So there's one thing I want to seek clarification on and that's whether you think abolishing the pyramidial structure in favour of the doughnut must come before gender equality (parity is what I believe you used before) is achieved. Because I don't see any progress being made towards flattening the structure while half of humanity is fighting the other half and that's in addition to all the other differences that divide our people (politics, geography, culture etc). But there is the alternative you could hold that ridding ourselves of the pyramid would naturally entail the formation of a community that recognises each individual equally and that fixes, by default, the issues that feminism commonly combat. So it's kind of a catch 77 (I think that's what they're called) where you need a large degree of cohesion to direct yourself against the pyramid but you can only have that unity when you're out of that structure.
I feel like this question is missing a dimension (most good questions do - and this is a great one!), so let me see if I can articulate it. When we talk about parity, we're discussing a person's mobility within the social structure. Or, to use the musical chairs analogy, we're starting everyone equidistant from the three chairs in the middle and making sure everyone can move at the same speed. We've still got a huge structural problem. In fact, having everyone move at the same speed from the same starting point will only ensure that everyone gets to the chairs at the same time. Insta-stampede. The people who get the seats will be those who can swing their fists the hardest--which is a new discriminating factor. So let's make it so everyone can swing their fists with the same force. We still have a huge problem: not enough seats for everyone.
Then, let's add the fact that those three chairs wouldn't have any value except that the people who sit in them get to decide how everyone else lives. They get to set the rules of musical chairs.
So when you ask if parity should come first or second, you're right that there is a practical "chicken and the egg" problem. But the good news is that they don't have to happen in a strict sequence.
Let's stay with the analogy for a moment. It's not perfect, but it does have some level of relatability.
What if we were to add an extra hundred chairs? (That's actually similar to what the US tried to do - give everyone more of a voice). An extra hundred chairs plus a more equitable starting point. Not perfect. People are still getting hurt in the stampede, but better. And if we continue to add chairs as we continue to adjust the starting line and the speed at which people can run and the rate at which they can swing their fists and eventually make it against the rules of the game to swing their fists, we might be able to make some progress.
In the pyramid/torus language, we're trying to round out the pyramid as we build more mobility inside it. The two things have to happen concurrently - which is why parity-focused feminists are so essential. They're not targeting the pyramid (and they sometimes inadvertently feed into it), but they are doing everything they can to keep people from swinging their fists as hard and starting closer to the top and running faster than everyone else. Parity is important!
Thank you so much for asking this question. I'm not sure this answer is 100% right, but hopefully it makes some amount of sense. It's only through questioning and reasoning that any of these ideas ever make it out.
Ohh I think I see your point now, basically even if we suppose both genders have achieved parity, they'll still be set against each other in vying to reach the pyramid's top which, as you've established, leads nowhere.
I also had another question, let's say we suppose that the pyramid gets flattened out and we achieve a perfect toroidal shape, then is there anything to maintain that shape?
In the current geometry, it's clear that the people with power concentrated at the top have it in their interest to keep the structure intact and they also have the power to do so which makes the resulting pyramid oppose change quite fiercely.
But I don't see what would replace that in the doughnut case and keep society in equilibrium by stopping groups from forming and seizing means of control over others. My best guess is that inside a doughnut, the fear of exclusion from the community keeps threats of this kind under check and even if some of the population opposed it, you'd need more than just a few people to topple the geometry in any meaningful way (kind of also what we're struggling to do in the pyramid)
Hi! Sorry it took me a few days to get here. I haven't 100% figured this out yet, but I suppose it is the motion of the community and the pressure of the individual relationships within the community. Just like how money is the indicator of success in our current society and how money is used to keep the pyramid in its shape, I think relationships will be the key to keeping a structure built on relationships in its shape. The problem comes when a small torus is confronted by a large pyramid - and I honestly don't have an answer there. In my WIP Circleborn that is built on that theory (a small circle of so-called "witches" vs a massive religious empire), the circle grows a small pyramid of "thorns" whose job is security and defense. But I'm really not sure how something like that would work out in practice (which is one of the reasons I'm so stuck in writing Circleborn atm). In The Dragons We Become (again, WIP; stuck), the circle is kept together by fear of exclusion, but throughout the story we discover that the circle has a pretty pointy top. The Wycherley books (just finished reading - not bad for YA romantic fantasy) have a society that's primarily pyramidal but that has a circular growth based primarily on toroids and very, very flat pyramids where order is maintained by the pyramid and that somehow works??? But all the social and family life is very toroidal.
I somewhat get your points but I also feel like they're a bit abstract when put like this (not your fault that's just how stuff like this goes) and would be easier to grasp when contextualised in tangible scenarios so I'll wait for those stories you're working on.
Overall though I can definitely see this and other ideas similar to this taking root in the mainstream of things (probably not for a while though)
So there's one thing I want to seek clarification on and that's whether you think abolishing the pyramidial structure in favour of the doughnut must come before gender equality (parity is what I believe you used before) is achieved. Because I don't see any progress being made towards flattening the structure while half of humanity is fighting the other half and that's in addition to all the other differences that divide our people (politics, geography, culture etc). But there is the alternative you could hold that ridding ourselves of the pyramid would naturally entail the formation of a community that recognises each individual equally and that fixes, by default, the issues that feminism commonly combat. So it's kind of a catch 77 (I think that's what they're called) where you need a large degree of cohesion to direct yourself against the pyramid but you can only have that unity when you're out of that structure.
I feel like this question is missing a dimension (most good questions do - and this is a great one!), so let me see if I can articulate it. When we talk about parity, we're discussing a person's mobility within the social structure. Or, to use the musical chairs analogy, we're starting everyone equidistant from the three chairs in the middle and making sure everyone can move at the same speed. We've still got a huge structural problem. In fact, having everyone move at the same speed from the same starting point will only ensure that everyone gets to the chairs at the same time. Insta-stampede. The people who get the seats will be those who can swing their fists the hardest--which is a new discriminating factor. So let's make it so everyone can swing their fists with the same force. We still have a huge problem: not enough seats for everyone.
Then, let's add the fact that those three chairs wouldn't have any value except that the people who sit in them get to decide how everyone else lives. They get to set the rules of musical chairs.
So when you ask if parity should come first or second, you're right that there is a practical "chicken and the egg" problem. But the good news is that they don't have to happen in a strict sequence.
Let's stay with the analogy for a moment. It's not perfect, but it does have some level of relatability.
What if we were to add an extra hundred chairs? (That's actually similar to what the US tried to do - give everyone more of a voice). An extra hundred chairs plus a more equitable starting point. Not perfect. People are still getting hurt in the stampede, but better. And if we continue to add chairs as we continue to adjust the starting line and the speed at which people can run and the rate at which they can swing their fists and eventually make it against the rules of the game to swing their fists, we might be able to make some progress.
In the pyramid/torus language, we're trying to round out the pyramid as we build more mobility inside it. The two things have to happen concurrently - which is why parity-focused feminists are so essential. They're not targeting the pyramid (and they sometimes inadvertently feed into it), but they are doing everything they can to keep people from swinging their fists as hard and starting closer to the top and running faster than everyone else. Parity is important!
Thank you so much for asking this question. I'm not sure this answer is 100% right, but hopefully it makes some amount of sense. It's only through questioning and reasoning that any of these ideas ever make it out.
Ohh I think I see your point now, basically even if we suppose both genders have achieved parity, they'll still be set against each other in vying to reach the pyramid's top which, as you've established, leads nowhere.
I also had another question, let's say we suppose that the pyramid gets flattened out and we achieve a perfect toroidal shape, then is there anything to maintain that shape?
In the current geometry, it's clear that the people with power concentrated at the top have it in their interest to keep the structure intact and they also have the power to do so which makes the resulting pyramid oppose change quite fiercely.
But I don't see what would replace that in the doughnut case and keep society in equilibrium by stopping groups from forming and seizing means of control over others. My best guess is that inside a doughnut, the fear of exclusion from the community keeps threats of this kind under check and even if some of the population opposed it, you'd need more than just a few people to topple the geometry in any meaningful way (kind of also what we're struggling to do in the pyramid)
Hi! Sorry it took me a few days to get here. I haven't 100% figured this out yet, but I suppose it is the motion of the community and the pressure of the individual relationships within the community. Just like how money is the indicator of success in our current society and how money is used to keep the pyramid in its shape, I think relationships will be the key to keeping a structure built on relationships in its shape. The problem comes when a small torus is confronted by a large pyramid - and I honestly don't have an answer there. In my WIP Circleborn that is built on that theory (a small circle of so-called "witches" vs a massive religious empire), the circle grows a small pyramid of "thorns" whose job is security and defense. But I'm really not sure how something like that would work out in practice (which is one of the reasons I'm so stuck in writing Circleborn atm). In The Dragons We Become (again, WIP; stuck), the circle is kept together by fear of exclusion, but throughout the story we discover that the circle has a pretty pointy top. The Wycherley books (just finished reading - not bad for YA romantic fantasy) have a society that's primarily pyramidal but that has a circular growth based primarily on toroids and very, very flat pyramids where order is maintained by the pyramid and that somehow works??? But all the social and family life is very toroidal.
I somewhat get your points but I also feel like they're a bit abstract when put like this (not your fault that's just how stuff like this goes) and would be easier to grasp when contextualised in tangible scenarios so I'll wait for those stories you're working on.
Overall though I can definitely see this and other ideas similar to this taking root in the mainstream of things (probably not for a while though)