Feminism in prehistoric times / primitive culture

Datun

Awwww mummy made him go have a snack, maybe a nap??

When he's finished relying on the poor sods women in his life (!) maybe he will come back and tell us all why the women in his life need him, more than he needs them??!

Ah, another gem from 'larson' further down on bullshit.atheistforums.org/thread-48553.html when other posters called

'[Feminism is] not a noble cause. Men and women have roles. We are animals. Women should not rule and they should not vote. [Women] didn't create this civilization therefore it's not for [women] to do so. Women belong in the home. Yes, 50s style. Feminism does come out of entitlement and comfort. Any movement that talks about microaggressions is simply hysteria on its period and it should be cut off at the root.'

Claiming to be a woman on that thread.

Or elevenses.

The op is an emissary from the red pill community with a mission to enlighten us

He must think we are very important to put all that effort into his post, perhaps when he recovers his strength he'll be back to defend the points he made?

Or elevenses.

I missed @Xenophile post on the secnd page, and I loved it so much I'm repeating it....

Just a thought....

In every other species where males are needed to do little to nothing with offspring, the numbers of males is severely limited. If evopsych has any value at all and it really doesn't how does it explain why we bothered, as primitive societies, with keeping the numbers of males around that we did?

In a purely evolutionary sense, having lots of males about makes life dangerous for the rest of the group, because they fight for access to females in order to pass on their genes. Given that the OP is all about the evopsych, when does he suggest that we start kiling off lesser males in order to ensure that only the best genetic material makes it into the gene pool? How does he suggest we go about doing this? Or does the OP only wish to subscribe to evolutionary theory when it suits him to attempt to feel superior to the sex that birthed and nurtured him?

I'd love to hear an evo pysch douchebags answer to that one.....

They are essentially advocating through their pseaudo science for vast swathes of themselves to be culled right!?

But I suspect they have such pathetically high opinions of themselves they probably see themselves as the "alpha" fucking males- which is patently bollocks!

We're on Easter holidays, aren't we? I suspect the OP has gone in for his lunch.

It's such a sad injustice that when working class men fought for their rights they could rely on support from their wives whereas when women fought for theirs they were often going against their husbands' wishes and had no such support, making the fight doubly difficult for them

Yeah this about a million times.

I am so fucking insulted at the deliberate ignorance demonstrated by men like the OP.

My poor great gran usedd to go to meetings/ set up protests and stage events (both socialist and feminist) but if the men were there she'd end up making the fucking tea, while the men stood about beating their chests and stealing all the floor.
Then she'd have to go home, cook/ housework/ 11 kids etc etc, all while her "socialist" husband sat on his arse.

"Whenever a feminist complains about some perceived oppression, she should try imagining living on a desert island, with 100 women and 100 men. She should imagine that the men all want to sit around chatting, or only helping with domestic chores rather than hunting, fishing and building shelters. Then she should imagine how angry she would be when it dawns on her that all the women are going to have to do all of those tasks. There was an experiment done a few years back where there were women on an island and men on another. The men cooperated, and got things done. The women argued, and doomed themselves to death, or they would have if the men had not come over to their island to sort things out. That's nature at work. Be careful what you wish for, feminists, because if we end up in such a primitive scenario, you'll be the first to drop to your knees and beg men to save you."

Firstly I most definitely will not be dropping to my knees to beg men to save me

I'm perfectly capable of saving myself.

Your "experiment" was not an experiment; it was a reality TV show. Funnily enough I don't take one Channel 4 reality TV show so seriously that I take the outcome based on a handful of men and women pre-selected by the Directors to be a genuine view of what would happen come Armageddon.

Clearly, you are comfortable basing your knowledge of society on a reality TV show. I think that says more about you than the topic at hand.

OP if you are so convinced of your manly rightness, come back and have a debate with us.

But you won't, because being an inflammatory, pathetic, snivelling toad, is what you are, and you don't have the ovaries to come and have proper conversation.

I find the Venus figurines very interesting;
There is no way of proving why they were carved, or what they represent, and there are many theories. They may have represented a goddess, or they may have been a fertility symbol. The automatic, unconscious assumption that they must have been carved by men, together with the way certain parts of the anatomy are exaggerated, led some to the conclusion that they may have been a sort of neolithic pornography . Even the name "Venus figurine" makes a lot of assumptions about Neolithic society, and that all art has always been created from the focus of the male gaze.
There is a theory that they were carved by women, as self portraits.
It just goes to show that we shouldn't extrapolate too much from recent history onto prehistoric societies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

"Notice how feminists don't bother campaigning or complaining about the fact that there are few women miners, or sewage workers, or all manner of other unpleasant, harsh and demanding jobs. Even in the midst of feminist brainwashing, they can't do it. They want to play at being men, but without everything that comes with it."

Not because women can't do those jobs...in fact I have a female friend who works in a mine (in Australia, very few left here). It's because feminism is about getting equal rights which is accomplished through getting an equal balance of power...with respect to the jobs listed they aren't seats of power and so wouldn't help with gaining equal rights.

It also ignores the fact that our reliance on a service economy means that there aren't as many harsh, unpleasant and demanding jobs as there used to be. And it's not about playing at being men...I'm not remotely interested in being a man, I'm a feminist not transsexual.

I'm quite aware as the breadwinner of my household that there are negatives to being a man (of course there are) and I take these on in the same way as any male breadwinner.

They set up Socialist and feminist movements, all while still trying to do all the fucking "wifework" cos the poor menz couldn't cope with making their own fucking dinner for once in their lives.

It's such a sad injustice that when working class men fought for their rights they could rely on support from their wives whereas when women fought for theirs they were often going against their husbands' wishes and had no such support, making the fight doubly difficult for them.

Someone on that t'hread, trying to be kind, posted that 'There is evidence that in ancient times the female form was worshipped and some pagan religions had a matriarchal structure.'

larson had a hissy fit and responded
'No, feminism is a movement. Being in charge is not. Nor does women being in charge have anything to do with feminism.' This is after he was asked to define feminism, and got snitty and told the other poster to look up a dictionary. I'm guessing he's 12.

Excellent and timely x-post with stumblymonkey!

I too come from a poor, but mainly matriarchal family, my great Gran was involved in early feminist and socialist movements from the "comfort" of a one room place in an East End slum ffs.

Sexual division of labour doesn't equal patriarchy.

The idea that men's work is more valuable combined with a structural attempt to control women's reproduction = patriarchy.

Also OP if you look at the types of work done by the different sexes in primitive cultures you'd be surprised at the number of so-called men's jobs that were actually performed by women.

As women were denied access to education, public forums and required to dedicate their lives to child rearing it is hardly surprising that there aren't any female inventors.

I hate to break it to you but you ain't no Tarzan

Oh and I suggest you look into the rise of feminism in very very poor, working class places in the early 1900s.
Those women certainly DID NOT have it fucking easy.

They set up Socialist and feminist movements, all while still trying to do all the fucking "wifework" cos the poor menz couldn't cope with making their own fucking dinner for once in their lives.
And all while dirt fucking poor.

Men get all the fucking credit throughout history......BECAUSE THEY WROTE THE HISTORY!!!

"
Feminism can only exist where there's abundance. Abundance created by men. It's easy to feel oppressed when you have a lot. Notice how poor people are usually appreciative of whatever they have. And notice how rich people, by that I just mean people who have it handed to them on a plate, tend to be entitled. Women have it handed on a plate, and feminists are entitled."

Again, this is so factually incorrect as to be laughable. Feminism started at a time when many people in the U.K. did not have a comfortable life at all the time of slums and what was known as the Victorian underclass, yet many of these working class women living in poverty were involved in the grass roots of suffrage. My family is more matriarchal and comes from poverty.

It also ignores feminism in third world countries...do you just pretend that feminism in the third world doesn't exist?

Nah mate, you lost me when you claimed that men in charge is the "natural order" and then made me very fucking angry when you claimed that men got society where we are today.

YOU FUCKING WHAT????!!!!

You know that women were not permitted to learn/ be educated etc, and when they managed it, men stole their ideas, prevented them from patenting them, and generally fucked things up.

The inventor of the modern computer programme is widely credited as being ADA LOVELACE!

Not only are you a goady fucker, you have proved your lack of intelligence and education.
1/10

"Not only did men create civilization, but they maintain it to this day. They work tirelessly behind the scenes to keep the show going. Not because they're being unfair to women by doing so, but because that's what men do. The truth is this : men are still behaving according to their true natures as they always have done, and the reason is a matter of life and death in that if they don't, we'll be plunged back into the stoneage. Men are not trying to antagonize or insult or oppress women by taking charge when it comes to certain things in society, they are simply following their natural programming, just as women mostly follow their programming in other areas (i.e. maternal instinct). It can't be changed. It's the way it is and no one can change it. It will never stop. In 1,000 years it will still be the same way."

There are so many things wrong with this part I'm rather at a loss of where to start.

Does it not occur to you that there are women maintaining what we have today, working behind the scenes? Are you not aware of female CEOs, MPs, judges, financiers, investors, police, etc or does that just not fit into your narrative so you'll just pretend they don't exist?

How do you explain (in your very strange world that bears no resemblance to the one I live in) women with little maternal instinct and men with strong paternal instincts?

How do you explain men who want to be SAHPs and women who want to work outside the home and who are natural leaders?

Or do you just pretend that doesn't exist?

The op clearly is not clever enough to take part in real debate hence the hit and run nature of that shite post.

" They forget that although our environment has changed, the species has not. Men are still better than women at the same things that they have always been better at. Women still have the same strengths that they've always had. We have not evolved. Only our environment has. It is foolish to think that a women and men have the same strengths. "

I think PP have covered this point but actually as a species we continually evolve, that's the thing about evolution. We are incredibly adaptable.

Secondly our environment dictates what skills are needed and valued. It's rare that a job now relies on physicality...what strengths is it that you think men inherently (by which I mean biologically and not via social constructs and upbringing) have that makes them more suitable to be in the work place and less suitable to be at home?

What biologically based skills do they have that make them more suited to being lawyers, judges, politicians?

"Feminism happens when women have it very easy."

This is a misunderstanding. No movement ever comes from people sitting around and having it very easy. No one is motivated by 'having it easy'.

Feminism happened because of mass injustices.

Are you saying, OP, assuming you are female that if we took the vote away from you today, made you the property of your DH, told you both it was legal for him to rape you as you have no right as his property to say no to sex, told you that if you had MH issues your DH could put you in an asylum against your will....that you would consider this 'having it easy'?

Yes it does look like a school project. Or similar. The exact same post made by the OP was also posted on atheistforums.org yesterday by 'larson', a junior member. Who joined that forum yesterday. And is getting his arse kicked post ripped to pieces.

Paraphrasing you here as CBA to write it all back out but...

"In primitive societies there was no need for feminism, men did their tasks, women did theirs..."

Okay. But we don't live in a primitive society so what's your point and how is it relevant to today's society?

There is an assumption also that women aren't strong enough to do 'men's tasks'. Several of my female friends can deadlift more than their own body weight. The difference in the strength of men and women when you remove all social influence (i.e. we do the same physical exercise and jobs) isn't as great as people think

Also a division of tasks based on gender isn't evidence of patriarchy or the success of patriarchy in primitive societies. Division of tasks is not necessarily about power in society, since there are no written records we don't know how power worked in primitive tribes and who made decisions. You're making an assumption with no basis in fact...