275
Right, because you need to heavily edit footage to depict women starting drama, screaming at snakes, and bitching

Listen you two cunts. Can you name a single matriarchy in the history of humanity? You have all of human history: the sumerians, Chaldeans, chicktaw, Seminole, sengoku jidai, Babylonia, mongols, Peru in 1972, Romania in 1986. Can you name one (1) matriarchy? And no, if the president is a woman, but her cabinet, congress, judges, military generals, police are all men, then that's not a matriarchy.

And if you name the pagans who sacrificed babies, and the dahomies who lost 2,000 women to defend African slavery then I'm laughing in your face.

>>21558275
>Jack hyped up the fear of the Monster to solidify his power over the other boys, to justify having an army. We're alone on the Earth, Earth is our 'island' and there is no Monster here either, but still we have a bunch of Jack-types playing at war when there's no cause to

Warlordism is the default state of humanity. There are plenty of critiques regarding over militarization of society, but the existence of militaries at all aren't one of them.

Having a state means having a responsibility towards the people living there and comes with necessary moral judgements.

Preferring to live in a society where ISIS isn't running around beheading segments of the population ultimately requires both carrot and stick

Every society, every organized culture is inherently based on and supported by force of arms, even if only indirectly.

>>21558345
>source: my ass
Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves, Bachofen, and i'm sure many others. This is actually really old news (discovered in the late 1700s into the mid 1800s). The fact you're unaware of this shows you're talking about things you haven't bothered studying at all.

>because you need to heavily edit footage to depict women starting drama, etc.
as i said, modern women are not what i'm referring to when i'm talking about matriarchies.
And all your examples are *exactly* what i'm talking about when i'm describing patriarchies: Jack-types who enslave and rule over others, offer a few creature comforts and pretend like they're civilized and better than the Ralph-types who live peaceful lives on the beach.
>Slavery is good! Even if you're a slave!
okay, Jack.

>>21558376
>we need Jack to protect us from other Jacks.
>other countries need their Jacks to protect them from our Jacks.
round and round it goes. If all the Jacks in the world would just die or get an iq booster then we wouldn't "need" Jacks at all.

>>21558395

Jack is a part of humanity and a part of you and me.

There is no separating out the Jacks from the normies and then everyone lives happy. Jack is as much an expression of what it means to be human as painting or music.

>>21558416
>Jack is a part of humanity
the completely unnecessary part, which is the tragedy that Lord of the Flies is describing, and why it's such a great work.
the very least you can do is to stop idolizing and cheering on Jack. But you sound like one of those kids that joined Jack because you were too scared to go it alone like Ralph (who if you remember, they hunted down and almost killed).

Sad that the world is full of either Jacks or the weak willed followers of Jack

>>21558391
So Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves, Bachofen discovered in the 1700s how civilization began and how war started?

Feminist love moving the goalpost. So you're meaning to tell me that the word "matriarchal" doesn't mean matriarchal. It means "what we mean when we say matriarchal, which is all good." So if I name examples of women doing bad things (like sacrificing babies and enslaving africans), then by definition they are not matriarchal. It's like if I said, "Communism is just giving workers the means of production." And then someone showed me an example of Stalin killing 20 Million people, and I responded "that's not real Communism"

>>21558451
>i haven't read any of the historians you mentioned but i'm still gonna assume i know anything that they talked about
i love zoomers, you guys always automatically assume you know everything lol
even the way you equate feminism with matriarchy is amusing, when modern feminism is not what i'm talking about.
>patriarchy is good because i say so.
>i'll just move the goalpost anytime anyone brings up anything horrible about patriarchal civilization
btw, human sacrifice originated with the patriarchy :) It's cute how you don't know that. Just look at Abrahamic religions and their obsession with animal sacrifice, which originally was HUMAN sacrifice (and was also alluded to in Lord of the Flies, when Jack offered a sacrifice to the Monster, and even the killing of Simon, though 'accidental' ---it wasn't, Jack had whipped up the boys into a frenzy and fear of an imaginary Monster---)

>>21558475
>human sacrifice originated with the patriarchy
source: my ass

your (and the historians you mentioned) distinction between what you constitute as "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" is totally arbitrary. Case in point, you still haven't named me one (1) matriarchal society.

your feminist projection of "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" onto this book is retarded.

>>21558773
>you still haven't named me one matriarchal society
because matriarchies didn't need to form gov't's or write heavily edited and biased histories. We know of matriarchies via study of comparative mythology, "the Golden Age of Saturn" and its equivalents. If you'd actually read anything besides low quality infographics on 4chan, you'd already know this lmao. This is such basic stuff.

Read Joseph Campbell's "Primitive Mythology", "Oriental Mythology" at the bare minimum. Robert Graves talks about it in his Greek Mythology, Bachofen is one of the first (if not the first) to explicitly state it.
James George Frazer in "Golden Bough" shows definitive proof of the history of human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. Algernon Herbert shows how this sacrifice is linked to the arrival of the patriarchy and was intimately tied to it as part of their religions.

Stop getting your info from 4chan infographics lol

>>21558809
>because matriarchies didn't need to form gov't's or write heavily edited and biased histories
lol, you're more retarded than I thought.

>matriarchies are way better than patriarchies. If we all had a matriarchy, there wouldn't be any war
>ok, but the few instances where women were in power, they had child sacrifices and enslaved africans (and had war)
>that's not a real matriarchy
>ok can you name one matriarchy
>no, they were so far advanced they didn't form a government, or have written language
>so what's your evidence for any of your claims?
>ancient myths that vaguely mention women 2000 years ago

>>21558250
>civilization began with the matriarchy. War started with the patriarchy.
I think you mean
>taming the women allowed advanced civilization to begin and to flourish
We're currently engaged in an experiment to see what happens when you take an advanced civilization and empower women to the detriment of the men who create and maintain it. What happens? Let's watch!

>>21558868
>patriarchies are so advanced, that's why we still have wars, because we're so advanced.
LMAO

>>21559064
>taming women
you haven't even tamed yourselves, all you did was enslave people by being more violent. That's not "being advanced", it's just being like Jack, a low iq violent person.

>>21552313
Ralph couldn't get the boys to look after a fire. Jack got them to make an advanced formation, a long line from one side of the island to the other, and march in formation throughout the entire island. We can argue who was nicer but one was certainly a better leader.

>>21552722
>Bri*ish
Found the shitskin

>>21560672
>the boys followed orders better after being tortured by Jack and his goon
>better leader
no, he's just psychotic.
Ralph was the better leader, he didn't have to harm or lie to the boys about some boogey monster just to scare/trick them into following him

>>21552313
shota shota islando~
for certain kind of people its a paradise

>>21558250
off yourself homo

>>21558237
I read Lord of the Flies as a late teen and thought it sucked. Was very disappointed.

>>21563046
read a book, zoomer-that-still-lives-with-their-parents

>>21563052
>i thought it sucked
another stunning literary commentary from 4chan. Well done! you guys sure showed Reddit! lol

it amazes me why dunces like that even bother to post anything at all. Do they actually think others care about their opinion, even an opinion with no proofs or evidence or reasons behind their viewpoint?

>>21563075
Maybe they don't think at all?

>>21554159
I never thought about it that way.

>>21564391
me neither because he didn't invent the fire

>>21552313
We all know he contributed, even more, his services were absolutely indispensable for all the young and spunky teenagers locked away from civilization, alas the Author could not couldn't describe that directly for the fear of causing enormous scandal.

>>21559456
>advancement means not fighting
what kind of non logic is this?
>all you did was enslave people by being more violent.
*more advanced

>>21561587
Jack was the platonic ideal of a leader, using the noble lie to inspire unity and enforcing dicipline with the steely resolve of Hannibal or Oda Nobunaga.

Fatty brought down moral simply by existing. He had to be dealt with.

>>21552313
No, why would I murder a child?

>>21560723
>Br*t lolcow trying to act tough
Sorry sir but i cannot take you seriously

If you were an adult and ended up with children on such an island, what would you do?

>>21565559
Call up Bill Gates and have a shin-dig

>>21565119
there's plenty of people that have noticed the discrepancy between the "advancement of technology" and yet the life of the average person doesn't seem to be improving. In first world countries this is harder to see (though still possible), but in other places it's much more visible. Take India. Lots of technology, and yet poverty is widespread. Advanced weapons technology does not equate to better societies.

Jack is the equivalent of this phenomenon. He might use and even "advance" technology (though he initially stole it) but it's not making life better for everyone, it only makes it better for those at the tippy top of the pyramid.
If tech is only being used to attack others and enforce the pyramid hierarchy, then it's absolutely "being more violent".
The whole point of the novel (and per the implication of the author, of human life on Earth) is that WE are stuck on an island, and awaiting rescue by God, or our more advanced human relatives, or aliens or whatever. The point of life on the island/Earth isn't to conquer the world, it's to await rescue. Ralph was the better leader, because he recognized that fact. Jack was happy to forget it and to enslave the rest to his psychotic desires and to kill anyone that resisted.

>>21565136
>the noble lie
lies are never noble. That's just something a psychotic liar came up with.

>>21566376
the book is also a rendition of the two main types of governance on this "island" we call Earth: democratic and aristocratic/republic (though these may often times go by different names, but essentially these are the two main types)
when the boys arrive on the island, they immediately and naturally form a democratic style gov't. A "Golden Age of Saturn" where there was little gov't, no elite, no war or weapons, everyone had a voice (via the Conch). Ralph was *voted* to be the leader, a sure sign of a democracy.
The other form that arose later was the aristocratic, under the leadership of Jack; militaristic as all aristocracies are, the rule of the "best", where "best" is synonymous with "the most violent and psychopathic". In this form, only the very few had a voice in how things were run, voting is gone and with it the Conch. Things are run by the militaristic "elite", even though there is literally no reason for there to even be a military, since there are no enemies. Which is why Jack had to "create" an enemy out of thin air, first the Monster, then Ralph. Aristocratic elitism always need an enemy to justify their own existence as rulers. ("We can't upset the hierarchy because if we do the enemies will use that against us, you need us elites to protect you")

>>21566379
Not him, but Just another way to point out that ends do justify the means, because in reality
>Ends justifying the means
should be better understood as
>Which ends take precedence over other ends.
Because the only reason we take means into consideration at all is because they are in different degrees ends in themselves.
so does thing x justify giving up on thing y. Or how much of y are you willing to give up in pursuit of x. That is only psychopathic to someone who wants to feign superiority instead of admitting what degree of things they are willing to give up for something else, or that to their priorities are different and x doesn't overturn y.
>>21566376
OK anon, but im saying thats a limited veiw and a blatant narrow narrativization. If you take a narrow margin for what "advanced" consists of, that is, defining your goals a priori, you can call anything advanced by how you set up your predicates to target that particular and it loses its general significance as "aptitude", ie: ability or fitness broadly. Including other goals like the ability to enact your will, or an ability to create a project, or the fitness to withstand an invasion, or the ability to gather knowledge or the ability to travel, and yes, also the ability to be content, or the ability to gratify your desires (including "his psychotic desires and to kill anyone that resisted"). The ability to effect things more in general.

While what you present is more particular and narrow. I personally wouldn't use the word "advanced" for such a case. Im saying violence is a method of advancement, a subset of power and ability like any other. In fact, id say violence is usually just the accusation of any motive force you take umbridge with. Refusing imports is a violence, have an incentive is a violence, a more effective method towards a goal is a violence. Anything that moves you towards a direction is a violence. And I would say power is fitness which is advancement in its most wholistic and broadly applicable sense.

>>21566660
even the beginning of "religion" on the island is reminiscent of how it progressed in Earth history. Jack's sacrifice of a pig/boar to "the Lord of the Flies" is just like how Jupiter worshipers sacrificed animals (and humans) to this Monster-deity. Abrahamic religions are just varying flavors of Jupiter worship, just as Jupiter worship is the equivalent of Zeus worship (the Lord of the Flies goes by many names, but always bears the telltale signs of animal/human sacrifice, military elite/aristocratic rulers who also are in sole charge of the priesthood)

>>21566718
>killing and enslaving others to create a hierarchy is only psychopathic to someone who wants to feign superiority to people who are willing to kill and enslave others
spoken like a true psychopath.
look, the books is clearly a representation of the history of Earth, the island being a substitute for Earth, and the events on the island being a substitute for the unfolding of events on Earth. On the island we see there are no enemies, no monster. The only "monster" is Jack and his henchman Roger. Even the bit about Jack and Roger and his crew of military school boys as being part of a "choir" is a clear reference to the "angelic" choir in the Bible, of which Satan was the leader.
you can disagree with the author, and try to pretend that Jack is the good guy, but it's clear that the author had a definite bias *against* Jack and his type. That type being militaristic.

>>21552429
The tongan castaways were familiar with their environment, all knew each other before they were stranded, and the group was much smaller and therefore less susceptible to panic.

This video shows a group of british boys left alone in a standard suburban house. Although they don't succumb to superstition, they more or less follow the plot to a tee: trying to elect a leader, splitting into two groups, hunting random animals for sport, raiding and hassling one another. In fact, you would almost think it was scripted. The 'leader' they elect looks almost exactly like the kid who played Ralph in the Rob Reiner adaptation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCePbRdQmbE

>>21566718
>violence isn't what you say it is, viz. the actual use of violence for any reason.
>violence is what i say it is.
>therefore Jack isn't a psychopath.
>Ralph is violent against Jack, using my own re-definition of violence. By not kow-towing to Jack's psychopathic desires, Ralph was "being violent" towards Jack.
you're an idiot.

>>21557215
Roger represents Sisyphus, rejecting his eternal toil by rolling the rock down onto Piggy, crushing the false gods of civility and decency.

>>21566740
>spoken like a true psychopath.
didnt even address my point. I wasnt talking about the book, I was talking about the principle.

Are you saying its not true that often times you must create a hierarchy of precedence when trying to accomplish things? Im not saying truth cant be a prime ends, just that if you do have prime ends, that means that other ends must necessarily suffer compromise in relation to it.

>>21566743
>Jack isn't a psychopath.
No he quite possibly could be.
>violence isn't what you say it is, viz. the actual use of violence for any reason.
Ok, please define the essential nature of violence then. I would think we would both agree its power that enforces a particular will, correct? Unless you have a different one.

Im not pro Jack if thats what You are implying.

>>21566754
>i wasn't talking about the book
the book is talking about these principles, silly. That's why it's "literature". Literature talks about principles.
you can disagree with the author's views, about his principles, but it's plain as day that the book, as he wrote it, is talking about these principles.

>>21566751
>Roger represents Sisyphus
Sisyphus was condemned by Jupiter (Lord of Hades, i.e. lord of the underworld; Lord of the Flies/Death) to roll the rock.
the false god is that of Jupiter and the "elite". The "lord of the flies" is the false god, an idea concocted by Jack/militaristic-elite. Ralph, Piggy are *real*, unlike the "lord of the flies", which is just an idea, a scare tactic of Jack's.
The scare tactic that Jack invented is the great lie, like all Jupiteran/Abrahamic religions, the idea that "god" needs animal/human sacrifices to placate this deity of Death (Lord of the Flies).

As we see on the island, Ralph's idea would have would have worked (his idea meaning to keep a flame burning to aid in being rescued) had not Jack decided to play at being a warlord-priest.

>>21566771
>please define the essential nature of violence, because i don't have a dictionary and don't know how to search up words online
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
wow that was so hard to find the definition of violence!
Per this super difficult to understand definition, Jack is violent, since he and his "angelic choir" were the ones to initiate violence on the Island/Earth. Even the stuff about how they started out just being hunters on the island mimics the story about the biblical Nimrod/Orion, "the Hunter", who per the myths/history is credited with forming the first armies. (if you're interested in reading about this, Algernon Herbert's four volume "Nimrod" is excellent, detailed, sourced, highly recommend reading it)

>>21566376
>>21566660
I think you are missing out on an essential point of the Novel. the fact that people WILLINGLY fell to the level of Jack. And That there was also a fall to barbarity and that they originally were from a civilized place like GB. I think you identified that the chicken was before the egg. In a sense, Ralph was aristocratic in manor and was elected from it. It was in the divulgence of superstructures and civility over time that they got to this point. It wasnt simply a process of noble savageness to barbarous civilization, it was also a regression from noble civilization to barbarous savagery and pure instinct.

>>21566790
>is talking about these principles.
ok, but you seem to not be addressing mine which I thought were pretty solidly based and relevant to the conversation.
>>21566802
>behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
OK, so if I coherse you in a non physical way, is that not violence? I guess I might be taking violence in a more classical sense thats a bit all consuming
>He has done violence onto me!
in the sense that someone has besmirched your character, or blackmail, or given you no other alternative than what they want. Essentially, something to effect you negatively for a purpose.

>>21566804
>people WILLINGLY fell to the level of Jack
not really. Ralph and Piggy resisted. You have to remember, the book is a rendition of events that played out on Earth, so everything this "sped up". The events of the island played out over weeks or months, the events of earth took place over centuries.
This means that if Ralph and Piggy and the "democratic" society resisted Jack for only a day, even only an hour, then this resistance disproves what you say about everyone "willingly" falling to the level of Jack.
Jack eventually won, just as on earth the Jupiter/warrior-priest elite won. But they used fear tactics (religion) and violence to achieve this. Just because Jack won doesn't make him the good guy, as the book shows in great detail. Jack is the villain, just as the aristocratic-religious elite are the villains in Earth history, physically and mentally enslaving everyone to worship the false god "Lord of the Flies" and to uphold the evil hierarchy.

>>21566804
>Ralph was aristocratic
Ralph was VOTED to be leader by the entire group of boys. That is literally the opposite of aristocratic. You need to read Giambattista's "New Science" to get an idea of what democracies and aristocracies actually mean, because it's obvious that you don't even know what you're talking about.
Aristocracies are militaristic and at the same time run the priesthood. Jack was in a military school, and also created the first religion on the island.

>>21566819
>you seem not be addressing mine
because i'm addressing the author's intent.

>ok, so if i coerce you in a non physical way, is that not violence?
Ralph never coerced anyone. He didn't coerce anyone to vote for him as the leader. He never coerced anyone to remain with him when Jack started his own rival faction.
Jack is the only one that used violence and coercion (via starting a religion that worshiped the "Lord of the Flies").

What a good thread this is.
>back to lurking.

>>21557247
Normie tier analysis.

You have to be a brit or an american. fucking ridiculous.

>>21566853
>i can't debate you, so i'm just going to resort to insults
Jack-tier behavior.
are you Russian or Muslim by chance, maybe Chinese? Because these cultures are all militaristic by nature, so it would make perfect sense that you'd identify and sympathize with Jack, instead of with Ralph and democracy.

>>21566826
>not really. Ralph and Piggy resisted
yes, but most didnt and fell alongsides. I never said everyone, but people. the exceptions and rules you statte can and I might even say, should, be considered in reverse. I think You are taking a principle too one to one with your particular take. Dont forget that the angelic fall was also one from complete order under a patriarchly figure. I didnt say jack was the good guy, just that he could represent a fall to barbarity, where more animal fears and primitive sensations take precedence over rationality and logic. The book also does use primitivistic imagery in connection to the jack faction. Body paint and spuriousness and tribal like actions.
>>21566832
And that could be taken as an aristocratic personality, again, I think you've decided on the chiken and ignored the whole idea of chicken or egg by bolting a specific veiw onto it all.

>>21566866
not him, but it is kinda a stretch, when the more prime distinction seems more rationality vs instinctuality and that the highly patriarchal greeks had the formative ancestor of democracy in the Athenian sort.

>>21566867
>yes but most didn't and fell alongsides.
as i said earlier, INITIALLY they resisted. That is the key point. They resisted, and then fell. Meaning that if Jack hadn't persisted with his violence and coercion, then the boys that had remained with Ralph initially would have continued to remain with him.
This doesn't justify Jack as being "better", it just means that peaceful people (Ralph's crew) are ill-equipped to deal with violent psychopaths.

Piggy is the epitome of rationality and logic, Ralph being a close second. Democracy is founded on these principles (hence why democracies often separate religion from politics). Saturn is considered the Democratic planet/deity, represents the masses. Jupiter is the aristocratic planet/deity, represents the warrior-priest elite. (this is a little bit esoteric, but i can find you sources online to read if you like, or books if you prefer that.) Saturn is considered "matriarchal", thus democracy is "matriarchal" in essence. We see this verified in real-time history too, where patriarchal aristocracies often *heavily* suppressed female involvement in politics, treating them often as nothing but baby-making machines, whereas democracies let women not only vote but have political authority and leadership positions. (rare exceptions of female rulers in patriarchal societies do not disprove the rule that patriarchies exclude females. Even those rare exceptions often/always had to be hard fought by the female leader)

>>21566887
>the highly patriarchal greeks
Greeks were a hodge-podge of different city-states with different forms of gov't. To simply lump all of them as "Greeks" is extremely misleading. So yes, Athens had a highly democratic form of gov't, but even they weren't 100% so, 100% of the time. Athens flip-flopped between democracies and aristocracies with regular frequency, whereas Sparta was consistently aristocratic.

>>21566843
>because i'm addressing the author's intent.
Which is on the subject of a principle which I am talking about.
>Ralph never coerced anyone.
he did, he just mostly used positive incentives instead of negative. Its been a while since I read, but Didnt Jack also convince others with meat from the hunts? Ralph could not provide some things that Jack's rabble could. Which can be seen as a sort of violence. So jack had these "advancements" that contextually won out against Ralphs.

>>21566948
Athens in specific was farcically patriarchal though. I used Greek as a generalism but that applies in specific to the athenians too.

>>21552429
yeah, but they're niggers

>>21566741
I was wondering if racism would come up until they randomly decided the Paki kid, who didn't even eat the same things as them, should wash their dishes for two whole days.

>>21558220
>Piggy had all the good ideas for survival
>his ideas kept getting shut down or stolen.
This sounds vaguely familiar.......

>>21558250
>civilization began with the matriarchy
per Spengler, "civilization" is what you get as a "culture" dies. So, yeah, you are probably right.

>>21566937
These seem like a lot of stretches.
>INITIALLY they resisted.
many of them did, many didnt. IDK why you are delegitimizing violence and coercion as incentives, they most definitely are. And If I remember, a lot of them were drawn to Jack by magnetism and wanting to be "in the group" not just shivering obedience.
>This doesn't justify Jack as being "better"
Again, that depends wholely on definition, in terms of sear ability, Jacks crew was demonstrably better by virtue of winning out.
>Democracy is founded on these principles (hence why democracies often separate religion from politics)
this part is plain out cherrypicking. Athenian Democracy at its most democratic didnt see a difference between church and state, both were elected officials. Much of the great inovations of logic and rationality happened under very much aristocratic and religious times. See the 1600s. Much of rationality and logic springs from this period. Not to mention democratic ideas in itself (again, its not quite a dichotomy relationship, much of modern democracy is quite explicitly based on a religiously derived universalism that you can see inclings off in english civil war, Locke, etc). And counter examples might be seen in places like china with long periods of widespread peace (intersperesed with quite brutal wars) under a highly stratified hierarchical and patriarchal model.

I guess im saying that a singular allegory I think is quite reductive, and that a more broadly generalized schemata is more useful, descriptive, and less miopic.

>>21566866
>instead of with Ralph and democracy.
I sympathised with Ralph. Jack was a bastard and a nigger who weaponised the group fears and translated this to Power , literally hypnotising them behaving exactly like a fearful fucking psycho that he was.

But I dont think Ralph and Piggy and the Conch were "democracy".
Didnt the Roman Senate work in this way?

>>21567052
Roman senate where largely powerful aristocratic families. that eventually develops some higher plebs.

Counch was democratic, but I think it was generally about placing the principle above that of more immediate wants.

>>21566977
>Ralph coerced people, positive coercion instead of negative coercion
look at you trying to equate Ralph to Jack. Ralph appealed to peoples rationality and humanity. That isn't coercion, coercion is always NEGATIVE, through the use of threats, fear (as in Jack's promoting the belief in a Monster and Lord of Flies).
Jack initially hunted for the group (the first couple hunts he freely shared), only later did he start to use it as a bargaining chip.
I don't deny that hierarchical systems like Jack's have things to offer, just that they're based on psychopathy. Even ancient patriarchal aristocracies made concessions to the peasants/slaves to keep them inline and from rebelling.

>>21566985
>Athens in specific was patriarchal
Sparta is the epitome of patriarchal aristocracies. Sparta often came to the aid of the patriarchal/aristocratic faction of Athens to put down democratic revolts.
The whole time period is heavily patriarchal, so even when democratic uprisings took place (as in Athens and elsewhere) you'd still see lingering traces of patriarchal behavior.
A good idea to get a grasp on matriarchal/democratic forms of culture is seeing who does and who doesn't get to vote, it's a spectrum. When all men can vote but still no women can, then you're midway between aristocracies and democracy. When all men and all women can vote, then you're on the far democratic end of the spectrum. (This is why matriarchy is linked to democracy, because only democracies have historically extended the vote to masses, including women)

>>21567029
Spengler also said that when a nation starts going on warrior expansions of territory, a country was on the decline. Which would be Jack and his gang (and it was his destruction of the island by fire that eventually brought the rescue team of adults).
Ralph and Piggy started the "first civilization" (lower case "c") by building huts and introducing Fire and a democratic form of gov't (the Conch shell and voting system). This is the equivalent of the Golden Age of Saturn.
Saturnian cultures aren't war-like, which is why they invariably get conquered by the Jack types. This doesn't make Saturnian cultures "wrong", yes it makes them weaker in contests of physical power, but not "wrong". Jack is still wrong and a psychopath.

>>21567050
>many of them resisted, many didn't.
i know, the ones that didn't resist from the get go were the entire "military school choir" of fallen angels/demons that followed Jack, his hunting crew. Ralph got the "weak" ones, the little children, the undesirables (like Piggy) and everyone else that wasn't part of the military school choirboys. This is why i said earlier in the thread that Ralph+Piggy represented a matriarchy, they were weaker (i.e. more feminine by dint of being less warrior/hunter-like) but still allowed everyone a say, even the littlest of the children.
>idk why you are delegitimizing violence and coercion as incentives
because i'm not a psychopath. The fact that you are is unsettling. Ralph absolutely refused to give in to the psychopathy of Jack, and was very nearly killed for it. Just because he refused to give in or validate psycho behavior doesn't make him weaker or wrong, it takes a deep reservoir or inner strength to stand up for what is right in the face of psychopathic terror tactics.

>>21567137
>That isn't coercion, coercion is always NEGATIVE
no, coercion is incentive. Both are giving incentives to stay with them, but one is more compelling ultimately.
>Sparta is the epitome of patriarchal aristocracies
OK. Werent people rather aghast at the power women held in spartan Politics in specific? With wealthy women often controlling massive amounts of land by how inheritance laws worked and women generally having much higher status then other helenic peoples? They specifically framed themselves as "not (ethnically) greek" (Having a slave population of native helots they mercilessly oppressed). IDK where your narrative came from there. If anything, it paints the opposite picture with Athenian demcracy being much more antithetical to women. But I wouldnt make that some universal analog.

If anything, that example is a sort of Deemphasizes the patriarchal element in a highly aristocratic society.

>>21567052
>didn't the Roman Senate work this way?
i implore people to read Giambattista Vico's "New Science", he goes into great detail to explain how Rome started and how democratic ideals were birthed out of the aristocratic Senate.
Rome has a LONG history, so simply pointing "to Rome" is misleading, it really depends on what time period you're talking about.
From the beginning of Rome, it was absolutely aristocratic and anti-democratic. The elite treated the peasants like slaves. Over the centuries, as the peasant class grew larger and more uppity (the history of Rome is replete with examples of lower class uprising against the tyranny of the aristocracy) the Roman Senate gave concessions to the peasant class, allowing them limited power, but always ultimately giving the ultimate authority to the aristocracy.
This isn't unique to Rome either, happened in Greece (and probably many other places). Even Aristotle is quoted in his books (i think it was in "Politics") as saying that the sole goal of the greek aristocrats was to keep the peasant class under their thumb. Sparta (the epitome of Greek elitism) used to have periodic slayings of their peasant class (they called them "helots"), for no other reason than to keep the fear alive. Pure psychopathy.

>>21567199
>no, coercion is incentive
i'm getting a little tired of you not understanding the definition of words. First "violence", now "coercion". So here's the ACTUAL definition of coercion.
>Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
By the *actual* definition of coercion, Ralph wasn't using coercion, only Jack was.
get a dictionary please.

>>21552313
Should we execute you and the rest of the faggot incels on this board? You don’t really contribute anything except mass shootings because you couldn’t get pussy

>>21567199
>the power women held in Sparta
you're conflating females of the aristocracy with "females in general". The fact that Sparta had an underclass, a caste system, is indicative that it's patriarchal and not matriarchal. Aristocratic and not democratic.

>>21567192
>because i'm not a psychopath
You literally have to label something a psychological disorder to understand it.
>I want thing
>I get thing
its not some eldritch psychosis. Its just particular priorities. I think you are huffing abstractions. I find it unsettling that you cannot conceive of common motivations. THat these things are along spectrums rather then binaries.
Its a simple case of tragedy of the commons in terms of mindset, or competing for a neche.
>just because he refused to give in or validate psycho behavior doesn't make him weaker or wrong
Wrong? of course not, I wasn't making a moral judgements. Weaker? in a general sense, because he was ousted, yes.

>>21560723
>*nglish lolcow attempt to act tough
sorry sir but i cannot take you seriously

>>21567264
its obvious that you equate "being weaker" with "being wrong".
>if Ralph had been more like Jack, he wouldn't have been ousted, and i can't support someone that allows themselves to be ousted.
You're missing the entire point of the book if you start trying to rationalize and justify Jack's behavior.
>oh, he just had different priorities, that's all.
>Jack wanted a thing.
>Jack got a thing.
>he wasn't psychotic, just different particular priorities.
i think you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, sympathizing with your captors. Or else you're actually invested in the hierarchical system of the elites.

>>21567235
Bruh, you are dealing with backwards logic now. If you define Matriarchal as castless (which you should logically call anarchic or democratic then as its essential nature) and patriarchal as class based (then you should call aristocratic as its essential nature) Your terminology is fucked. A patriarchy should be defined, by etymology, as rule by men (patr), and vis versa for matriarchy and women (matr). if there are -arch women as a constant core feature with effective ruling power in an aristocracy, its no longer patriarchal by definition.

>>21567292
>if you define matriarchal as casteless
i do. Only aristocracies have caste systems.

>matriarchies are anarchic or democratic
democratic sure, not sure where you're getting "anarchic" from. Even Ralph and his group had a voting system, therefore it wasn't anarchic.
Though from the viewpoint of the rigidly ordered form of gov't that Jack ruled over, i suppose Ralph and his crew looked more "chaotic and anarchic".
>omg the children are just running around playing on the beach! IT'S CHAOS!
>we need to get them in line and marching in straight lines and making weapons and working!
>life isn't about playing until the rescue ship arrives, it's about working and amassing wealth and power

>>21567283
>its obvious that you equate "being weaker" with "being wrong".
no, I just separate is from aught in a humeian (empirical) sort way. Its you that assume that's the only way to think. I DO personally think that Ralph was aesthetically more appealing in his virtues, but I also admit there are different criteria of assessment. I can respect Jacks Will to power, while acknowledging the tragedy that pursuit of power entails.

I am sorry that I live by the concept that nothing Human is alien to me. And I actively try to sympathies with people broadly rather than it solely being my way or the highway conceptually. I think there is a degree of legitimacy in everything, and Ive lived long enough to realize that something that seems so right, can be seen in a whole other way from a different perspective, so I give people the benefit of the doubt instead of labeling them as wrongthinkers. I can oppose someone without having to assume they are fundamentally, universally wrong. They probably have reasons, but that doesnt mean I have to give equal parity to theirs as to mine. And coming from a more causal point of view, acts of gain to other's loss seems like a broadly common thing that you write off as psychopathic, but I can see as just first order thinking. "This is thing I want, I'm ok with doing this to get it.". At a certain point that does tip over into a complex, but that's a thing of degrees rather than kinds.


Maybe attempt to touch grass.

>>21567071
>Counch was democratic, but I think it was generally about placing the principle above that of more immediate wants.

The Conch is the Curia, everyone gets to speak, not to lead.

Ralph is the Consul.

The Children are Patrician's .

>>21567334
>anarchic
termonological dispute. anarchic often is used to mean "without a specific sort of leader" or "least leadership as possible", dont mind not using.
>i do.
thats the problem. when your words dont match your meaning, so that your meanings and implications get messed up (I struggle with this too)

>>21567406
>i can respect Jack's will to power
as i said earlier, you can disagree with the author's viewpoint, but you can't disagree that the author viewed Jack's "will to power" as wrong.
The book is pretty clear that Jack was in the wrong. All you're doing in this thread is trying to disagree with the author (which you're allowed to of course, just as i'm allowed to agree with the author that Jack and "will to power" is just a nicer way of saying "will to psychopathy")

>>21566977
kek, you cant tell coercion from persuasion.

>>21567412
the Romans didn't start out with having tribunes of the plebs. initially it was only the "Fathers" (patricians: thus "patriarchal").
The Conch is democratic, everyone on the island had voting power and a voice if they wanted.
It's important to remember that it was Roger, Jack's henchman, that destroyed the Conch, thus denying others the right to a political voice and relegating it to Jack's hunter choirboy military elite.

>>21559456
I never said patriarchies are better. I'm saying there's only patriarchies. "Matriarchies" are a fairy tale. They are non existent. They are antithetical to human existence. All the societies that had their women fight the wars died out. There's a good reason why every single species has the gender that gets pregnant act more cautiously and the gender that doesn't get pregnant be more aggressive. There's a reason why out of the thousands of civilizations spanning thousands of years, you can't name me one (1) matriarchy

>>21567213
>i implore people to read Giambattista Vico's "New Science",
I started it a while ago, I should finish it.

>>21567471
>there's only patriarchies, matriarchies are a fairy tale.
>all the societies that had their women fight the wars died out
>only women fight in matriarchies
lol, dude, you don't know the definitions of words so why am i not surprised you don't know a thing about what matriarchies are.
A DEMOCRACY IS A MATRIARCHY. The West is matriarchal, or at least leans heavy in that direction. It gives political power to not just the elite men with lands and titles, but to all men, even blacks, hispanics, gays, women, it ended slavery for the same reason. (The Antebellum South was aristocratic.) Though the US gov't is an attempt to balance the two factions, the peasant underclass and the psychopathic elite, just as Rome tried.
the Golden Age of Saturn refers to the time before the warrior Jupiter cults arrived on the scene, a time when hierarchies and wars didn't exist, but people were just "playing on the beach".
Just because we live in a time when Jupiter cult still exists (and has been the norm for most of recorded history) and wants to re-enslave the "chaotic" children on the beach, doesn't mean that matriarchies are a fairy tale. Matriarchies are harder to maintain because of the perpetual threat of the psychopaths that view them as easy prey.
>antithetical to human existence
>human existence is about marching in straight lines, having hierarchies and caste systems, with warrior elites at the top and peaceful peasants at the bottom
>human existence isn't about playing on the beach, like Ralph and his crew. Human existence is about "playing at war" and enforcing completely made up rules by terrorizing others, and worshiping a made up Death god by offering him human and animal sacrifice

>>21567223
But Jack used both. the carrot and the stick.

Maybe I should have said coercion is a type of incentive. I think I was getting ahead of myself there. I think I was talking in the sense of epicureanism. TO get people to do what you want, you must make the alternative less appealing. this can be done by giving benefits to doing the thing, and/or from inflicting penalties if not. However, the retention of benefits can in itself be a violence and the the retention of reprisals be a reward.

If you dont do x you wont get y is an ultimatum in itself. If you view something as a positive right, the stopping of the thing being given to you is a violation (of the same route term as violence) or threat.

Maybe I was getting a bit theoretical.

>>21565559
I'm sure you would like to know ;)

>>21567529
You are the one who cant even look at the vary word and see that it is fundamentally incorrect. your definition of matriachy doesnt even involve matriarchs.
>antithetical to human existence
if that was true none of your "patriarchies" would exist. Since they were all made by humans. You have to create mythical psychopaths (that aren't human for some reason btw, but wronghuman) to justify this obvious falsehood.

>>21567518
pay attention to everything he says about the aristocracy, and how they treated the peasant classes (early on, very harshly, but easing up over time *only* due to the peasant rebellions). He even quotes Aristotle, who noted the same thing about aristocracy.
Vico's work can be combined with Spengler and other historians to form a deeper understanding. So for Spengler (mentioning him since he's so popular on this board) it's important to remember that he has a distinct pro-Culture/Aristocracy bias.
So the aristocracy would be Spengler's "Culture", warrior people who set up caste systems over people they conquered (an important point, they ALWAYS conquer a people and rule over them as their "betters")
Spengler's Civilization (capital "C") is the end of "Cultures" because it is inevitable that the peasant class acquires more political power over time. The rules the aristocracy set in place to maintain THEIR OWN power gets replaced by much more lax rules.
But just because these (Spenglerian) Cultures tend to collapse under the late-stage democratic/matriarchal rule doesn't mean that "democracy bad, warrior elite good", it just means they got conquered by a people that are still warriors.
But as author of Lord of the Flies points out, there's no reason to have warriors on an island with no threats. Democracies wouldn't "collapse" except for the fact that warrior cultures exist in the world, waiting like wolves for their chance to sneak into the sheep pasture. In Spengler's "Man and Technics" he seems to be sympathetic to democratic forms of gov't while acknowledging the inevitable downfall of such, hence his advice to young people to focus on learning math and engineering (which are warrior culture interests) instead of art and music and humanities (which are matriarchal-democratic interests). Spengler would probably join Jack out of fear of Jack. Then there's people like Evola who would join Jack from the get-go, as one of his choirboy hunters.

>>21567541
>Jack used the stick
and that is literally all that matters. If you're using the stick for any reason, you're NOT in the right.
>coercion is a type of incentive
>"Hey kids, i won't torture you anymore if you follow my arbitrary rules that benefit me more than they benefit you".
>incentive
lol, can you please just stop talking. Offering people their "life" is coercion. Jack literally tortured some of the children that initially were grouped with Ralph. (well, i think technically it was Roger who did the torturing, but on Jack's orders)

>>21567575
>your definition of matriarchy doesn't even involve matriarchs
Women were not allowed to vote in patriarchies. In democracies, they are allowed.
Just because a male is a leader of a matriarchy, doesn't mean it's a patriarchy. It's about who is allowed a vote, not about what gender the leader is.

>>21567629
>it's about who is allowed a vote, not about what gender the leader is.
Ok then it should be called a matripatrinegreohisanohomoarchy (add every other denomination that can vote too which I didnt for brevity). The operative element here is not Mother leadership. A less farcicle one would be omniarchy.

>>21567653
you have a sick obsession with trying to redefine words.
>violence isn't violence. Ralph was just as violent as Jack
>coercion isn't coercion. Jack was just offering "incentives" to the other kids, not coercing them.
>Democracies aren't an example of a matriarchy, just because ONLY in matriarchies are women en masse allowed to have a say in politics, that doesn't mean there's a connection between matriarchy and democracy.
i dunno what else to tell you. You're wrong though. Here's a link that may (though i doubt it) help you understand this.

>Saturn represents loneliness, traveler in the dark, with no support. That is the reason he represents the masses because masses have no authority and are powerless. Saturn denotes population as it has maximum number of moons – 53 in total. Therefore, even though he is least powerful in authority, yet he is the King Maker, as people vote for their leaders. Everything depends on the people, who produce the goods and services consumed by all. Saturn is hidden foundation of the society (representing the steel) without which the building cannot stand even for a moment.
>Saturn rules over the masses which is predominantly the nature of a politician. Saturn favors Democracy. Democracy is a government,
which is formed by the people, for the people and of the people. Strongly placed Saturn gives the determination and tenacity to face the challenges and win against the odds. Saturn represents a sense of responsibility, upliftment of the downtrodden, duty towards the people
and selfless dedication to the government
i.e. Saturn is Democracy. Saturn (despite being a male deity) is often linked to matriarchy through his wife, Rhea. But the important thing is that only in democracies do women (as a group) have any political power. Other groups have power too in democracies, but women is the key factor since they're always the last to acquire any power (even black men got the right to vote before white women)

>>21567614
but you are assuming they have any reason not to do those things. I am saying coming from a point of no givens.
>coercion is a type of incentive
yes, is this wrong? You seem incapable of actually considering the actual core concept here. A reckoning for steeping over ralphs and piggies goals is the lawless savagery of Jack. It seemed unfortunately that that stick did not hold.
Maybe my words are useless against people who dont even want to attempt a nuanced dissection.

>>21567718
oops, forgot to link the article, apologies:
https://www.worldwidejournals.com/international-journal-of-scientific-research-(IJSR)/recent_issues_pdf/2020/December/role-of-saturn-in-politics_December_2020_0865770341_9532520.pdf

i notice that some of the green text got messed up.
>which is formed by the people, for the people and of the people. Strongly placed Saturn gives the determination and tenacity to face the challenges and win against the odds. Saturn represents a sense of responsibility, upliftment of the downtrodden, duty towards the people and selfless dedication to the government

>>21567723
>coercion is a type of incentive
>is this wrong?
yes, it's wrong.
Threatening someone with torture or death if they don't follow your orders is not "an incentive". It's coercion. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET A DICTIONARY

>>21567723
is English your native language? i'm having a hard time understanding your writing at times and getting strong vibes that English isn't your mother tongue

>>21567718
You have a sick obsession of not even considering if words are appropriate and meaningful.

You are using A specific descriptive tool as a prescriptive definition which is stupendously backwards. You are quoting some mystical passage and saying you HAVE to take this as literal.
Im not saying Matriarchies cant be democratic, they definetly can be by definition, but they are not necissarily one in the same. Early Matriarchies might have in general had democratic elements, thats past my point, its that they describe specific, discrete elements in a society. Demo- people Matri- Women/mother.

>violence isn't violence. Ralph was just as violent as Jack
I never said this, and I made NO attempt at parity whatsoever
>coercion isn't coercion. Jack was just offering "incentives" to the other kids, not coercing them.
I never said that either, my intent was to say coercion is a sort of incentive.

Maybe read some actual political philosophy like Leviathan, Das Kapital, etc. Seems like we are talking past each other.

Im sorry for trying to get at the meaning of things instead of sticking things in insipid, unholistic categories.

>>21567728
>an incentive
it is
>a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.
from "incantare"- to charm, a rhetorical motivator, by ethos, pathos, or logos.

>>21567763
>you have a sick obsession of not even considering if words are appropriate and meaningful
says the guy that doesn't even understand the definitions of "violence" and "coercion". So of course you don't understand the definition of "democracy" or "patriarchy" or anything else.

>i'm not saying matriarchies can't be democratic
just a few minutes ago you were saying matriarchies were fairy tales that never have and never will exist. Now you're moving the goal post and saying that matriarchies can be democratic lol.
>demo - people
>matri - women/mother
and only in DEMOcracies were women allowed *any* say in politics. This is why democracies can be considered matriarchal (even though men have a say too). I get your point that a more "inclusive" word could work just as well, but let's work with the words that are in usage as of right now instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. okay?

>i never said this.
well someone did. >>21566718
>I'm saying violence is a method of advancement
>i'd say violence is usually just the accusation of any motive force you take umbrage with
>refusing imports is a violence
>having an incentive is a violence
>a more effective methods towards a goal is a violence
>anything that moves you towards a direction is a violence
you or whomever said this is trying to redefine the definition of "violence".
the *actual* definition of "violence" is the use of physical force. Coercion is the threat of physical force.
Simply "moving in a direction" is not violence, unless you're killing people while you're "moving". Simply "disagreeing with someone else" is not violence, unless you're using physical force while disagreeing with them.

Words have meanings, these meanings can be found in a dictionary, so go buy one.

>>21567785
you can play your little word games all you like, you're not going to convince me that "war is peace" and "ignorance is strength" and all the rest of your newspeak crap.

the best you're going to get out of me is that when Jack tried using the offer of fresh meat to Ralph's crew in an attempt to sway them to his side (which partially worked) that this was an example of "persuasion" and "incentive". He offered something beneficial with no threat of violence. (granted, his offer was a trap, as he immediately started torturing those boys for not following his rules, but let's just ignore that part for now)
But threatening to kill or hurt people if they don't follow your orders is not "persuasion", hence why people in the past invented the word "coercion" to distinguish it from "persuasion".

>>21567838
>saying matriarchies were fairy tales
that wasnt me.

>and only in DEMOcracies were women allowed *any* say in politics. This is why democracies can be considered matriarchal (even though men have a say too).
>get your point that a more "inclusive" word could work just as well, but let's work with the words that are in usage as of right now instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
no anon, thats not how this works. people dont say "oh yah, Democratic liberalism is matriarchical", ive never heard of matriarchy being used synonymously with democratic. Ive heard it describe hierarchies (archy) lead by women (matri). Did you maybe get it confused with matrilineal societies like some native American ones that some consider more conducive to democratic models? Even then I havent heard it being used as synonymous.

yes I did say
>>21566718 (You)
Because violence is a negatively held method of enforcing power. so its essentially about how you frame it. IM pretty sure this is the academically held meaning of the term when it comes to sociology. Like when they say "this has done violence to the black community" they could mean a negative policy, and not necessarily an act of physical aggression (although that would be included).
Also, the real umbrage I took was in the
>JUST as violent as Jack
part. No Jack DEFINETLY did more negatively held enforcement.

>>21567904
>ive never heard of matriarchy being used synonymously with democratic.
well i have. So dunno what to tell you, read more books, or read the same books i have? lol, i know that's not a great answer but i didn't just make this up.
conversely though, i've never heard of any hier-archy where ONLY women are in charge (in your usage of the term 'matri'archy'). Hierarchical societies tend to be completely male dominated, with females being an exception to the rule if even that.

though it's interesting that hierarchy is derived from "hier", as in "priest", which many historians (Vico, Algernon Herbert, come to mind readily, i'm sure there's others) have noted how in the rise of the Age of Jupiter (i.e. the beginnings of recorded human history) it was Warrior Priests that ruled nations. From Babylon and beyond, to Phoenicia, Greece and Rome, the rulers were men, warriors, who also had the sole charge of the priestly traditions. Sure, the peasants prayed and believed in these religions too, but they absolutely had no duties or offices in them. Just some food for your thought :)
(and in case my point isn't clear, caste systems, i.e. hierarchies, only started with the arrival of the warrior-priest cult-ures. A phenomenon mimicked in "Lord of the Flies", where the warriors, Jack's hunters, also started the first religion on the island, thus becoming the first "priests")

>>21567529
>you don't know the definitions of words
Read
>>21558451

Feminists always move the goal post. You're saying that the definition of matriarchy is not matriarchy. It's "what we say is matriarchy. Which is always good". You're a retard dude. The word democracy is already a thing. You're pulling shit out of your ass. Fuck off with your fag shithn2knr

>>21566741
This was filmed in 2002, fook.......

>>21568004
>what we say is matriarchy. Which is always good"
i view it as good, though i said earlier that you're allowed to disagree. (just not allowed to disagree with the fact that the author of Lord of the Flies views democracy as better than military aristocracies)

but even if you refuse to acknowledge the link between matriarchy and democracy, there's always the stories about the Amazonian tribes (not Amazon as in Brazil indians, but Amazonian as in Greek myths/histories, warrior women, women led tribes). That alone is evidence that these aren't "fairy tales", though the way i was using matriarchy was more in the sense that Algernon Herbert used it in his 4volume "Nimrod" books, where he talks about two types of societies, the Nimrodian (hunter/warrior-priests) and the Semiramian (though this one is much harder to explain to someone that hasn't read the books, since it's not something you can just "verify" by looking on wikipedia lol).

Perhaps an easier way to explain would be to refer to how people always talk about "the East" and "the West" as if they're two opposite factions that have existed since time immemorial. Spengler even talks a lot in these terms (though he uses terminology like Faustian to describe the West, "the Infinite" that arose out of the Christian ideal. Cathedrals being built with sky high ceilings to symbolize the Infinite, stained glass windows to symbolize how light travels through the infinite space. Christ's ideal that the divine spark is within EVERYONE--demo-- not just the elite aristocrats that have the divine spark, not just the elite who can claim descent from Olympian deities, but Christ who taught that even slaves and the lowest peasant had "claim" to the divine within themselves, thus beginning the rise of Democracy. It's why initially only slaves, women and the lower classes joined the Christian faith, and why Christmas was celebrated at Saturnalia, because Saturn is the 'god of democracy'). Nietzsche talks about the Apollonian (aristocratic) and the Dionysian (the democratic peasant classes). Vico uses aristocratic and plebeian terminology. They're all in general talking about the same thing, just using different ways of saying it.

also i still disagree that "feminism" (in the modern day usage of the term) is what i'm talking about. If i recall, i think even feminists use a term called "third wave feminism" to describe this virulent "Amazonian" form of it. Whereas the original feminists just wanted the right to vote and to be equal (politically speaking) with men. So, no, there is no goalpost moving here.
Your idea of democracy seems to be more one where "only men can vote, but men regardless of economic status or family lineage"

>>21568099
[con't]
to return to the dichotomy of "East vs West", the West and liberalism have been more democratic, extending the vote to everyone. The East has been more patriarchal and militaristic, and democracies rarely flourish there. Russia, China, even further west like Muslim countries, have always been male dominated. Whereas Christianity has acted as a "feminizing" influence, as Nietzsche noted: a "slave's religion", eventually leading to full-blown democracies where peasants had more or equal power to the aristocratic/patriarchal elite.

i just googled "what does the Conch represent in lord of the flies" and see a ton of articles that say the Conch represents democracy.

so that at least confirms that theory :)

>>21568099
The fact that you have to resort to myths, is evidence I'm right. You have dozens of thousands of civilizations: Cambodia in 1700s, the mongols, the mau mau tribe of Africa, the Cherokee, Poland in 1976. And you have to resort to myths. And I like how you said "there's always the stories... That alone is evidence these aren't 'fairy tales'" aka stories. You didn't even process what you're saying. Matriarchies are fairy tales. Stories are fairy tales.

You have no evidence that your idea of a matriarchy would be better than anything.

You're moving the goal post more than any feminist if your definition of matriarchy is that amorphous and undefined as you wrote in your third paragraph.

And you're wilfully ignorant if you pretend you're unaware of the connotation matriarchy has in our day

>>21568219
>the fact you have to resort to myths
um... i'm actually embarrassed for you now, anon. Myths are heavily influenced by historical events. Often pre-historical events i should say.
Not to veer too far off-topic, but Tolkien is a famous example of someone who interpreted myths as historical/semi-historical, and not to discount them out of hand like you're doing. He's not alone in this belief.

A good intro into this subject is to study comparative mythology (yes, that's an actual field of study that has solid results). Historians and students of myths have long noted the similarity between the various myths of the ancient world, from India to Spain, Egypt to Norway, and everything in between (some even go further, to China, Japan and even the Americas with the Aztecs and Mayans etc). This is also tied into the study of languages, specifically the Indo-European language but not solely that. Aryans (what Algernon Herbert would term a "Nimrodian culture") were a classic example of a patriarchal warrior cult-ure, conquering vast swathes of land (Vedic India, northern-northwestern China, Russian steppes, Europe, and even down into Mesopotamia, Levant and Egypt), spreading their religion and style of government along the way.
This contrasted with the Semiramian style, which is more democratic, maritime, merchants and artists as opposed to warriors and priests.

>you have no evidence that your idea of a matriarchy would be better than anything
eh, i sorta do that. I'd much rather live in the US than in say, Russia or China, or North Korea. Places where military service is mandated, places where intolerance toward any outgroups is heavily enforced and encouraged. (but then again, i was raised in a Christian environment, western christian, not the eastern Nimrodian version of "christianity"), and so have been raised from birth to be more democratic. Though it's common knowledge that the East (i.e. patriarchal cultures) view the West as feminine and weak.

>>21568301
Robert Graves and Joseph Campbell are other excellent examples, besides Tolkien, who ascribe to the view that myths are a type of "symbolic history". Graves, in his "Greek Myths" as well as "White Goddess" talks in great lengths about the matriarchal culture that existed prior to the Doric/Aryan invasions of Greece.

By discounting myths as "worthless" you're just showing that you haven't read anything on the subject AT ALL.

>>21568219
meant to link >>21568313 to your post>>21568219

>>21568301
You are actively trying to ignore my point. But let's continue with your logic. Are there myths about angels and giants and witches and gods? Yes. Have we found any instances of angels and giants and witches and gods in reality? No. Are there myths about "matriarchal" societies. You say yes. Have we observed a single case of matriarchal societies. No. Because they are as fictitious as angels and giants and witches and gods.

Now I want you to read and re read your third paragraph and tell me that your definition of matriarchal is not moving the goal post. Please read what you just wrote and tell me that your definition of matriarchy is not just " what I say is matriarchy, and I get to decide and it is always good." Earth to anon, you're moving the goal post

>>21568377
>you are actively trying to ignore my point
from your point of view maybe. From my point of view you're actively trying to ignore my point. Welcome to "having a discussion".

>have we found any instances of angels and giants and witches and gods in reality? No.
what part of "symbolic history" is confusing you? And besides, you're still wrong. People often called Germanic/Aryan blooded people 'giants' in modern times, due to their tall stature. The Inquisition, a modern historical event, actually believed they were burning witches (yes yes, i know you're going to debate about whether they were actually witches or not, but that's not what you asked, you asked if there were historical instances and documentation of witches, which there has been). Ancient kings, even some well-known Roman emperors, often called themselves "gods" and had people worship them, creating entire priesthoods out of thin air to officiate their rituals. In Egypt, Babylonia, and elsewhere it was the norm.

You straight up haven't studied this subject that you feel so strongly about.