Matriarchy (General) · 7:47pm Apr 13th, 2014
An important point to remember when writing about Equestria is that it is a matriarchy. What does this mean, and how does it affect character and story?
A "matriarchy," literally, is a society which is "ruled by mothers," as opposed to a "patriarchy," a society which is "ruled by fathers." This is usually interpreted to mean "ruled by females" as opposed "ruled by males," but the important truth contained within the literal meaning is that older, successful individuals (who are by their age and success also more likely to have offspring) also tend to dominate over younger, less-successful individuals (who may well have living parents). This is an important point: the young and unsuccessful are unlikely to be setting the social rules for any culture, though the most successful young may have influence as the "rising generation."
This does not imply total domination over one sex by the other. Even in the most hideously-patriarchal human cultures (such as Iran or Saudi Arabia), females have important social status and power, and it must be assumed that the same would be true in an extreme matriarchy. What is more, to be specific to Equestria, it is obvious that Equestria is only mildly matriarchal -- more like the flip side of the c. 1900 West than the flip side of the c. 2000 Islamic world. We see evidence in canon that mares are more likely to occupy top leadership positions than stallions, but we do not see mares abusing stallions or treating them as near-chattels.
Much nonsense has been written about matriarchies, both by patriarchal writers who feared that such cultures would be licentious anarchies, and by matriarchal writers who have fantasized that such cultures would have no need of sexual restraints supposedly imposed upon women by men seeking to control their sexualities. This leads to nightmare or dream scenarios (depending on the author) of cultures of total sexual freedom with no guilt or sexual restraint.
This is nonsense because the basic tension in the male-female sexual relationship stems from the difference between investment in offspring. A male can impregnate a female and go off to impregnate other females with little investment in any one child, so in purely biological terms he can afford to and should mate at every opportunity, regardless of his opinion of the female. In contrast, a female can only be pregnant with one child (*) at a time, and hence must be choosy as to which male she chooses to father her offspring. Given these different objectives, males and females are essentially playing an "iterated complex multiplayer" version of The Prisoner's Dilemma ("iterated" because they have more than one chance for sex in their lives, "complex" because the payoff matrices are not quite symmetrical, and "multiplayer" because they play the game over a lifetime with multiple potential sexual partners) (**), as Fluttershy partially elucidates in A Robust Solution.
Thus in any culture, patriarchal or matriarchal, male and female cooperation will take the form of forming an at least serially-monogamous couple, with (literal) cheating a possible option. Biologically, the male motive for forming such a couple is that he will be certain that he is caring for his own offspring, while the female motive for forming such a couple is to ensure that she has support for said offspring -- that he does not simply impregnate her and then wander off, of which he is biologically capable but she is not (because she has to bear the child and is most likely to be stuck with the child if the couple is broken). Either can choose to cheat -- the male by impregnating other females, which threatens his primary mate with abandonment should he feel more loyal to his other mates and offspring; the female, by being impregnated by another (presumably genetically-superior) male and then tricking her ostensible mate into caring for that male's offspring.
Nothing about matriarchy changes this dynamic, because it is a purely biological one. The main difference is how blame tends to be assigned when one of the couple chooses to cheat. In patriarchies, there is a tendency to imagine females to be inherently licentious and undisciplined, likely to sexually stray if not kept under careful watch (hence the practice of purdah). In matriarchies, we may assume that the exact same sentiment prevails but with "males" substituted for "females" in that sentence.
Would matriarchies be less prudish than patriarchies? Ask yourself this -- are women less prudish than men? The answer is that they are often prudish about slightly different things than are men, but viewed as a whole, the answer is 'no.' In reality, groups of women will happily dissect the sexual failings of other women (and men) and criticize them upon this basis. There is no reason to believe that groups of mares would be any different in Equestria. "Sluts" would be "shamed" as energetically as in our own society, with the only reason for any greater restraint perhaps being that there might be more restraint on doing it face to face, because the Ponies tend to be nicer (****).
Where there would be a difference is that males would tend to get blamed more than females for any licentious behavior which occurred. The term that I translate from Equestrian into "cad" is actually a harsher insult in Equestrian than in English, it carries the same associations of "totally worthless" that "slut" does in English. The implication is that this stallion is so emotionally and morally weak that he is inherently inferior to the speakers, not to be trusted in sexual or any other terms. Equestria is not an extreme matriarchy, despite being absolutely ruled by a female entity, but there are and historically have been Pony cultures in which stallions were treated as close to chattels because everypony knew that absent discipline they would just behave like the lot of cads they were inherently.
This strikes to the heart of the question of just why it is that Equestria is matriarchal, and not merely at the top where it is a theocracy dominated by the (manifesting as a mare) Celestia, but all the way down to the level of towns and families, which both tend to be female-headed. To answer this, we must ask why Human cultures are patriarchal. (+)
This is a complex issue, but it boils down to the fact that women rather than men get pregnant, and until c. 1850-1950, pregnancy was dangerous. Hence in the division of labor between the sexes (and all human cultures divide such labor in some fashion) it made sense for professional work -- labor which required a higher education -- to be assigned to males so as to avoid wasting scarce resources on females who might well die in childbirth. It is notable that the rise of women's rights coincides almost everywhere with advances in medical technology rendering childbirth far less dangerous to the mothers.
Ponies, being large-brained creatures, will have childbirths more difficult than that of actual horses. But being quadrupeds they also have wider pelvic girdles, and hence their foalings are not as dangerous to their mares as our childbirths are to our women. Consequently, the economic pressure to avoid excessively educating women does not apply as strongly to the Ponies regarding their mares.
I postulate an additional factor that tips the scales firmly over to matriarchy, an additional factor which is in line with known equine biology and which does not exist for humans. The Pony mares have an 21-day estrus cycle, and one which Ponies can smell at a distance, and which instinctively arouses any stallions who scent it.
What does this mean? For a mare, it means that she enters a semi-heat every three weeks. During estrus, she is in a heightened state of sexual arousal -- but not strongly enough to overwhelm her intellect. Any wise mare knows that it is a very bad idea to enter a sexual relationship when in estrus, and hence defers accepting courtship when in that state. And, since she is only in estrus for a few days every three weeks, this does not greatly impair her, provided that she has ordinary willpower. (If she is weak-willed, or has a cognitive problem such as autism, or makes the mistake of drinking too much, she may have problems).
Stallions have it rougher. Once the Ponies developed agriculture, they lived in villages, towns and cities. The bigger the conurbation, the greater the chance that a stallion will have some mare in estrus within range of his sense of smell at any given moment. He is also sapient; he has a culture and a code of sexual morality, so he doesn't attempt to mindlessly mate, any more than does the mare in estrus. But he is distracted, and the distraction is almost constant as long as he remains in the town!
Hence in Ponies the advantageous division of labor is for stallions to either have no profession (unskilled labor) or choose a profession in which they work physically dispersed away from mares. Mares, who are only distracted by strong sexual urges around one-seventh of the time, cluster in town and practice skilled professions. And what "everypony" knows is that mares tend to be calm, stallions tend to be flighty. Stallions are the "weaker sex," who must be taken care of and guided by wise mares.
This has begun to change in Equestria over the last century or two. The reason for this change has been the development of increasingly cheap, safe, reliable and effective "estrus suppressors," which reduce or eliminate the scent produced in estrus. As being in estrus has always been a little bit embarrassing for mares (it serves as a signal of temporary social weakness due to distraction) their use quickly became a sign of social status and refinement (Rarity never forgets her dose), and their non-use conversely of a low social postion (the word they use for a mare who routinely forgets to dose would be translatable as "bawd" or "slattern").
As the constant scent of estrus has increasingly vanished from Equestrian cities and towns, the social status of stallions has begun to rise. For instance, the Mayor of Manehattan at the time of Luna's Return is a stallion, Orangetree; and nopony finds it objectionable these days that a stallion like Piercing Gaze is running a major theatrical enterprise such as the Baltimare Hippodrome. Times are changing, and Equestria is drifting toward sexual equality, just as was Amerca c. 1900.
The future will see the invention of cheap, safe, reliable and effective contraceptives, and with that, things will really change.
===
(*) - Occasionally, two or more, but this is rare both in hominids and equids.
(**) - Even if one leads a strictly monogamous life, one could choose to have sex with other partners, one simply doesn't.
(***) - Perhaps. Based on the in-show evidence, verbal aggression and passive-aggression are both quite common among the Ponies.
(****) - "Slut shaming" is the transfer of important information about potential mates and rivals for mating, regarding their previous choices in the Mating Game. Hence, it is impossible to abolish, and if the attempt is made will simply go underground. And Fluttershy was quite right to consider it a bad thing that everypony had seen her with Nosey -- her paranoia lay in her assumption that everypony would conclude that they had had sex -- or would care. In reality, most ponies probably just assumed they were hanging out together for an evening, and forgot about it within a week.
(+) - Western feminists, to endear themselves to Progressives, tend to blame it on the supposed legacy of the West. They thus not only miss the point but shoot in the opposite direction, because the modern West is the least patriarchal, most sexually-egalitarian civilization Humankind has ever produced. The legacy of the West to relations between the sexes is -- Western feminism.
It's interesting to note that packs of wild horses on Earth are typically led by an older mare. Packs that are not, including packs of domesticated horses, typically display more anxiety and such has been noted as resulting in sleep deprivation. If ponies are similar in nature to Terran horses, they instinctively trust (older) mares more in positions of leadership and could be uncomfortable otherwise.
Interesting, though I think it's fair to say that Equestria being a matriarchy is a headcanon; it's not an actual canon thing. There's no way that anyone could know for certain about something like that. So, headcanon whatever you feel is best, but I'd advise you to not get headcanon and canon mixed up, and you do seem to be claiming that you think that stuff you wrote about is somehow canon.
Personally, I think it's more logical that Equestria would have strong leanings towards egalitarian in that regard, but I obviously can't claim that it is canon because it's just my headcanon; the same goes for yours.
And for the record, I really don't see patriarchies or matriarchies as a good thing at all in any form; how could a system that favors one over the other, even if it's 'mild', be a good thing? More power to you if you enjoy making Equestria a matriarchy in your headcanon for whatever reason, but honestly I'd personally prefer to have my ponies without stuff like that.
2038129
Well of course I have to write it that way, or it can't serve me as a good reference article for my own fiction. As headcanon goes, though, it's fairly well supported by canon -- you may note in-series the relative paucity of Equestrian male leaders? And I'm not just talking about the Mane Six all being female -- that could be explained as a requirement of the Elements (though I don't think it actually happens to be one). I'm talking about the fact that almost everypony we've seen in a position of political authority in the show has been female. I can think of a few stallions depicted with inherited status (such as Blueblood) and a few who have earned business successes (such as Filthy Rich) -- but none who have been given political leadership by their peers (I invent one in An Extended Performance, Mayor Orangetree).
Perhaps you misunderstood me when I kept analogizing Equestria to early 20th century America or Britain. Those were not strongly patriarchal societies by human standards, though modern feminists (who generally know little of history) often claim that they were. They were actually toward the egalitarian end of the human spectrum. If you want to see what a strongly gender-inegalitarian society looks like, examine much of the modern Third World. Especially the Muslim parts. Even Time of Thrones Equestria was never that prejudiced against stallions.
When did I make the claim that sexual inequality was a "good thing?" And to answer your question, it could however be a "good thing" compared to worse things. America c. 1950 was definitely a bit patriarchal compared to a hypothetical society of complete sexual equality, but it was certainly a better society in terms of sexual equality than was (say) America c. 1850 or is Saudi Arabia today. Likewise, Equestria can both be mildly matriarchal and yet mostly a free and fair society.
The Ponies simply aren't perfect, any more than are Humans. Though they do tend to be a bit nicer (a virtue they gain at the price of finding it harder to be ruthless when they need to be). I find nice but imperfect Ponies much more believable.
2038461
Well, I didn't particularly want to get into a huge debate about it, but I will say a couple of things.
The lack of male authority figures in the show is likely caused by the overabundance of females shown in general, due to the target audience. This means that more female characters are given the spotlight and thus more female authority figures are shown;male authority figures of some or another surely exist, but we don't see them because most characters with speaking roles end up being female. With that being said, I don't think it says anything definitive about Equestria itself, though fair enough if you want to cite it when talking about your headcanons.
And I wasn't accusing you of saying that gender inequal societies are a good thing, I just remarked on that because it's one of my reasons for not being a fan of the whole "Equestria is a matriarchy" idea. I can agree with you on ponies not being perfect though, as least as individuals, but when talking about their society as a greater whole, I feel that generalized inequality like that is a problem that could overcome easily enough, especially under the long term guidance of a highly benevolent leader like Celestia.
And as far as the whole egalitarian thing, my idea of 'egalitarian' in this context would be a society that can't really be called a patriarchy or matriarchy. So, even a society that is a 'mild' matriarchy couldn't be egalitarian in my eyes.
Oh, and one minor thing, you mentioned a potential requirement for the Elements of Harmony being female? I think that's a little silly honestly, and if you overthink it, slightly disturbing. As far as I can tell, the Elements of Harmony are supposed to be gifted to worthy individuals who can represent them, and I find it highly doubtful that gender would matter in such a thing.
2038505
Historically, all Human cultures have used sex as a principle of the division of labor -- this dates all the way back to hunter-gatherer cultures, in which men are the main hunters and women the main gatherers. This appears to be driven by cultural-evolutionary advantages, because such a division is universal or almost universal in primitive societies. I would therefore assume such divisions would exist in any other race with Human-like sexuality (mammalian, two sexes, high-k reproduction stragegy) such as the Ponies, though the details might of course be different.
As one advances technologically, options widen, and in Humans we have seen everything from the most sexually-egalitarian civilizations (America, the Anglosphere and the modern West) to the least (Saudi Arabia, Iran and modern Islam), and everywhere in between. I would presume the same to be the case for the Ponies, though since they are not actually Human the details would be different.
Real horses are more matriarchal than patriarchal (they actually have two dominance hierarchies -- one male and one female, with the female one being more long-lasting). It is notable that in the four My Little Pony franchise we have seen one which is sexually-egalitarian (series 2), one which has associated sexually-segregated herds that meet once a year to mate (series 1) and one which has apparently abolished masculinity entirely (series 3) -- and in series 4, the current incarnation, Equestria is a liberal theocracy ruled by a Princess and with numerous female and few male authority figures. And it's not just a matter of the central charcters -- there have been male characters shown, but they are always in subordinate positions. Even males in important positions are always shown directly subordinated to females (good example, Shining Armor, who in most shows would be the hero but in this one is outshined -- heh -- by both his sister Twilight and his wife Cadance).
I don't think that this is purely a matter of the show's focus on female characters. Logically, having a main cast of females should lead to most secondary characters (kin and love interests) being male -- but they are not. What we're seeing here is a society in which stallions are mostly either valued because of familial connections (sons, brothers, fathers, lovers and husbands) or are in high-risk and hence more expendable roles (military and manual labor). In short, a matriarchy.
Why do I call it a "mild" matriarchy? Because there is also evidence that stallions are equal under the law to mares, and that even their customary handicaps are minor. When we do see stallions, they do not appear to be elaborately-deferential to mares; no one questions the right or capability of a character like Filthy Rich to manage a major business enterprise, or Fancy Pants to be a leader of society; Big Mac does not hesitate to stand up to his sister Applejack (both being rather formidable representatives of their sexes among Ponies).
In the second essay in this series I discuss inheritance, and there's a major piece of evidence for matriarchy among the Apples. The fact that Granny Smith is the social head of the Sweet Apple Acres branch of the family is not conclusive -- obviously her husband predeceased her, and she may be the second oldest living Apple (the oldest being her great-aunt Pine Apple, whom I reckon at being something like 170 years old, and by now probably quite physically impaired). The real reason to think that inheritance is traditionally in the female line is this -- Applejack (rather than Big Mac) is clearly running the farm.
Consider the implications of this. Big Mac is the oldest surviving descendant of the oldest child of Granny Smith. In a sexually-egalitarian system, he would be heir presumptive. Applejack is simply the oldest daughter of the oldest child of Granny Smith. The fact that Applejack is the boss implies that for some reason Big Mac is assumed to be unable to lead. The obvious reason why is that he is male (and this also implies matrilocality because the reason why this would count would be if stallions join the families of their wives, rather than the other way round). This also -- given how much the farm obviously needs him -- explains why he remains unmarried. By choice, but a choice shaped by tradition. And the Apples seem the most traditional of Earth Ponies.
Equestria as a whole is probably less traditional than are the Apples. Plus, I think that the sex-roles differ at least somewhat by Kind, as the Three Tribes obviously began with rather different social structures. I discuss this in detail in the second essay in this series.
I've seen this done before, though -- in fact in the original of both the DC Lanterns and the Elements of Harmony -- E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lenses from the Lensman universe. These were designed to be amplifiers for the psionic powers of males (in a universe where both males and females might be capable of psionics). One of the reasons the Arisians designed this that way was that an assumption of the universe was that the use of the Lenses required a particular kind of ruthlessness which was characteristically male. The other was that the Arisian end-game involved the creation of a psychic Unit of one man and four women -- all siblings -- whose combined power would be able to defeat the Eddorians . "Doc" Smith's Unit reminds me a lot of what the Element Bearers do when they summon the full power of the Elements in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic.
But no, I don't think the Elements are sex-linked; I think that they are linked to the canonical Virtues of Equestrian culture, and (in my verse, derived from Alex Warlorn's) to the Cosmic Concepts. I know for sure that in my verse they are only weakly if at all sex-linked, because one of Twilight Sparkle's earlier incarnations was Dusk Skyshine, who was male.
2038690
Well, you've definitely thought about it thoroughly, considering how much you have to say about it.
Like I said, if you enjoy headcanoning that, then by all means do so, because after all, we're all only here to come up with interesting and sometimes crazy ideas for fanfiction. I still disagree with you and I doubt I'll ever like the idea, but I can understand why you find the idea appealing I suppose.
2038766
Appealing? I prefer sexually-egalitarian societies to patriarchies or matriarchies. I'm going by what's shown on the TV show -- this was one of the least speculative essays I've ever written about the show!
2038776
By appealing I mean that you find the idea interesting, not that you think it's a good thing.
And I will say that I do think that you're using a lot of headcanons and making a lot of big and small assumptions in your posts, so I don't really agree with you saying that it's not very speculative, because it really is. The show is a children's cartoon, which means that most of the things you find while overanalyzing it are not exactly things the writers intended to imply, which means there is no definitive conclusion to any given question and you're essentially running with your own theory/conclusion.
Not a bad thing to do that in itself, but I think it's wise to remember that not every little detail you dig up while analyzing the show is something placed there intentionally by the writers. When you analyze the show like that, you're honestly building your own personal version of the canon by adopting ideas that aren't really intended to be there, if that makes sense. It probably doesn't
Anyway, I think you're using the show as a guideline to some extent, but you are indeed putting a lot of headcanon into your interpretation, though everyone does that I suppose.
Oh, and far as inheritance, is it not possible that property and such is passed down to whoever is the most qualified to accept it, or something along those lines, rather than going by age/gender? Or that it's some sort of mutual agreement as to who it goes to?
Big Mac seems like a pretty laid back guy, I couldn't see him wanting to inherit the farm even if it was offered.
2038807
I do find it interesting, and one of the things I like about My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is that it is one of the very few speculative-fictional presentations of a mild matriarchy. Most SF on the topic, whether it approves or disapproves of matriarchy, imagines extreme matriarchies -- ones in which females completely dominate all aspects of social life and males have no role beyond that of the reproductive (if that, since it is not only possible but almost biologically-easy for a slightly-more-advanced technology than our own to enable parthenogenic reproduction). In contrast, Equestria is matriarchal only to the extent that America c. 1925-50 was patriarchal, so we see a society dominated by females in which males still play important social roles and are treated with a fair degree of respect.
That's actually harder to imagine and show well than is the extreme case, because the prejudices involved are subtle and taken for granted by almost everypony concerned. Compared to this, a situation of gross and extreme sexual oppression is easier to display.
You are conflating "target demographic" and "medium" (target demographic = children, medium = cartoon) with "genre" and "content." The target demographic affects what is allowed to be shown explicitly, it does not force the writers to limit their concept of what they assume is "really" going on in-universe. It's true that a lot of children's cartoons are written strictly to formula and are more or less so limited, but the reason why this children's cartoon has a huge fanbase is that it depicts -- through the narrow window of what is deemed appropriate for young girls -- a complex culture with numerous characters and locations. It succeeds for exactly the same reason that similar "children's cartoons" which dared imagine something larger than that which could be explicitly and completely shown have succeeded -- shows such as Gummi Bears, Exo Squad and Gargoyles.
The reason I look at the show and conclude "mild matriarchy" is that this is what's being shown. Almost every authority figure shown outside of private enterprise and the military is female, from the goddess-queen who rules the whole country down to the mayor of a small town. If you analyze what's been shown of family structures, most families center on females. These two facts tell me that we're seeing a "matriarchy."
Yet males don't seem particularly oppressed: they are treated with a fair degree of respect and kindness by females when we see them interact, and do not appear to be under any explicit legal and social disabilities. This tells me that it is a "mild" matriarchy, rather than something like "Doc" Smith's Lyrane or the tribe of the mythical Amazons.
Even through the narrow window of what is considered "appropriate" for little girls, the show does delineate enough of Equestrian culture that we can tell a number of things about it -- it is a liberal autocracy (aka "enlightened despotism") in which individual rights, including the rights to property and contract, are protected under the law (this latter part actually came up explicitly in "Trade Ya", which amazed me). And it is very clearly a mild matriachy.
I talked this over with my wife yesterday, because I was worried that I was reading too much into what I'd seen. And she confirmed my point (which she doesn't always, we have some lovely debates sometimes, about MLP and other things). We've seen lots of things onscreen to indicate "matriarchy" and "mild," nothing to oppose it.
Yes. They're called "wills." If Equestria is like most Western cultures in this regard, an explicit will supersedes the default laws of inheritance save in properties which are "entailed" (connected to a title which has other rules of inheritance). So for pretty much everypony save for gentry and above holding estates, wills would supersede the normal rules of inheritance.
Having said this, there are in every society cultural assumptions about lineality, locality and inheritance, which affect the individuals who draw up their wills. For instance, Mr. John Smith in modern America may leave his estate to whomever he so desires, in whatever proportions he so desires, but it is normally-expected that he will leave his estate to spouses, offspring, siblings and other kin in roughly that order, and if he deviated from this norm (leaving everything to a remote cousin or random stranger instead of his own close kin by blood or marriage) people would sit up and take note: the will might even be legally-contested.
Likewise, Granny Smith probably has an explicitly-drawn will but most Ponies assume that the primary beneficiaries will be her descendants and siblings, with Sweet Apple Acres going primarily to Applejack because she's the eldest female working the farm, with perhaps some secondary rights in the estate or its profits going to Big Mac and Apple Bloom in some order. If she left everything to Half-Baked Apple and disinherited everypony else, this would shock her kin, and they might even suspect some forgery.
Expectations affect behavior. Big Mac has never expected to be the main heir to the farm (nor does he expect to be entirely disinherited and rejected by his kin, since he's given them no reason to treat him so shabbily). He probably assumes that, until he marries, he has a place on the farm, and when he marries a place with his wife's family (if Equestrian and in particular traditional Earth Pony society is matrilocal).
These are of course customs rather than laws -- Equestria being a liberal society means that the will of the individual supersedes custom where it does not directly violate statutory law. If for some reason Big Mac wants to bring his wife to live on the farm with him, and both his wife and the actual owner(s) of the farm are amenable to this arrangement, so it will be. But this is a specific private deal, and social capital may wind up being expended to secure its acceptance.
Social capital is imaginary but important in its effects, especially in a culture which (as Daetrin has pointed out) probably accomplishes a lot by informal cooperative arrangements that we would accomplish by legal contracts. Within the Apple clan, various elders (almost always females!) clearly have customary authority and status over their kin, which is why Granny Smith hastens to meet with her even older relative Pine Apple and why when Smith offers to hold a reunion at Sweet Apple Acres, what looks like a hundred or more Apples flock to the event.
One ignores custom to one's disadvantage. Having the other Apples on one's side may no longer be as vital as it was when Equestria was a more primitive, chaotic and violent culture many centuries ago, but it is still useful because they constitute a network of friendly contracts that could fund your expansion or repairs, physically help you out in time of need, and connect you with other people outside the Apple clan who might be able to help you. (For instance, Applejack almost certainly has gained status in the clan through her close friendship with Princess Twilight Sparkle -- she knows better than to degrade the friendship by bothering Twilight constantly with requests for help, but her kin know that in time of severe need, Applejack could probably call on Twilight for assistance).
These speculations are based upon how all known societies work, and the observation that the Ponies are human-like enough in their explicitly-depicted behavior that a lot of their motivations and dynamics must be fairly similar.
2042642 Well fair enough then, though what I meant by the whole children's cartoon thing is that while the writers definitely throw in some things that cater to us older fans. and the show has been expertly crafted into a high quality, enjoyable viewing experience for everyone including adults, most of the time they probably don't put that much thought into the deeper implications of what they're writing, and most things probably don't have some sort of game changing hidden meaning or explanation behind them(though you can interpret/imagine them as having one, and that's a big source of many peoples headcanons). The biggest exception to that may be characterization, since the characters are the shows specialty, and thus more deeper thought is put into them and what they do by the show writers, at least when those writers aren't tripping over themselves with keeping that characterization consistent. Either way, it's essentially impossible to distinguish between what they put in there intentionally, and what they didn't.
And the primary target demographic of little girls is relevant in this context, as it means things like the majority of characters being female, and the focus being almost solely on those female characters, which can easily warp your "limited window of observation into Equestria" and make it unreliable in many regards. Obviously though you should interpret the 'deeper aspects' of the show in whichever way you want, as that's everyone's right; I just think that those deeper aspects probably aren't always intentional, so to speak, and that in most cases you've likely found/created them through your own interpretation, rather than the writers, and that it's wise to take that into consideration at the least. In other words though, you shouldn't let that control you or quell your artistic freedom, but I don't think you should totally forget it either because I feel it's important to remember, even if doesn't influence you or your work that much.
Either way, I'm probably done with this, as it's wasting too much time to discuss it, and I'm not the best at properly explaining or wording my viewpoint to others, which can make discussions like this somewhat troublesome. Thanks for your time though, even if we don't really agree.
This is a very interesting blog
Just skimmed a few of your blogs. I am amazed at the sheer amount of thought and worldbuilding you put into your work.
I may not agree with your politics (which I gleaned from your comments on RealityCheck's blog), but I do really enjoy what you have going on here.