Civilizational Conflict: An analysis using Game Theory

To fully understand the conflict between civilizations, it is necessary to understand how conflict occurs between the two groups.

To fully understand the conflict between civilizations, it is necessary to understand how conflict occurs between the two groups. When two or more groups exist in close spatial proximity to each other, a number of situations arise and a conflict over resources is bound to ensue. This raises important questions that we will attempt to answer by applying the construct of game theory.

First, a small detour to understand how transactions between individuals take place. Consider two individuals Aditya and Bahadur. Aditya promises Bahadur that he will monetarily recompense Bahadur for some service at the completion of the service. The following game arises:

If Bahadur completes the service, Aditya has two moves – he can choose to pay or not pay. If Bahadur is paid, he can attack or desist. If Bahadur desists, the game ends. If Bahadur attacks, Aditya must either be able to resist (by attacking with the same ferocity) or he loses the game. If Bahadur is not paid, he can attack or desist, attacking being the superior.

If Bahadur does not complete the service, he has two moves – Attack or desist, desisting ends the game. If he attacks, then Aditya must either attack or desist, attacking being the superior.

Now it is trivial to note that without violence or at least the threat of violence both are on the losing side. The take away from this exercise is that the threat of violence enforces all contracts and all transactions. All religious (and counter-religious) groups implicitly understand that without the threat of violence there is no way for humans to coexist in a group. Hindus provide a coherent method of cosmic retribution by means of Karma theory, wherein the past influences the present. Religious beliefs increase social cohesion, since uniformity of culture allows for uniformity of values. If Aditya and Bahadur had agreed implicitly (due to their uniform value system) that there is no need for violence and that payment should be immediately settled, they gain the most and their utilities are maximized. This should be obvious to us, but is not because of western propaganda as to the superiority of a diverse set of value systems, which Harvard scientists admit actually reduce social cohesion.

Without uniform value systems, the only real option would be to play defect reducing the joint utility to both players – i.e. both are worse off. Both playing defect results in the Nash Equilibrium of the game.

Now back to resource conflicts. In a finite physical area, there is a finite set of resources. Groups (and therefore civilizations) have multiple ways of computing their utility function. One variable of the function is the expanse of territory, another is the resource value of the territory, yet another is the military power and finally the demographic extent. These variables have trade-offs and are not truly independent.

For example, if there is a large number of one community (high demographic extent), it is more likely that their expanse of territory is also high. Similarly, if the expanse of territory is very large, the odds of owning territories with high resource value increases.

Civilizations are locked in conflict for hegemony. The main aim of any group, therefore, is to increase its utility and this can be achieved by achieving total domination over other groups by a variety of ways.

Let us for the time being assume a static demography, i.e. both groups are growing in size at the same rate.  In such a scenario, the only way to increase hegemonic influence is to increase the demographic extent, i.e. create ways to defect from one group to another. How does one create a utility for the defection?

Well, one can instantiate a Democracy [1] with Universal Adult Franchise. Policies are now guided by the “will of the people”. As the size of the defectors increase, the policies that appeal to both groups within the larger original group shift towards the defectors. In fact, minorities wield an excess amount of power by virtue of being the most intolerant. This reasoning is what makes the CIA fund Christian Missionaries in Bharata- by creating a group of defectors, who by virtue of being a minority will wield power in excess of their actual demography, the US government now controls the policies that are acceptable within Bharata’s Overton Window.

To really weaken a Democracy, you could make it a Secular Democracy, which is undoubtedly Christian in nature and inherits from a Christian framework, its rule of law. To use the Christian law to rule a nation of Hindus sounds perverse because of the incompatibility of the two value systems, but the legacy of the British still pervades the minds of our intellectual class.

Another way to attain domination is to spread ideological memes, which weaken societal cohesion. It is a well-established fact that the structure of the family causally inhibits crime. Bachelors are far more likely to commit crime than married men, mostly because of the way women influence their men within the family setting. Lord Indra in the Mahabharata speaks: “The domestic model of life is very superior and sacred and is called the field of cultivation of success…I therefore tell you to bear the very heavy burden of the duties of domesticity …Asceticism is to be obtained by leading a life of domesticity, upon which depends everything. Free from pride, those [observant of the duties of domesticity] attain heaven and live for unending time in the regions of Sakra.”

For the very same reason, the CIA funds feminism, the chief recipient of funding being the harridan Gloria Steinem, a childless octogenarian [Read “Career women are dysgenic]. The end goal of Western democracy and feminism in Bharata is the complete destruction of the family resulting in the complete destruction of the civilization.

Yet another way to increase hegemonic influence is by sheer usurping of resource rich territories. This is why China refuses to let go of the South China Sea. The mineral wealth of neighboring areas, the shipping route and the fishing grounds all motivate China to maintain hegemony over the area. China also forces its culture on the usurped land of Tibet by replacing their textbooks, replacing the style of homes and even uses drones to murder Tibetans attempting to leave. China does this with relative impunity, so it should immediately be obvious that the United Nations is a truly harmless entity and is most likely simply a tool to permeate western hegemony.

All of these things are only possible, when there is a threat of violence. When a group is assaulting another in any variety of these ways, it can only to do so, when it maintains military superiority.

One facet of military superiority is the demographic advantage. Now, it is true that demography rates are not equal in India and that Hindu Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is lower than Muslim TFR. Once the demography of a certain region increases beyond a limit, the less populous group loses the region. The same occurs very often in the West and goes by many names – white flight and in a slightly different manner gentrification. This is why Love Jihad is so important in the Indian context because it implies a weakening of demographic integrity. After all, women uphold civilizational values, while men create them. Or as our ancestors said it first – सा स्त्री या अनुविधायिनी। [2]. It follows from this that groups and therefore, civilizations are constantly locked in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The only smart move is to play defect.

Groups are at odds with each other on a number of different fronts, and the only way to emerge a winner is to be more intolerant to out-groups and to expand those that may be considered the in-group. This is why it is important for Hindus to assert their identity (Hindutva) and for us not to be cowed down by judgments from our secular (Christian) Judiciary or the demands of secular liberal media. It is incumbent on the Hindus to develop Hindu institutions to resist the anti-Hindu laws (temples, RTE) of India and develop into the magnificent civilization it once was.

A version of this article first appeared on the author’s blog.

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.


[1] Moldbug has a very good post which is a good red-pill on democracy. As for Universal Adult Franchise – The first version of democracy was probably Greek and only 18 year old males were allowed to vote. Women’s suffrage in America changed the size of the government and is directly responsible for the nanny state that is the US today.

[2] स स्निग्धो व्यसनान्निवारयति यस्तत्कर्म यन्निर्मलं। सा स्त्री यानुविधायिनी स मतिमान्यः सद्भिरभ्यर्च्यते। सा श्रीर्या न मदं करोति स सुखी यस्तृष्णया नोह्यते तन्मित्रं यदयन्त्रणं स पुरुषो यः खिद्यते नापदि॥ [12.17]

He is a friend, who saves one from trouble. That is an action, which is unsullied. She is a woman, who conforms. He is wise, who is revered by the good. That is wealth, which does not make one arrogant. He is happy, who is not tormented by desire. He is a friend, who does not scheme. He is a man, who is not disheartened by adversity. [From the Panchatantra]'
Hindu monarchist interested in philosophy, ritual and reason.
  • Some questions.

    1.If Bahadur completes the service, and Aditya does not pay, Aditya wins.
    2. If B completes, and A pays, its a draw.
    3. If B does not complete, A pays … now this gets complicated. Is the payment before or after the completion ? So we need a contract with rules of the game.
    4. If B does not complete, and A does not Pay, its a draw.

    There are statements like “If Aditya pays, Bahadur can choose to attack or desist “. What is the advantage to Bahadur here ? Cheating is defined as a win, and getting screwed defined as lose. After that stage, there is a follow-up stage of attack or desist, whether or not one party cheated. Why that follow-up stage ?

    All this flies in the face of the accepted theory of Karma – No matter what you do, you will eventually get it back.

    Once an approach is decided upon, Internet(link) is wonderful (link). You can prove anything (link) you want.

    LIfe-long career as successful women, yet a great balance between family and work (link), kids doing well, and they need to know their disorder – dysgenic families ?!

    We have worshpped Durga, Saraswathi and Lakshmi as much as their consorts.

    The mighty God of misogyny is an Abrahamic patriarch. Allah’s shame and denial about his daughters(link) is a prime example

    Scapegoating feminism, with sources from blogs, is a poor substitute for objective analysis of the fall of Rome (link).

    There are some good points on evangelism, CIA strategies, and western interventions in other nations. But the dependence on the same western sources, and a lack of roots, an Indic knowledge base and philosophy, weakens the essay.

    • Traditionalist

      1. Bahadur can attack, if Aditya cannot defend himself he loses because Bahadur takes his money.
      2. Yes
      3. You are reading too much into a simple illustration.
      4. Yes so?

      The follow-up stages become zero sum games.

      If you think Karma theory is limited to one lifetime you have not understood how Karma works.

      Please show me any successful civilization which has not been a patriarchy. Please read more about how civilizations fall, your ignorance is why Hindus have such a tough time countering Abrahamic memes.

      If you think patriarchy is either bad or misogynist you have been intellectually crippled by western liberalism. If you think feminism is either desirable or beneficial or even Dharmic you have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Its rare to find an author engaging with his reader’s comments. Kudos. You show depth in thinking and articulating a theme.

        Your blog link no. 1 shows an a priori pro-patriarchy bias. The essay is gamed or “framed” to a particular way of thinking. The second link is more nuanced, yet it considers an author-defined “Hindu feminism” as a saboteur. Both are subjective POVs.

        The Spartans were a low culture, below Athens in thought and cultural achievements. Their peak was the battle of Thermopylae and their strength was death-defying bravery. But they left weak newborns to die in the sun, the motto being survival of the fittest. They had bad hygiene, and rarely took baths. They basically lived for war and loot. You probably know that they had no democracy, it was invented in Athens. I’d be surprised if you point to me a spartan philosopher.

        I had earlier linked to an article on successful women with successful families. Here is a list of successful matrilineal societies (link). Here is a list of such societies (link) in history.

        Listen to Barbara Alice Mann, an elder of the Bear Clan of the Ohio Seneca, Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, and author of Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas (2000):


        Native American cultures women have long held the reins and that, in fact, the inspiration for the feminist movements in Europe and the United States were the Gantowisas, the Iroquoian/Haudenosaunee clan mothers who have politically, economically, socially, and spiritually led their people for centuries. After some one hundred years of civil war among the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, it was the Gantowisas, she said, who were instrumental in bringing the struggle to a close by helping to codify new laws into the Iroquois Constitution in the 12th century.

        Detailing some of the history of the indigenous peoples of the Ohio region, Mann noted that the culture preceding the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, the Mound Builders, was led by an elite male priesthood that maintained power through brutality and spiritual terror. In the ninth century, she said, six families, led by women, rose up and left the culture. The clan mothers of these families replaced hunting with corn cropping as the primary means of food gathering, and established democratic governments in which women and men shared power. “These powers put women in the driver’s seat of the new League,” Mann said. Women retained the sole right to initiate issues in council, to declare war, and to select and impeach men and women for political office, among other exclusive rights.

        Civil war persisted between the “Priest Way” of the Mound culture and the “Corn Way” of the matriarchal peoples of the new League until more and more individuals refused to fight and defected to the “Corn Way.” Mann spent time describing the skillful and nonviolent way in which the Jigonsaseh, or Mother of the Nations of the peoples of the Corn Way, caused the war to collapse entirely. After organizing the people of the Corn Way to gather on the shores of the lake surrounding the island of the ruling Mound priest to illustrate that he no longer stood with the people, the Jigonsaseh sent emissaries, the Peacemaker and Ayonwantha, “not to kill him, but to make him an offer he could not refuse”: he would be named First Chairman of the Men’s Grand Council if he agreed to come over to the Corn Camp. The priest accepted the role immediately. With the war now won, the Great Law was recited to all the people. “Collaboration, not domination, was the key,” said Mann, affirming the power of the matriarchy to overcome even patriarchy itself.

        Had this been a European, patriarchal story, she emphasized, “Towns would have been taken, and armies slain. The winning queen’s men would have killed the losing king, with the murder celebrated in song as holy vengeance. Then, men would have taken over the new government. Later histories might briefly mention how pretty and sweet-tempered the queen was
        Game theory perspectives are useful for short time windows, like a business sector in one decade, or a war that goes on for around 5 years. I believe its beyond its depth in analyzing decline of civilizations.


        No, I don’t think that karma works out in one life. If you want to know its dimensions – Read Aghora iii – The law of Karma.


        The Law of Karma, which is one of the most profound and fiendishly complex of reality’s axioms, is the Law of Cause and Effect, the law of “as you sow, shall you reap”. The oldest of the Upanishads expresses it this way – “Truly, one becomes good by good actions and bad by bad actions” (BrhadaraNyaka Upanishad III.2.13). This law is known to most as Newton’s third law of motion – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The mandate of this succinctly complex law regulates the potentially limitless implications of every small act performed by every actor within the manifested universe, meteor and micro-organism alike. Everyone lives within the precincits of this Law, whether they accept it or not. Ignorance of this law is no defence in the court of Cause an Effect. As Lord Krishna says in the Shrimad Bhagavata, “Karma is the Guru; nay the Supreme Lord”.


        You jump to assumptions about my knowledge, beliefs and assumptions too hastily. That’s called projecting your perceptions onto another. I am not a “crippled follower of western liberalism”. Hindu liberal thought and practice precedes this ideology by eons. Before Shvetaketu, women were free to live with any one they wanted, for any length of time. Monogamy and marriage was invented by him.


        One day, in the presence of Svetaketu’s father a Brahmana came and catching Svetaketu’s mother by the hand, told her, ‘Let us go.’ Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, ‘Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.’ The Rishi’s son, Svetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women.

        (Mahabharta Adiparva:Sambhavaparva)


        • Traditionalist

          Literally all POVs are subjective so telling me that these are subjective is meaningless.

          You have provided me evidence of a matrilineal society not of a civilization. The two are very different. I have had people show me that mentalfloss link before, it’s one of the first links on google and it is very unconvincing. I am asking for a successful civilization – technological development, philosophy, culture, art, material prosperity, low (you can pick a reasonable metric) infant mortality, high military prowess, capable of exerting hegemonic influence.

          Interesting that the “low culture” Spartans emancipated women whereas the “high culture” Athenian Greeks were heavily patriarchal and denied them property rights. You’re arguing that culture and philosophy comes from patriarchal society. Well done, you’ve played yourself.

          Without Svetaketu our civilization would have ended much much earlier, yet we are still alive 5000 years and kicking. Hindu Liberalism has existed before, and was ruthlessly destroyed by smart Hindu kings. Hedonism was never tolerated.

          As for feminism, I am yet to see a single way to reconcile it’s Marxist origins with Hinduism. If you have some link about it I would love to read it.

          • Again you jump to conclusions about what I mean. Kudos for wilful misinterpretation. I did not say that Athens had high culture BECAUSE of its patriarchy. Or that Sparta had low culture BECAUSE of its lack of patriarchy.

            Sparta was not a civilization. This has nothing to do with power distribution among genders. If you don’t understand “low culture” replace that with “no culture” or “primitive mentality” (link). There was nothing worth preserving. Sparta’s death was caused by slavery, barbarism and lack of creativity.

            Your flaw is the constant linking of decline of a territory/province/kingdom to emancipation of women. Your idé fixé is “patriarchy = advancement, women’s emancipation = decline”. Then you gather links to justify this thesis. According to you “a civilization falls because women are emancipated, do not stay at home, and bring up kids – as they ought to”.

            No, Sparta fell due to the wars between them and Athens. Just like Carthage falling due to the 3 Punic war victories by Rome. The rise of Thebes, particularly thanks to the brilliant general Epaminondas, led to a crushing Spartan defeat at the Battle of Leuctra. Class divisions among the Spartiates (the minority of full Spartan citizens) weakened the state: richer citizens could skip out on their military obligations while poorer ones resented fighting to protect the rich, Agis IV and then Cleomemenes III tried to restore some discipline, but they were betrayed and murdered by more ‘modern’ oligarchs. i.e. class divisions were the cause. not giving up patriarchy.

            Athens had great female philosophers like Aspasia (link) and Hipparchia (link), physicians like Agnodice (link). Patriarchy did not AUTOMATICALLY produce only male philosophers. Their hetaera (courtesans) were educated in poetry and music. They could take part in politics (similar to Amrapali of Vaishali).

            Women were considered breeding animals in both city-states. That was their only role. But Sparta wanted only healthy warriors, and the breeding animals had to be healthy. While in Athens, they were human enough to contribute to poetry, music, philosophy and the romantic arts.

            A striking example of an emancipated and successful civilization was the Minoan civilization. It lasted for nearly 700 years. Goddess worship was popular. The female deities of the Minoan religion were dominant. It was a peaceful culture. The story of Atlantis in Plato refers to its peaceable nature. There are also the stories of the Amazons. The Amazons were a culture of brave women warriors. They were rivals of the Greeks of the “heroic age”. There are similarities between the priestesses of the Minoans and the Amazon.

            The archaeology of Crete suggests that the Minoans achieved a high level of culture, that women had a higher level of respect and opportunity than was possible in almost any other culture. They were a great sea-faring society. Not only were women respected, they were also given positions of authority. Women were priestesses, entrepreneurs, functionaries, administrators. They participated in sports – boxing and bull jumping. Women were found among the highest echelons of political life. Images retrieved from Cretan settlements suggest that Cretan society determined lineage through the mother. Many archaeologists believe that Minoan society was matrilineal.

            They are acclaimed for their achievements in arts, crafts, trade and sea-faring abilities. Minoans created art purely for its beauty rather than its function. Wall-sized paintings decorated every room in Minoan palaces and art was used for enjoyment. Artistic themes included unimportant, trivial details of everyday life, such as a cat hunting, sea creatures or sporting events.

            Its duration of existence (2050 – 1470 BCE) was longer than classical Athens (508 – 322 BCE).

            Now let us come to Svetaketu, Your assertion that civilization would have ended but for monogamy is just an assertion, not proof. It is whataboutery. Was there no civilization before his time ? Was his father Uddalaka a barbarian ? How long was the history of spiritual inquiry (link) BEFORE Svetaketu ?

          • Traditionalist

            I am not saying Athens had high culture because of patriarchy, nor am I alluding to that being your belief. I am saying that a patriarchal society (Athens) created wonderful art and philosophy, period.

            Of course patriarchy does not produce only male philosophers, patriarchy is simply a stable set up for men and women to explore whatever they want to do, while respecting the institutions that sustain society (marriage being primarily one of them). According to me men and women are different, and these differences must be accepted and exploited rather than women forcing themselves into a man’s shoes which has only reduced their happiness both relatively and absolutely to men.

            Also according to me, a civilization starts to decline when it accepts Hedonism and deviates away from the marriage institution which involves, you guessed it – patriarchy.

            We have goddess worship in Hinduism too, that does not mean that Hindus are not patriarchal. Many examples of Hindu women who were educated and were poets and philosophers. The Kama Sutra describes women who were courtesans and educated. Hindu women, like Minoa walked around bare chested. However, Hindus were still a patriarchy, plain and simple.

            As for the Minoans, the invention of the Matriarchal Prehistory came from Gloria Steinem and her gang of feminist rabble rousers.
            It looks like Arthur Evans either lied, or was persuaded by his ideology to create a Minoa which was matriarchal whereas, it was really not.
            It was not peaceful, it was martial as all civilizations which expect to live past a couple 100 years are. Even Salon has an article denouncing the idea of this matriarchal civilization myth. EVEN IF, I was to accept that Minoans were matrilineal, this still does not make it a matriarchy and thus we are back at square one – all successful civilizations are patriarchal before they fall.

            My assertion is not that civilization would have ended without monogamy, it is that patriarchy has sustained more civilizations and for a longer period than all other types of civilization. Personally like some parts of the epics of our Hindu race, I believe Svetaketu was introduced only to reinforce the idea that an institution of marriage must exist.

            The idea that there were matriarchal civilizations and everything was happy, perfect, peaceful and wonderful and suddenly there was a shift and all of society became patriarchal, is much like the story of the Garden of Eden and Original Sin. Which really just reinforces the notion that feminism just like Secularism and it’s twin Atheism are Protestant sects.

            1) The Missing links: Secularism and Christianity
            2) The Christian origins of secularism and the rule of law
            3) How Dawkins got pwned- part 1 (Atheism and Christianity) :

          • Your thinking relies excessively on a binary either/or. Either a civilization has to be a patriarchy or it has to be a matriarchy. Either it has to expand, exercise hegemonic influence or it has to fall. I think that is a more fundamental problem than your fondness for patriarchy.

            If that thinking is replaced by degrees – the relative power distribution among genders, it would lead to healthy insights.

            The Minoans women were emancipated, and played important administrative, entrepreneurial and cultural roles in society. They had great artistic and knowledge-level achievements.That’s more important than checking whether they were always bosses over men, and were formally heads of state.

            Minoans were not the only high-achiever ancient culture.

            Between 7000 – 5000 b.c. a largely matriarchal culture existed in Anatolia and South-eastern Europe An almost singular culture that dominated Europe, sharing a common system of symbols (systematized enough that one may assume that the symbol-system is a kind of early, sacred writing), a common, goddess-oriented religion and very similar artistic traditions and type of social organization. It was town-based and interacted through trading routes. They were so similar in their use of symbols that one may speak of one culture: “Old Europe”.

            This civilization lasted for several thousand years and was only destroyed through invasion during the late Neolithic, according to Gimbutas. Old Europe was characterized thus: It was peaceful, egalitarian, matri-focal (woman-mother oriented) and worshiped a goddess or many goddesses.

            Çatalhöyük is a prominent ancient settlement that lasted from 7500 BC to 5700 BC, and flourished around 7000 BC. It had a prominent Goddess worship culture. Statutes of a female deity far outnumbered those of the male deity. Men and women had the same social status. They had a healthy balance of power.

            Egypt in the Neolithic period was matriarchal, from prehistoric times up-to until about 3000 B.C. There was a widespread Goddess Cult, The clans were matrilineal, and the mother was seen as the primary parent. Family lineage was traced through the female gender, going from mother to daughter instead of from father to son.

            Prior to c. 3000 BC, Egypt was divided into Upper Egypt, where the Goddess was known as Nekhebt, and Lower Egypt, where the Goddess was known as Ua Zit. Nekhebt was personified in the form of a vulture, while Ua Zit was personified as a cobra. In fact, the vigil of a cobra eventually came to symbolize the word Goddess in hieroglyphic writings.

            Around 3000 BC, there was an invasion of Egypt by people from Mesopotamia. These people brought with them the concept of kingship They also brought the concepts of a male deity.
            There was a gradual shift from women towards men that resulted in a patriarchy by 1570 B.C.

            Up until this invasion, Ua Zit and Nekhebt were the supreme deities in Egypt, but after the establishment of a kingship, and the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under one king, Ua Zit and Nekhebt were demoted.

            As this first introduction of a male pantheon was underway, there was the formation of a religion based around the Lady of the Serpents on the isle of Crete. This seems to indicate that refugees had fled the formation of the First Dynasty of Egypt, bringing with them the worship of their Goddess.

            These may have later developed into the Minoan civilization.

            In short, there is considerable evidence of successful emancipated civilizations, societies and settlements both in pre-history, contemporary history and current day societies like Meghalaya and Kerala.

            It is also useful to understand(link) that societies can be matrilineal, matrifocal, or matriarchal. And that one scale (expansion, large territories, hegemony and duration) does not define all types of success.

            Regarding the nber . org paper that states that women are more unhappy now than before emancipation in the U.S., it also states that men are happier. Is that because it is the men who are emancipated due to feminism ? Or perhaps that women actually have more work both in the field/office and home ? This is a problem of a society transitioning from a patriarchy to more balanced power distribution. It is also due to the resistance that they have overcome during the transition.

          • Traditionalist

            Funny that you think my thinking relies on binaries but then are adamant about proving that matriarchies have existed successfully in the past.

            Let’s review
            You: There have been matriarchal societies, here is evidence.
            Me: I am concerned with civilizations.
            You: Okay here is a matriarchal civilization – the Minoans
            Me: No there is evidence that it was not, and that it is likely it is entirely the fabrication of a man deluded by Liberalism
            You: But Minoans were liberated and emancipated women etc etc.
            Me: The evidence for this is shaky as claimed before. Even then it still does not prove that it was not a patriarchy, Hindu women led good lives but no one will claim that Hindus weren’t a patriarchy.
            You: Çatalhöyük is a prominent ancient settlement that lasted from 7500 BC to 5700 BC, and flourished around 7000 BC and was a matriarchy.
            Me: No sorry there is evidence to suggest the opposite.
            You: Goddess worship is a sign of matriarchy.
            Me: No, Hindus worship goddesses they are not matriarchal, goddess worship has nothing to do with matriarchy. Assuming that just because a culture worships a god makes it a matriarchy is ridiculous.
            You: Look Egypt had a matriarchy.
            Me: I do not accept that, this is a hypothesis from this website which offers no sources. Assuming it is true, and again it simply states it is a matriarchy because of goddess worship (a non-sequitur), they were invaded which is an obvious disadvantage.

            In short there is only tenuous evidence that there existed matriarchal civilizations. Almost all of it is a concoction. Kerala is matrilineal and if you’ve ever been to Kerala I doubt you’d think the women are “emancipated”. Meghalaya is also only matrilineal. The Kamasutra mentions women were quite well educated at the time it was written, and also hints at a patriarchal society so equating high status of women with matriarchy is simply untrue.

            As for the nber paper, you seem to be arguing that women becoming unhappier but men becoming happier is a good thing. Why you have this strange religious belief is beyond me. If the criteria is what makes women happier, it is obvious – patriarchy.
            If the question is what kind of society you find better according to your liberalism which makes women unhappier, men slightly happier but gives you the self-satisfaction of having “done the right thing” then it is third wave feminism.

            Either way, the idea that women can lead civilization is quite flawed.
            Women are naturally more empathetic than men.
            They are more neurotic.
            They take less risks.

            To suggest that women can lead civilization is sweet but all the evidence you have provided is either tenuous or completely false. I am sure you will argue some more for the sake of arguing, but it will not change that men establish civilization and women maintain it. To think that this makes women inferior is nothing short of a mental delusion.

          • Your “final’ argument reminds me of Monty Python’s Argument clinic.

            Me: Your attitude is binary
            You: No it is not, in fact the other way round
            Me: It is.
            You: It is not.

            You have set out the You/Me arguments to declare yourself the winner.

            You: Civilization of Sparta declined because it gave property rights to women, educated them, allowed adultery and granted equality with women.
            Me: Sparta was not a civilization.
            You: You have argued that an emancipated “low culture” declined, while a patriarchal “high culture” advanced. Well-played.
            Me: I did not say that, you have misinterpreted it. Primitive Sparta fell because of a decisive war and its class divisions. Patriarchy and civilization are different things.
            You: I did not say you said that ….

            You: You have been crippled by Western Liberalism.
            Me: No, I know how free Hindu women were before Shvetaketu.
            You: Oh, then Shvetaketu is my hero. But for him, we’d not have a Hindu civilization lasting 5000 years.
            Me: Sorry, Hindu civilization has been there before him, and after him. Lots of achievements.
            You: …

            You: Career women are dysgenic. See link.
            Me: No, they have good work/life balance. See link.
            You: Oh, I don’t believe that link.

            Me: Your desist/attack value system contradict karma theory.
            You: If you think karma is limited to one lifetime, you don’t understand how it works.
            Me: No, I don’t think that. No matter how long it takes, it comes back.
            You: …

            Your original article basically argued for absolute patriarchy, women doing women’s things and men doing men’s things. The whole Spartan dilemma business was based on this. It also said that career women were dysgenic. I pointed out that there are plenty of counter-examples, in history and contemporary life.

            Then you wanted examples of civilizations that were not a patriarchy. I pointed to civilizations that had a degree of matriarchy. You said, no, I want patriarchy and civilization as defined by me. Civilization = Hegemony, long duration, achievements, legacy. Patriarchy = “women at home, men at work, highly segregated roles”. I gave you counter-examples. You debunked them. I gave more examples. You refused them.

            You insisted on patriarchy and civilization, no compromise on definitions.

            That is the reason I said your approach was binary.

            And once again, you put words in my mouth. I did not say that women becoming unhappier due to career and work is a good thing. I said that the paper has many nuances, and raised some questions. I also said that women may have paid this price while fighting the status quo. And also, I don’t think women (or men) are inferior – in any category. They can also establish civilizations, and men can maintain it.

            Aside: You also implied “this is where you got it from”. In other words, you try to detect my sources and then “debunk” them. In fact, you did not detect all my sources for Old Europe and Egypt. If I had linked to them, you’d again “debunk” them and we’d play the game of musical chairs.

            BTW, this is my final argument. You can declare victory if you want.

          • Traditionalist

            Oh I didn’t know I hadn’t addressed some issues.

            Okay let’s assume my attitude is binary. (this is a pointless debate)

            Okay I’m wrong that Sparta was a civilization. They lost control over territory that belonged to them because of demography. Once you start to lose control over territory how long is you whatever-you-call-it going to last? Not very. Sparta was a low culture and had emancipated women, Athens was high culture and was a patriarchy. Not debateable, simply pointing it out.

            It is simply unclear whether the story of Svetaketu as written during the Upanishads is an indication that society was A and then he came along and it switched to B. If you are arguing that women were emancipated before him AND we weren’t a patriarchy, that is simply false. There is no evidence to suggest the Vedic era before the Upanishads was anything but a patriarchy.

            Career women are dysgenic links to a number of *research papers* and shows a simple correlation – women enter the workforce -> fertility rates have been falling the West. You have linked me to literally a bunch of anecdotes. I’m sure anyone reading this will think a bunch of anecdotes over statistical data is an asinine argument.

            My cease/desist set up does not contradict karma theory in the slightest. How it comes back to you and when it comes back to you is non-deterministic.

            You pointed to civilizations which have been debunked as having matriarchy. Now when you say “degrees of matriarchy” if you mean some weasel wording where perhaps there is some matriarchy, then this is a silly conversation. Might as well say since women influence men’s decisions in a family therefore the family with the head of the household being a man is slightly matriarchal. It is meaningless.

            Women are paying the price for trying to act like men, when they should be acting like women.

            I don’t know a single civilization where women have “established” it and men have maintained it. Why don’t you leave your sources, on your last comment I will look at them in my free time. If they are convincing I will alter my views.

  • TeeToo

    Things could not not have been explained better.

  • Vidya

    The attack on feminism is not warranted. If not for feminism all women in India would have been in purdah, living their lives out within four walls of their homes. In the defense of Hinduism, care must be taken to not blindly defend the undoubtedly inferior status of women, still openly seen in regressive customs like haldi kumkum and sindoor khela. The Hinduism that will appeal to all sections of society is the one that sees God equally in all, whether man or woman, socially powerful or insignificant, upper class or lower class. Old customs now need to be modified to be more inclusive and representative of the ‘God in everyone’ principle. Feminism for the sake of justice must thrive.

    • guest

      diagree….with ‘The attack on feminism is not warranted. If not for feminism all women in India would have been in purdah’

      Purdah is a foreign import. Do not need to tell you from where. Women were an integral part of freedom movement. Just like when WWI happened women left homes in countries like the US, the same in WWII because men were not around and many were dying. Therefore, not only was the birth rate in the US highest in the 50s but also women going to college was the lowest. Because —now they could take it easy. Much lives had been lost and so people understood family. Feminism –especially the western kind–started with the rise in nuclear families when along with technological changes, what with machines etc. women’s work was reduced. They felt lost (only if they had engaged in taking care of the elderly rather than throwing them in elder care homes)—and they wanted out. The fact is that life is a series of repetitive events. When we forget that, and want all fun all the time is when trouble starts.

      agree with this, although think that you do not have much knowledge of hindusim: Hinduism that will appeal to all sections of society is the one that sees God equally in all, whether man or woman, socially powerful or insignificant, upper class or lower class.

      heard of vasudev kutumbkam? or athiti devo bhava? there is no man or woman there. India is probably the only place and hinduism the only religion that is so immersed in the worship of the divine as feminine.
      Feminism –that of the western kind–is based on the things that went wrong to begin with in the west (cut off from any responsibilty towards others—only the self counts)

    • Khaali Peeli

      It is not feminism which brought rights to women, it is change in economic, political and local pressures which influences these things. BTW, the inventor of washing machine did more for women empowerment than all feminists in the world put together.

  • seasons

    Very well explained !
    One question though, once demographically weak, why Hindu groups cannot increase their nuisance value proving ‘ intolerant minority’ effect? In Kashmir this Hindu who are in minority are driven away. Are Hindu upbringing and values responsible for this ?

    • Traditionalist

      Do read the linked post about it. It explains what an “intolerant minority” means in the democratic and social context. It is slightly different from what you may be inferring. Remember that this can only apply in a liberal democracy not in any form of theocracy (secular or otherwise).

    • TeeToo

      Well, intolerance can only exist when it is replied with tolerance…. I hope that explains.

  • Slasher

    Brilliant Article.

    This is a MUST READ article for the clueless MODI and his gang of idiots.

    I cannot wait to hear more from this author on the next logical steps Hindus can take to in each area that he has analyzed.


  • krishnamoorthy

    the author attempted to break the though barrier. What a common Indian (struggling) could not even perceive in his mind, the author brought it right and at an appropriate time. Extra ordinary piece of article

  • ankur bose

    Brilliantly written…..some more examples would have made it more clear to the lay reader.