Of course, these advantages cannot hide the strong feminist color of the article as a whole. The main problem lies in strictly separating "productive forces" from "combat effectiveness", fabricating a so-called "Marxist" conclusion that "male power comes from men's great contribution to productive forces", and then demonstrating that "male power has no basis for productive forces, but is just a solidification of shameless violence".
At the beginning of the article, the author summed up the conclusion that "the advantage of males lies not in production, but in fighting". This phenomenon does exist, and it is also a universal law in the mammalian world. A typical example is the African lion population: females undertake production (hunting) tasks and males undertake combat tasks.
This behavior pattern is common in most social mammals, and humans are no exception. Male individuals not only have the advantages of physical fighting capacity, but also have developed the advantages of behavior mode and organization mode in the long evolution, and civilized society has formed a complete patriarchal culture system, so the author's assertion that "male advantage is not farming but grabbing land" is basically correct.
Unfortunately, due to the defects of knowledge structure and world outlook, the author failed to establish a scientific picture of the operation of gender mechanism in human society from this correct conclusion, which led to a series of biased words.
I don't have time to prove or falsify some examples listed in the middle of the article, so I won't comment for the time being. Of course, what the author wants to express is nothing more than "in the agricultural society, women's contribution to production has been underestimated and neglected for a long time", which is not only recognized by me personally, but also never ignored by serious researchers.
Note: The academic circles have systematically discussed the division of labor mode of "men are the masters outside and women are the masters inside" in the natural economy and the economic significance of the role of "housewife" in the industrial economy. There are also many literatures about the measurement of women's labor value in feminist economics and family economics (I happened to read dozens of articles in the previous two years). The core method is based on cardinal utility theory, and external income and family are calculated by utility function. As for the conclusion that the author wants to imply that "even in the agricultural age, women are more productive", I don't think it is necessary to analyze this conclusion.
At the end of the article, the slogan shouted by the author has the common subjective color of network economics and sociology, and its reckless value judgment seriously weakens the reliability of the previous analysis discourse. The level of the whole article is far lower than that of the theoretical framework of "fighting feminism" in North America in the 1970s.
This kind of articles don't need to spend too much energy on academic analysis and interpretation, and can skip complex concepts and thematic issues and directly analyze the problems and contradictions in the author's articles.
First of all, the word "productivity" can't be narrowly understood as "material output capacity"-just as men's monetary income can't be counted as economic contribution, and housewives' labor can't be ignored. The so-called "productivity" advantage of male human beings in agricultural society is not only reflected in the labor force of arable land, harvesting and land reclamation, but first reflected in the ability to provide "normal production process" itself.
The author realizes that the superiority of male creatures' fighting capacity gives them the ability to "grab territory", and it is this ability that gives them a dominant position. This understanding is correct, but later his views deviated from the framework of this correct understanding.
The author also tries to explain the condition that "in agricultural society, men have the advantage of fighting capacity to grab land, but women don't" and the fact that "women also have a considerable level of working ability and have made great contributions in history", thus deriving an absurd picture, that is, the essence of a patriarchal society is the advantage of male groups suppressing productivity through fighting capacity. ) female groups, thus occupying the fruits of women's labor and forming gender oppression-although this phenomenon exists objectively within a certain range, it is obviously not the real structure of the patriarchal society, let alone the cause of the patriarchal culture.
This argument obviously presupposes the existence of "natural opposition" between the two sexes, and it is a causal cycle argument. With a world view constructed by a mature patriarchal society, the author imagines a situation in the early stage of the development of human society, in which industrious and intelligent women are engaged in agricultural production, while lazy and cruel men enjoy success (I did see such a scene in Li District of Hainan Island, but this is obviously not the normal state of agricultural society), and tries to oppose the two concepts of combat effectiveness and productivity-as if human men are really lions who are only responsible for mating and fighting, and they have to lie down every day to receive the results of female hunting.
This view can be further analyzed from two aspects.
On the one hand, in the biological world, combat effectiveness and productivity are by no means antagonistic. The former is the foundation of the latter, and the latter plays a role in gaining and developing the former. In other words, it is impossible and unnecessary for living beings and groups to talk about productivity, and productive individuals, if organized, can completely reproduce their combat effectiveness. Especially in the agricultural society, the order and organization between individuals on which production activities depend are not naturally provided by the pre-agricultural society, but highly dependent on the provision of an authoritative existence, which is macroscopically manifested as the state power of the city-state and the local * * * isomorphic organization. More specifically, in the author's original words, it is to rely on male individuals and groups with the ability to "grab land" for protection.
In short, "providing order and organization" is a kind of productivity in itself, which guarantees specific production activities such as farming, textile, gathering and production. There is no world of isolated labor production without order guarantee (this law is more obvious in today's industrial society).
Providing such orders is based on personal combat effectiveness. Unless someone thinks that human beings have pure mental control and can control other human behaviors with only a few words without relying on any material backing, this premise must be recognized.
In addition, as one of the most prolific species in large mammals, the survival competition within the population naturally follows mathematical laws. The author himself realizes that individuals with strong fighting capacity can "grab territory", so why not further understand an obvious game theory result? That is, in order to ensure the production activities necessary for survival and protect the ownership of production materials and achievements, human individuals need the same level of "combat power" as potential competitors for their own use.
To sum up, it is not difficult to explain the origin of the patriarchal clan system in agricultural society-because there are individuals who can grab land, the scarcity of "combat power" of any community is definitely extremely high, and even indispensable. Therefore, in the long evolution, a culture and system of respecting men with strong fighting capacity has naturally formed.
In human history, there is no social system in which men as a whole exploit and oppress female workers. Individuals with strong fighting capacity or resources (which can also be interpreted as individuals with strong fighting capacity) are exploited and oppressed by all individuals with weak strength (both men and women). It is true that gender oppression has the elements of class oppression, and it is aimed at male chauvinism. In modern times, other exploitation and oppression are often targeted at the same time, which is also the reason why feminist movements and socialist movements often accompany each other.
However, the original author in the title naively believes that it is obviously a castle in the air to reconstruct the position of women in the production system and achieve the purpose of dispelling the social foundation of male chauvinism through deconstructing and criticizing this phenomenon of fighting superiority.
There is an interesting dialectics here: it is precisely because the author deconstructs this dimension of the patriarchal society and puts forward the view that men are "superior" by virtue of combat effectiveness, which just constructs a more powerful patriarchal cornerstone than the "male productivity advantage theory"; Because there is no objective evaluation system for the comparison of so-called productivity and intelligence, in other words, it is very difficult to argue which sex is superior on these indicators, but the difference in combat effectiveness between the two sexes is very obvious in the cold weapon era-the author himself agrees with this view.
So, what makes the author confident to proceed from this and carry out a whole set of deconstruction and attack on male power? It is not difficult to see between the lines of the original text that the author is a woman at least in her ideological role, and her worldview is the most common "rose worldview" among contemporary Bai Zuo and petty bourgeoisie. They not only denied the basic situation faced by human beings as living beings on the earth, but also denied the basic premise of human social organization, and denied the legitimacy of all struggles between survival and organization, material and spirit. They regard all laws in the sense of biology and sociology as violent words of male chauvinism, and think that there are transcendental rules and norms, inhuman arbitration and gentle shackles in the world. Human beings can survive and develop as long as they work hard within the prescribed framework.
It must be stated that I am not a male chauvinist.
As a materialist, I firmly believe in the existence of primary and secondary consciousness, so I don't believe that there is an absolute congenital gap between men and women except physical strength, and I don't think that the so-called defects of women's thinking are determined by genes and cannot be easily.
However, it has to be mentioned that the thinking embodied by the author in the original text is the traditional "female thinking"-in the words of "straight male cancer", it is called "sissy knowledge"-which is not buried in two X chromosomes, but bred from the state that male-dominated society has controlled and imprisoned women for thousands of years.
Because of the monopoly of male chauvinism on ideological education and political practice, women have no chance to learn and practice more metaphysical knowledge and wisdom, and can only work and survive within the scope stipulated by male chauvinism, thus forming this mode of thinking and further affecting their group behavior mode.
I used to hear from teachers and elders that girls had good grades before high school, but when they reached a higher education level, they would be very entangled. In fact, this statement describes that women are very competitive "under the established rules", but lack the ability to understand and apply the rules macroscopically. )
If this is the case, there is a subtle dialectics: the world outlook used by the author is just the shackles of a disadvantage brought to women by the patriarchal society, and the author tries to prove the advantages of women's constructive ability at the same time, but such a proof process reflects their inherent thinking disadvantages.
The revolution of the old system and the old culture should be based on a correct understanding and induction of the objective world, and practice and thinking based on practice should be used as weapons, instead of being divorced from reality, making subjective assumptions, venting anger and attacking, and shouting empty slogans.
It can be asserted that the future of the feminist movement will never be pinned on the sociological folk who talk behind closed doors, not to mention the so-called "feminist fighters" who keep saying that they are opposed to male oppression, but can't objectively understand the social roles of the world and the sexes and only know one-sided criticism.
Like the author, it is unwise to try to symbolize the historical role of men and then "criticize" the historical existence of men through value judgment in order to achieve the goal of feminist revolution, which is actually putting the cart before the horse, not only not conducive to propagating progressive views, but also falling into the feudal residual model.