Hacker News Reader

Comment by travisgriggs | Hacker News Reader

Being associated and aware of a number of faith communities like this, I think you’re guess is upside down. When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”).

View on HN

> When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”).

That's just another way of saying the same thing. In societies where non-childbearing-women are not valued, of _course_ having children increases your place in society.

Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class.

Another way to phrase it is "when having a lot of kids is high-status, more women want to have a lot of kids." Also applies to men tbh.

> Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class.

No, that's literally what patriarchy means, that the ruling class is men.

When the ruling class is women, that's called matriarchy.

When the ruling class doesn't favor either, it's neither.

My point is that under a patriarchy, or any system of rule, people still have the ability to make choices. It's just that most/all of those are set up so that the only logical choice to make will benefit and reinforce the system of rule.

So "X is not in the ruling class and X made a choice to improve their life" does _not_ suggest that a system of rule is not in place.

Is there an Amish ruling class?

The idea is that the "ruling class" in a patriarchy is men.

Does having more children benefit Amish men but not benefit Amish women?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com