Editing Dominator culture (section)

== Societal impact ==
Dominator culture impacts the way a society appears and functions. Eisler posits that "narratives about our cultural origins", like dominator culture, "reflect and guide how we think, feel, and act."<ref name=":0" /> Though no culture is fully dominator or fully partnership in its construction, the degree to which it aligns with one of these models impacts the beliefs, institutions, and relationships of that society.

=== Gender inequalities ===
The main distinction between the dominator and partnership models, according to Eisler, is their treatment of the relationships between men and women.<ref name=":1" /> She argues that, historically, men have been the dominators, leading to patriarchal society that upholds constricting, traditional [[gender role]]s. Surveys by anthropologists Peggy R. Sanday and Scott Coltrane support this connection, showing the correlation between a society's structure and the expectations for men and women. They found that greater equality between men and women led to greater male involvement in childcare.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality|last=Sanday|first=Peggy R.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1981|isbn=0521280753|location=Cambridge|url=https://archive.org/details/femalepowermaled00sand}}</ref> However, because dominator culture upholds a harsh division between [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]], it dissociates masculinity from anything stereotypically feminine—even at the expense of benefits such as those reported by Sanday and Coltrane. Accordingly, in these societies that prize domination and [[Power (social and political)|power]], the societal value for qualities like [[empathy]], [[caregiving]], and [[nonviolence]] diminishes. Instead, by viewing femininity as undesirable and inferior, these dominator societies accept and perpetuate violent and inequitable behavior.

=== Power disparities ===
In dominator culture, society reinforces such hierarchies by presenting the dominator model as the natural order of society. According to Eisler, some sociobiologists and psychologists claim that male dominance is inherent in human genes and a product of evolution, demonstrating dominator thinking.<ref name=":1" /> Theorist bell hooks has expanded on this, indicating that dominator culture "teaches us that we are all natural-born killers but that males are more able to realize the predator role."<ref name=":2" /> By accepting male dominance as a genetic imperative, society justifies a dominator structure. Consequently, this situates the desire to overpower and control others as part of human identity, according to hooks.<ref name=":2" />

This hierarchical disparity is not only explained genetically but societally reinforced, extending to "power" more generally. Although Eisler often distinguishes between the two models on the basis of gender, she also applies these hierarchies more broadly to other societal constructions of power, like [[Race (human categorization)|race]], [[Social class|class]], and [[Ageism|age]]. [[Terence McKenna]], a friend of Eisler's and fellow writer, asserts that Eisler's book ''The Chalice and the Blade'' "de-genderized the terminology", framing it as a contrast between dominator and partnership ideologies, rather than just an indictment of patriarchy.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Archaic Revival|last=McKenna|first=Terence|publisher=Harper Collins|year=1992|isbn=0062506137|location=San Francisco|url=https://archive.org/details/archaicrevivalsp00mcke}}</ref> Supporting this interpretation, Eisler argues that society's requirement of children to be submissive and obedient to their parents reflects the influence of dominator culture. Dominator culture encourages the ideology, from childhood, that one either dominates or is dominated. Accordingly, dominator culture not only equates the difference between men and women to superiority and inferiority, but rather "frame[s] all relationships as power struggles."<ref name=":2" />