Is patriarchy the natural state of human kind?

Is patriarchy the natural state of human kind?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yes. sage for shit thread

...

obviously

sage

physical violence is the bottom line, whichever gender is better at it controls the other one

Do you believe in women's voting rights?

Yeah.

Men unknowingly compete higher social status to get the best looking women. Hence competition creates society, ad also pushes it forward.

And as you can tell with women, they like men of high social status. Women seek men who're better and more dominant than them. Vaginas go dry when they see beta men whore of low social value. This is why women naturally love to be the ones being dominated. They don't know what they want, but what they hate is beta males.

Women compete with each other too, in a different way. More like ''who she look prettier than me OMG'', ''haha she's gotten so fat XD''. It;s more of a jealousy form of competition.

No, women classically vote against state sovereignty and the rights of the individual in favor of short-sighted changes.

This.

Tribalism is the universal truth of homo sapiens. Humans are cooperative and competitive in being and when unmolested by modernism they form tribes by nature.

No. "Patriarchy" suggests that there was inequality among adult men, with an oligarchy of patriarchs lording over other men as well as women, while in hunter-gatherer tribal societies all adult men were essentially equal, with distinctions only drawn based on age, experience, and familial relation. The relative power between men and women depended on cultural things like kinship reckoning, division of labour, and religion. Matrilinear tribes, tribes where women had monopolies on important industries, or tribes that considered menstruation sorcery obviously gave women more power. A very small minority of tribes were even matriarchal. There were no tribes where men and women were exact equals, though. So you could say that sexism is the natural state of humanity, but patriarchy was a civilized refinement that only emerged in the upper paleolithic or thereabouts, with the emergence of the class system and ascribed status.

m8

you need to git gud at inglish

Patriarchy is an adaptation that helped humans survive in the harsh state of nature. It evolved over millions of years.

We have only had civilization for a few thousand years. As a result, even though we may no longer need Patriarchy, we still long for it subconsciously. Women still seek strong me to submit to and men still compete for status to assure access to fertile females.

yes
any society where women are given position of power becomes hell

I agree with what you're trying to say, but you have to go back

>mfw dat typo

You have it all wrong. In actual band and tribal societies there is no social status per se. It might seem natural that everything is a pissing contest to you because you were born in and lived your entire life in that kind of society, but hunter-gatherer societies were very, very different. Living with them it's almost eerie how chill and passive everyone is, but if you start pushing anyone around you'll soon be corrected by the entire group. For about 90,000 years men who attempted to dominate everyone just got murdered in their sleep. "Big men" only came about as tribal societies gave way to chiefdoms with the invention of pastoralism.

Exactly.

And this is why libertarian (((natural))) communism will never work.

In a natural society, ''big men'' were surrounded by a shit ton of women like in a high castle.

Literally no different to most mammal kingdoms. There's alpha animals with cubs all over the place, and meanwhile, they ''alpha'' still get murdered. Nature and a dangerous world.

>his country doesnt have a patriarch

Don't women represent 53% of your countries workforce?

>In a natural society, ''big men'' were surrounded by a shit ton of women like in a high castle.
No. We anthropologists know this stuff because we directly observed hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists, and pastoralists before they mostly went extinct. In bands and tribes men worked together as equals and women worked together as equals. Big Men only appeared on the scene when tribesmen started keeping livestock and some men decided to try to increase their personal status by accumulating as many animals as possible and hosting feasts to impress everyone. There were no Big Men at all among band-level societies because bands don't keep animals. Polygamy was only really practiced in tribes where the number of males was reduced by endemic warfare and whatnot. Some tribes even practiced polyandry. People didn't even start to build permanent settlements until 10,000 years ago, and they didn't build castles until the Middle Ages. Primitive human society was egalitarian, more egalitarian than chimp society but less so than bonobo society. Your Conan the Barbarian view of prehistory only became true as civilization started to emerge. It's pretty hard to act like Donald Trump when everything you own is carried on your back and you never sleep in the same place twice and you need to rely on every male you know to work as a team to hunt.

You forget that women can sleep with the man they view as being most valuable.

...

You viewed modern "hunter-gatherers". Projecting this upon historical cultures is academically disingenuous at best. Especially when projecting African/Australoid/East Asiatic/Indo-European onto one another as though they were somehow interchangeable.

Basically, you're full of shit.

Women slept with their husbands. All women acting like whores and fucking a different chad every night is a product of this culture.

Do you even know what that technique is called? You would have used the term if you knew what you were talking about.

Anyway, I think anthropology has a better guess of what prehistoric tribes were like than your Conan the Barbarian comic books or whatever else you want to pull out of your ass.

Why are you samefagging?

yes. The mayority of primates social structure is patriarcal.

Cuz he's a leaf bruh, duh.

primitive communism was the most popular mode of production (and shaped the egalitarian nature of ancient societies) for the better part (190ky) of our time as anatomically modern humans (200ky).

those jeans don't fit her at all

Faggot detected

>Anyway, I think anthropology has a better guess of what prehistoric tribes were like than your Conan the Barbarian comic books or whatever else you want to pull out of your ass.
Did you sleep through your logic class? Not an argument. Address my point directly.

>Why are you samefagging?
It was an addendum.

Natural doesn't mean good, that kind of reasoning just leads to Ted Kaczynski type philosophy.

You're not seeing my point.

Men would of still lead it. Women would of been ''equal'' in their own world of their own thing like more caring etc. I'm not saying they didn't do man jobs though.

Men would of been practising the bigger picture, hence leading us to civilisation in th first place.

Again it all comes down to mating process. Women are attracted to men of high value, and social value has always been around.

They also ate their babies as a form of birth control, I don't need that chill.

>Address my point directly.
You don't have a point. You're arguing from abject ignorance of an entire field of science. You're the equivalent of a hayseed saying to a geologist that he has no way of knowing that the earth isn't really flat. It's absolutely staggering that someone could be this ignorant. You're arguing against everything in the entire ethnographic record and the entire field of archaeology.

Here's a good place to start your voyage of discovery into the prehistoric development of social organization:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society

Read the article. Read through the other levels of social complexity. Stop talking.

>points me to a wikipedia article
Are you retarded? Give me some fucking papers or authors.

Jesus.

Bands consisted of a few dozen people. Marriages were usually arranged by the entire band with another band for political reasons. Because of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, all of the adult men would have had extremely athletic builds with the exception of invalids who had to be taken care of by the entire band. Your original image of a single ultra buff alpha sitting in front of a massive feast surrounded by dozens of hot bitches is ludicrous. That isn't how band or tribal societies even worked.

Now we just suck their brains out with vacuum cleaners while still in the womb and toss their corpses in a dumpster. Progress!

I think that would be a bit advanced for you. I'm not writing a bibliography of undergrad pablum for you. Take a 100 level course in cultural anthropology or archeology if you're that interested.

I honestly don't know if this is some autist Sup Forums meme that women "love" to be dominated. I mean I am a virgin but I wouldn't trust anything Sup Forums says.

>You don't have a point.
Yes I do, reread my post.

>You're arguing from abject ignorance of an entire field of science.
You can make true statements from abject ignorance (e.g. suppose I repeated your post in this thread), this is obviously not an argument.

>You're the equivalent of a hayseed saying to a geologist that he has no way of knowing that the earth isn't really flat.
These aren't analogous situations. The equivalent would be if a layman made a point and the geologist retorted with a fallacy.

>You're arguing against everything in the entire ethnographic record and the entire field of archaeology.
Not an argument.

>if you're that interested.
I have other interests of higher priority.

>I think that would be a bit advanced for you.
At least give me a few authors - that should require no more than a few seconds if you're actually familiar with this area of study.

>I have other interests of higher priority.
Sums up my feelings about talking with you. Bye.

Not an argument. I'll take that as a concession.

My history textbook says so, I cant name a culture that didnt embrace it at one point.

lol, please screencap this post for yourself and keep it on your desktop

You will know Sup Forums was always right when you learn it was true as all guys do in their 20's.

Could you recommend a book about the sky being blue?

You're an idiot.

>Could you recommend a book about the sky being blue?
I could find a physics book on Rayleigh scattering if you'd like. I don't know many authors in the field of physics because my area of study is mathematics.

>You're an idiot.
This is what passes for discourse in social sciences nowadays?

Only during "living" civilizations. When the civilization & society is dying a matriarchy / whiteknightyarchy is more common. Women voting = beginning of the end.

Gynocentric patriarchy. Traditional marriage vows:

Man, "With my body, I thee worship." Woman, "...to love, cherish and to obey." For 800 years we've been living in a gynocentric society. Both male chauvinists and feminist refuse to accept this verifiable fact.

>I don't know many authors in the field of physics because my area of study is mathematics.
How about a recent article in a reputable journal dedicated to describing the basics of addition and subtraction? Provide me with that and I'll gladly link you to an introduction of the prehistoric development of social complexity.

>This is what passes for discourse in social sciences nowadays?
This isn't discourse. This is you being an idiot and me being disgusted by your ignorance.

>a recent article
Recent articles tend to be at the forefront of research. The fundamentals of addition and subtraction have been well studied. Look up Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead. The story around that work is actually a bit depressing.

At any rate, this isn't an equivalent request as I didn't ask for a recent article.

>This isn't discourse.
It sure isn't. You appear to think appeals to authority and ad hominems are valid arguments!

...

Goodnight leaf.

Look at this narcisstic cunt. Beyond getting drilled, what use is there for her.

The fundamentals of the prehistoric development of cultural complexity have been well studied in anthropology since the 1870s.

You'll find links to relevant sources in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier.

I accept this as your concession.