Women & Respect

[Speaker to Animals]

The book Before the Dawn goes into great detail showing the origin of that myth. No serious anthropologist thinks this. It's your job to prove it, not mine to somehow disprove it.

The myth of a paleolithic matriarchy comes from Gloria Steinum. It's just feminist nonsense.

This is why I keep saying we are heading into some form of dark age as marxism takes over the academy. People begin to believe this shit without any real evidence at all.

It doesn't even stand up to reason.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We don't need yer fuckin' smart-words around here, DrY. You keep that fancy talk to your latte-sippin' leet fag friends sumbitch.

[Speaker to Animals]

More bile dumped into the forum by GCF.

[DrYouth]

I didn't say matriarchy...

I said matrilocal.

Matriarchies are exceedingly rare... and you are right on the coopting by feminism... that definitely happened.
Lots of feminist drivel out there... I will never challenge you on that.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy draws on reams of primatology and anthropology research to draw her conclusions on human child rearing practices... without a hint of the feminism you are referring to.

[Speaker to Animals]

I didn't say matriarchy...

I said matrilocal.

Matriarchies are exceedingly rare... and you are right on the coopting by feminism... that definitely happened.
Lots of feminist drivel out there... I will never challenge you on that.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy draws on reams of primatology and anthropology research to draw her conclusions on human child rearing practices... without a hint of the feminism you are referring to.

Uh.. no. There exists no evidence for that in the paleolithic. In fact, from what I have read, the exact opposite is the case. Human beings in the paleolithic were patrilocal. Women migrated to other tribes and tribes were dominated by men.


Women have less loyalty to their ethnic, tribal, or national group because of this. If I were wrong about this, you war brides wouldn't be a thing. But they are a thing. Women opening our gates to mass migration from other other lands is essentially the same thing.

[DrYouth]

The reference for Hrdy's work is "Mother's and Others"
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php? ... nt=reviews
Primate studies and anthropology studies are all in her footnotes and bibliography.

What is your reference?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Feeeeeeeelz

[TheReal_ND]

I actually have no problems believing many older cultures were matrilineal. Easier to keep track of lineage. The Jews still are as well as Abbos iirc. Is that what we are talking about?

[LVH2]

I thought about that monkey branching thing. While it was obviously a narrative at the outset, I don't think it's a very good one.

When younger and horny, everyone is kind of on the lookout for someone better most of the time, unless their partner is too good for them. And even then.

In more serious relationships, I think women leapfrog more than monkey branch. That is, when they decide a relationship is no good, they look for another landing spot. Men do too, but to a lesser degree.

I don't expect anyone to believe this, but a girl once left an MTV VJ for me. She was not trading up in any kind of material or social sense. She was trading way down, in fact. It was a freak occurrence. However, he was a domineering psycho and she wanted out. Luckily for me, we hit it off and she leaped from him to me.

We were together for a long time and I eventually ended it. She was extremely hot and could have traded up from me at literally any minute. But she was happy so she didn't.

Obviously, her friends were also all hot and I saw the same thing with most of them. One girl was waiting for her boyfriend to get out of prison, on a 6 month drug sentence. I finally met the guy. I was expecting some total badass. He was this introverded dweeb with a funny shaped head.

I think, if anything, most very attractive girls are not calculating enough about who they date. I used to work with another very hot girl, with whom I struck out. She also had incredible charisma and charm. But she dated some other losers. One of our older female co-workers was like, "why don't you get a job at a hospital? It's just as easy to fall in love with a doctor as a casino dealer." I thought that was really good advice, but not many women seem to follow it.

[Speaker to Animals]

I didn't say matriarchy...

I said matrilocal.

Matriarchies are exceedingly rare... and you are right on the coopting by feminism... that definitely happened.
Lots of feminist drivel out there... I will never challenge you on that.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy draws on reams of primatology and anthropology research to draw her conclusions on human child rearing practices... without a hint of the feminism you are referring to.

They were not matrilocal. I am not going to transcribe the whole book for you, but this topic is covered in depth in Before the Dawn. We know from genetic evidence that women migrated farther than men, for example.

On a smaller scale, the genetic evidence shows that women move farther than men, presumably reflecting the fact that most human groups are patrilocal and it is the women who move to other societies to find marriage partners.

Wade gives a reference here to Mark T. Sielkstad, Erich Minch, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "Genetic Evidence for Higher Female Migration Rate in Humans," Nature Genetics, 20:278-280 (1998)

Most hunter-gatherer societies are patrilocal, in the sense that the wife goes to live with the husband's family. The biological reason is to avoid in-breeding, a problem faced by all social animals. But the almost universal solution in the primate world is matrilocality: the females stay put and the males disperse at puberty. Patrilocality is the exception to the rule, and has probably evolved in only four other primate species besides humans and chimpanzees.

Reference note: Anne E. Pusey, in Frans B. M. de Waal, ed., Tree of Origin, Harvard University Press 2001, p. 21.






####



Another way you can see the assertion that we are a matrilocal species is totally bogus is to consider the fact that hunter-gather societies across the globe have been almost universally patrilocal. When you see the same social behavior in Papa New Guinea that you see in the Amazonian rainforest and in the Kalahari desert, the odds that patrilocality is just some capricious cultural choice made independently by nearly all primitive human cultures becomes highly improbable. The more parsimonious explanation for this phenomena is that patrilocaly is a genetic adaptation in modern humans no differently than it is genetic behavior in chimpanzees.

It's only because of our sapience that we can even entertain alternative social structures, and even then we require the massive surplus of an agrarian or technological civilization to implement such an idea in reality. If the Earth gets struck by a comet tomorrow and what's left of humanity scatters into little tribal groups to survive the aftermath, those tribes won't be matrilocal. If you believe that we would naturally form up into little tribes led by women, you are hilariously deluding yourself.


####

And all of this is not to say I want to live in a society where women are traded like chattel or pots and pans between male-dominated tribes. I am just saying.. there exist genetic reasons for our behavior. There exist genetic reasons why women so freely toss men aside or will betray their entire nation to become war brides or some whore to an occupying officer.

Women possess strong evolutionary biases against compassion for men, in my humble opinion, because of our long history of patrilocality. Their evolutionary bias is to seek out the strongest male (or the one with the most resources) to protect them when they are weakest, and they will feel strong evolutionary urges jump the fence when that male is disabled or sick. If you don't believe that, go look at the divorce rate amongst disabled veterans, as one example.

This lack of compassion for men is why you see historical examples of women demanding sons and husbands go to battle and return "holding their shields or carried by them". Or why suffragettes, while they weren't busting up shop windows and rioting to demand the right to vote, were actually shaming teenage boys, who also had no right to vote, to enlist and go fight and die in the trenches of WW1. It's why as you can see here, even talking about a discriminatory system that steals children from fathers so that women can get free money from them results in "get off the pity potty" comments, or why, on the Internet, discussion of rising male suicide rates from this system results in women openly mocking dead fathers and drinking from cups labeled "male tears".

I am telling you, women do not give a fuck about you in the abstract. They care about themselves and other women. It's not a moral failing on their part. It's genetic behavior. Just like our aggression and all the violent crime it engenders is not some moral failing on the part of men as a whole, but genetic baggage we carry.


####


Or as Florence Nightingale wrote..

I have read half your book thro’, and am immensely charmed by it. But some things I disagree with and more I do not understand. This does not apply to the characters, but your conclusions, e.g. you say “women are more sympathetic than men”.

Now if I were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience.

Now look at my experience of men. A statesman, past middle age, absorbed in politics for a quarter of a century, out of sympathy with me, remodels his whole life and policy – learns a science the driest, the most technical, the most difficult, that of administration, as far as it concerns the lives of men – not, as I learnt it, in the field from stirring experience, but by writing dry regulations in a London room by my sofa with me. This is what I call real sympathy.

Another (Alexander, whom I made Director-General) does very nearly the same thing. He is dead too. Clough, a poet born if ever there was one, takes to nursing administration in the same way, for me.

I only mention three whose whole lives were remodeled by sympathy for me. But I could mention very many others…

I have never found one woman who altered her life by one iota for me or my opinions.

Now just look at the degree in which women have sympathy – as far as my experience is concerned. And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. I have lived and slept in the same bed with English Countesses and Prussian Bauerinnen. No [other woman] has ever had charge of women of the different creeds that I have had. No woman has excited “passions” among women more than I have. Yet I leave no school behind me. My doctrines have taken no hold among women…and I attribute this to a want of sympathy.

It makes me mad, the Women’s Rights talk about “the want of a field” for them – when I know that I would gladly give £500 a year for a Woman Secretary. And two English Lady Superintendents have told me the same. And we can’t get one … they don’t know the names of the Cabinet Ministers. They don’t know the offices at the Horse Guards…Now I’m sure I did not know these things. When I went to the Crimea I did not know a Colonel from a Corporal. But there are such things as Army Lists and Almanacs. Yet I never could find a woman who, out of sympathy, would consult one for my work.

I do believe I am “like a man,” as Parthe says. But how? In having sympathy.

Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so…They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy?

I am sick with indignation at what wives and mothers will do of the most egregious selfishness. And people call it all maternal or conjugal affection, and think it pretty to say so. No, no, let each person tell the truth from his own experience.”

###

Finally, I argue that, if women want to live in a gender-equal society in which they are not traded between men like property as our species evolved, and for men to overcome our genetic baggage that leads towards that kind of society, then perhaps they too should reflect on their own genetic baggage and how it harms men. Gender equality is a two-way street, and currently, women couldn't care fuck all about their own privilege and abuses.