Feminism in prehistoric times / primitive culture

[Joneser]

Hi. Is it possible in theory that any kind of feminist movement could conceivably have existed in prehistoric times or in any primitive culture? I don't mean matriarchal societies, I mean a feminist movement.

Haha, good one OP. Nearly had us there. ROFLMAO etc

I couldn't make it through that screed of evo-psych cobblers, but the OP seems like he's a lot of fun. Can we keep him as a pet?

kelpeed, The Land of Painted Caves was an abomination, but I did very much enjoy Ayla's struggle to Have It All as she juggled motherhood with her career while Jondalar sulked in the background like the emotionally incontinent manchild he was

Almondpudding said it all:

"I have some doubts about your knowledge of anthropology OP.

Also, the ability to be succinct is a virtue."

lol

Err......that would be a D......no maybe an E from me. Would like to fail it completely, but it's got paragraphs. "primitive peoples" LOL.

@almondpudding

Almondpudding wins the thread for sure

Couldn't be bothered to read past my 'natural functions' and the idea that women couldn't do 'mens' work and men couldn't do 'womens' work - which is demonstrably rubbish outside of reproductive labour.

When I've seen documentaries about current day isolated tribes living traditional lives, one thing that stuck out for me is that the blokes go off and do the hunting, then come back and sit around and smoke (hunted meat optional). The women get on with raising kids, getting firewood, finding the bulk of the food and water the tribe eats, and often seem to basically have the attitude that the men are just giant children who sometimes bring home meat.

I don't get the impression that (other than at the hands of other men) the women would suffer deprivation without the men of their village. The men on the other hand would have a lot less time to sit around a fire talking about the glories of their hunts.

I think that their feminism is accepting their lot, and getting on with it because more than us they know that life is precarious, and the hunters wouldn't fail to beat them if they stepped out of line.

The evolutionary Psychology spouted in that ridiculous essay has all the scientific rigour of phrenology. But then understanding pseudoscience is not one of my strengths. Guess I'll have to leave that to a man, and know my place.

I was thinking about my great-grandparents, on both sides, who were Victorians.

Both my great grandmothers had 10 children apiece. Does anyone (and by that I mean men) think that is what they wanted? I mean, would you?

If men had only learnt to keep it in their pants, history would be a completely different story.

It's no coincidence that the contraceptive pill has revolutionised the gender roles. And we've only just begun.

that was really funny op.
Humans are incredibly adaptable species, that's why we are so successful.

All women should be eternally grateful and humbled by the amazing things that men have done for everybody.

After all women only gave them life.

How are wars efficient?

Evolutionary Psychology... giving inadequate men the chance to feel like Tarzan for a minute.

I do love how you've attempted to edit the copy/paste though.

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?

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...

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.

"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'?

" 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?

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

"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?

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

"
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?

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!!!

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

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.

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.