I was talking to my girlfriend about male-female relationships and she said she believes men historically served women because they're biological...

I was talking to my girlfriend about male-female relationships and she said she believes men historically served women because they're biologically designed to be servile to the "womb-bearing feminine," and the last several thousand years of patriarchal rule has been a historical anomaly brought upon by highly insecure men who inflicted abuse on other men and women to usurp control. She also said she doesn't believe in patriarchal or matriarchal rule, but a kind of joint-rule that's ultimately gynocentric, currently impossible in modern society due to multi-generational contamination from those psychopathic men. (I'm describing what she said in a more literate manner because she doesn't read much while I read a lot.)

I don't really disagree with her. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me and I've always thought men are the ones in the submissive position, biologically speaking. Men are far more disposable and expendable, and given our track record, we also seem a lot less contemplative and secure in ourselves in comparison. It's why we build and invent things; it's a coping mechanism. We act like it makes us marvelous, but a woman's body remains more marvelous in itself than anything we've ever created.

I know IQfy will disagree but I'm wondering if anyone has any anthropologists or historians who might be relevant and worth reading.

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My family ruined my life. I did everything right, obeyed and did well in school. Never went to parties, never played sports, couldn’t go to friend’s houses, never given money to go on dates, couldn’t get a license because it was “too expensive.” I will never be loved by anybody because I never got to be normal. It’s too far gone for me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      same

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      life is ruined from the start for everyone you dunce.
      there is no key to happiness except for controlling your own psyche in the moment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why are you still living with your parents you moron?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      R9k moment

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah 🙁

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wherever you are in life, a billion people have it better and a billion people have it worse. that's why you don't make either comparison the objective standard.
      also, that you are still alive means you still have a chance to be somebody. the problem is when you think you can decide whether that somebody matters.
      >ew i don't want to be person x with significance y
      it's not in your hands lad. never was.
      a dude once fathered an entire race of people at age 100 and started abrahamism. all we are here to do is what we are told.
      >ew but i don't want to be a slave to some israelite in an office
      good thing you aren't. you're the child of an omnipotent will greater than your parents. you might not believe in god, but you probably believe in the universe, which sets up insects to be eaten but also populated all of planet earth from a crusty pond.

      Yeah 🙁

      you are the crusty pond.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I guess so :/

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We're all gonna make it bro. Gimme a kiss.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Boomertards hysterical fears of unplanned pregnancies from back in the days when you couldn't just abort the little suckers without being the shame of the community and their attempts to prevent their kids from having them created a generation of romanceless incels. Now nobody cares if you scramble your proto-baby and nobody knows each other anyway.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My father did this to me when I went into highschool along with some more malicious things for reasons I still don't know. A wonder I was able to become a normalgay for awhile, my sympathies, anon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking loser. Get the hell off my board. Nobody wants to sit here and listen to you whine like a little b***h.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chads and simps prevent rational men from putting prostitutes back where they belong, the kitchen. Women are all short feminine manlets with low muscle mass, frail skeletons and soft skin, their opinion is irrelevant

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sources?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women have built-in biological responses to help cope with domination and rape lol

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I will only focus on the issue of physical strength, on average, this is one of the most dimorphic aspects that we can notice.

      however, it is neither absolute nor less invariable... the distribution of physical strength is highly linked to dopamine so that it can be distributed without much dimorphism.

      I will cite a case
      In 1964, a woman alone lifted a car that was on top of her son, and we call this “hysterical strength” and this happens when the body releases a lot of adrenaline in an extreme way in response to momentary stress and this quickly increases blood circulation to the muscles providing greater oxygen and energy and it allows, for a specific period of time, incredible strength that would normally be impossible under normal conditions.
      so certain activities that are said to be male-intensive and stressful, women can be capable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > In 1964, a woman alone lifted a car that was on top of her son, and we call this “hysterical strength”
        Aryan uebermensch genetics

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What a gay little cope this is. Is this really the best you can come up with?
        In most cases of hysterical strength its a man doing the lifting.
        Also you have 0 idea about how muscles, the rest of your body or basic logic works if you think that all a woman needs to be as strong as a man is some dopamine.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cope

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            men are stronger than women
            always have been and always will be
            exceptions prove the rule

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >In 1964, a woman alone lifted a car that was on top of her son, and we call this “hysterical strength”
        Actually, that is called the spirit of God.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Getting rid of laws against rape would help society reorganize under patriarchal dominion over time. It also would solve the incel problem.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women are subservient to men and this has been the way for most of human history. Because of sexual dimorphism in humans, men are physically stronger and unburdened by periods or pregnancy/child birth so they were free to hunt, work and forage while women dealt with pregnancy. You could argue for polyandry but in an age without DNA paternity test you could never really knew if a child was truly yours, so monogamy become a norm. It seems statistically unlikely that some shadowy cabal of "insecure psychopathic men" could somehow coordinate for millennia to usurp control and bring about a patriarchy, because let's face it, psychopathic usually end up in positions of power and end up having children. Just look at any megacorp CEO or your local politician.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I used to think this, but after spending more time on the subject it all appears to be a product of its time rather than a fact.

      >Women are subservient to men
      Now they are, yes — well, at least on the surface. When men and women are both free, women stop being subservient (maternal instinct =/= subservience).

      >Because of sexual dimorphism in humans, men are physically stronger and unburdened by periods or pregnancy/child birth so they were free to hunt, work and forage while women dealt with pregnancy.
      Men became better workers and attained greater athletic mastery. This made them mentally sharper, but not more relevant to the species' survival. Men also bring with them far more violence and degeneracy.

      >It seems statistically unlikely that some shadowy cabal of "insecure psychopathic men" could somehow coordinate for millennia to usurp control and bring about a patriarchy
      This is a straw man. The idea is more that men as a collective became arrogant and forgot their place as the less relevant and more degenerate half of the species.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Now they are, yes
        No, it's the opposite. Women today are less subservient to men and this is especially true in the West. Thanks to the industrial revolution and the feminist movement it's now easier for women to get educations, own property, participate in politics, select their own partners, choose their own employments and many other liberties. This is a recent development, go back a hundred or a thousand years and this was not the case.
        >but not more relevant to the species' survival
        It absolutely was, for hunter gatherer tribes, who would go out to hunt to make sure the tribe was fed while the women dealt with pregnancy? A woman on the cusp of labor can't go out to hunt a gazelle. And with the dawn of civilization, it was men who were more physically capable of doing the demanding farm work (it's backbreaking) and later during the industrial revolution industrial work. This is why you don't see many woman in labor intensive jobs like construction.
        >Men also bring with them far more violence and degeneracy.
        Violence comes from higher levels of testosterone, which is necessary for bone and muscle growth. It isn't necessarily a bad thing unless it's directed towards the same members of the tribe/family. Violent tribes that secured the most resource from other tribes survived.
        >The idea is more that men as a collective became arrogant and forgot their place as the less relevant and more degenerate half of the species.
        This is also nonsense, men don't think or operate as a collective. I don't share the same idea as you, and countries (usually ran by men) don't operate as a collective and are willing to fight wars for petty reasons.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Women today are less subservient to men and this is especially true in the West.
          Correction, they are less subservient to their husbands and fathers, 'cucking' themselves to capital owners and becoming subservient to their factory bosses. Not really an achievement, but hey, at least capitalism doesn't ask them for their pussy and they still get money for it! From a holes point of view a total winner move.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tbh I think you may be a little moronic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Better workers, greater athletic mastery, mentally sharper... What is that all amount too? Just so that a man can be a better tool for women to make use of. The women will only accept the best tools available in the tribe to pass on their genes.

        This is done by male on male competition. A gladiatorial combat where woman socialize and are entertained. Meanwhile we are in the arena of life working until we die.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What we consider "better," "greater" and "sharper" are all in regards to masculine traits. Of course measuring women according to the masculine domain is going to make men come out on top every time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > What does "insecure" even mean.
      Insecurity is a feeling of not being good enough or confident. It's when you're unsure of yourself and feel scared or anxious about things. This feeling can come from many different things, such as:

      1. A traumatic event that happened to you
      2. Patterns of negative experiences in the past
      3. The way you were raised or the messages you got from others
      4. Changes or uncertainty in your life

      When you're insecure, you might be super sensitive to anything that could go wrong or hurt you. This can make you doubt yourself and feel anxious about lots of things. It's like your emotions are on high alert, and it's hard to shake off those feelings of fear and uncertainty.

      > insecure psychopathic
      Psychopaths are the opposite of insecure; they are overconfident.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Free" to hunt, work, and forge... Or "have to" hunt, work and forge to prove their value to women?

      It's a matter of perspective. The woman sat around socializing inside, while the men slaved away. Who is really the dominant one in this scenario?

      Men went out and fought each other and killed each other. If the men who the woman had previously been with died the woman would get new and stronger men to take care of them and those men would then be "free" to work, hunt, forge and fight for them.

      Did they get raped? Sure... But what is raped really? It is a tool of oppression... The concept is a social tool of oppression for men. So that woman can not accept men who have won by deception rather than conquest.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is your argument,?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Men and women, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, complement each other in an equal partnership. Patriarchy existed because of historical conditions and cultural norms, not a biological imperative. It was associated with the transition to agriculture, which is not the natural state of man.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > patriarchy is when women have to do thr dishes and look after the children
    Everyone who thinks like thus should khs

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This doesn’t make any sense. Why would primitive men be servile to women just because they have a womb?

    The women would just as easily be forced into your cave, knowing they rely entirely on you for survival

    Pretty much the only real worry would be they’d kill themselves but how often did such a thing even happen amongst primitives?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why would primitive men be servile to women just because they have a womb?
      Because if the woman died before giving birth, the species would end, and if the woman died before the child made it through early childhood, the man would have to deal with that burden which he isn't naturally designed for.

      What do women have to offer to men, other than being plapped and rearing them children?

      >What do women have to offer to men
      What do men have to offer to women, other than their semen? In modern times, they don't even need a man's protection or money anymore.

      >given our track record we seem a lot less contemplative and secure in ourselves
      Can you give some examples of what you mean? Also why are you pretending to be a man? You could have made this thread without the gay little made up story you made up.
      Your writing style makes it very obvious youre a woman.

      >Can you give some examples of what you mean?
      Who commits more violence, men or women? Who has more derogatory terms for the other, men or women? Who came up with religions and political systems which deem half of the species as no better than property, men or women?

      >Also why are you pretending to be a man?
      I'm a man. I'm not pretending.

      Women are inferior to men, because those who get pentrated are beneath the penetrator.
      Women's bodies are designed to be penetrated by men and carry their kids.

      >because those who get pentrated are beneath the penetrator
      Sex isn't just penetration, it's a reductive way to view it.

      If the same men breed, genetic diseases goes through the roof. Also what a misandrist take OP.

      >Also what a misandrist take OP.
      To be fair, I prefer most women to most men. I think most men are no better than apes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm a man. I'm not pretending
        Post dick with foreskin and timestamp

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What do men have to offer to women

        everything around you, you dumb Black person LOL there is no grand society, no technology, advancement, comfort, or standard of living without the strong arm of masculinity, and in its subservient role, passive femininity

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there is no grand society, no technology, advancement, comfort, or standard of living without the strong arm of masculinity
          Or without the soothing embrace of femininity, which is not servile, and women become resentful when they are treated as servants because it is unnatural to them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The exact opposite is true.
            Why do you think women want to marry men who are more wealthy than them? Why do men not care at all if their spouse makes more or less than them?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you think women want to marry men who are more wealthy than them?
            To obtain their wealth.

            >Why do men not care at all if their spouse makes more or less than them?
            They do sometimes care about this, though. Specifically, a lot of men feel threatened by women who make more than them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To obtain their wealth in the way that typically represents the dynamic between a servant and their master (HINT: I'm being sarcastic).
            >a lot of men feel threatened by women who make more than them
            This is just a common cope and a patent falsehood that is repeated by women ad nauseam. There is 0 proof to back this up.
            Even if it were true it would be a direct contradiction of the naturally servile man hypothesis posited by OP. The naturally servile and submissive man should feel attracted to a powerful dominant woman, not the other way around.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The naturally servile man doesn't really exist anymore, this was thousands of years ago. It's been beaten bloody out of men over the generations, or at least, beaten into repression — hence the derogatory terms and general violence against women. Now men are mostly autists and psychopaths as a result of this, and the ones that aren't part of this multi-generational trauma get called "simps" and "cucks."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this was thousands of years ago
            what sources are you using to come to this conclusion? or is it just a gut feeling you have? because it really seems that way

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >general violence against women
            there is no culture across the world nor any period in time where men were not the primary victims of violence
            you are extremely biased

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"simps" and "cucks."

            most men are, as 90% of men are losers.
            women respect only power & authority, so
            10% of the men have their pick of the chix.
            the rest of the men settle for fatties & single mothers

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s because the government gets in our way. Without a state to enforce contracts between men and women we could easily just brutalize them and keep slaves

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >violence
        what does this have to do with contemplation or insecurity?
        >derogatory terms
        see above
        >religions and political systems which deem half of the species as no better than property, men or women
        hysterical and extremely dishonest
        why dont you give some examples that dont require 100 leaps of logic to make sense? or at least explain the leaps of logic youre making
        >contemplation
        philosophy and science require a lot of contemplation, men are currently and have historically been more represented in these fields, this indicates they are more contemplative than women
        >insecurity
        women spend more time worrying about their appearance, this is an indication they could be more insecure than men

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what does this have to do with contemplation or insecurity?
          Violence is the antithesis of contemplation.

          >see above
          Derogatory terms emerge out of insecurity.

          >hysterical and extremely dishonest
          Are you serious?

          >philosophy and science require a lot of contemplation
          Most men are ignorant of and even hostile to both, while most women have always tended to philosophy naturally — just not the academic kind.

          >women spend more time worrying about their appearance
          That's not even true anymore.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            violence is definitely NOT the antithesis to contemplation in the same way that up is not the antithesis of the ground
            the antithesis of violence is something like kindness, care or tranquility
            the antithesis of contemplation is something like willful ignorance

            derogatory terms emerge out of many different motivations, insecurity can be one of them but is by far not the only one

            >Are you serious?
            yes I am
            there isnt a single religious or political system that has equated women as a whole, or even a majority of women, with property

            >most women have always tended to philosophy naturally — just not the academic kind
            as opposed to men? do you have a source or some examples for that?

            >That's not even true anymore
            it also wasnt true for a lot of history or all cultures, I was more trying to show you how to properly give coherent examples

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >violence is definitely NOT the antithesis to contemplation in the same way that up is not the antithesis of the ground
            Violence is the vita activa oriented towards the absolute denial of the other, the exact opposite of the vita contemplativa oriented towards the absolute acceptance of the other.

            >derogatory terms emerge out of many different motivations, insecurity can be one of them but is by far not the only one
            Considering the number of such terms men have come up with for women, as opposed to what women have come up with for men, it's safe to say that insecurity exists more among men than among women.

            >there isnt a single religious or political system that has equated women as a whole, or even a majority of women, with property
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

            >do you have a source or some examples for that?
            Just talk to the average woman; she will be more spiritual and socially conscious than the average man. Contemplation is in fact the natural state of women since there is an inherently maternal aspect to it.

            >it also wasnt true for a lot of history or all cultures
            I meant that men do worry about their appearance now just as much as women do. In fact, I don't really buy the idea that they didn't used to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you reducing the general concepts of violence and contemplation to a very specific philosophical framework?

            >Considering the number of such terms men have come up with for women, as opposed to what women have come up with for men
            Pure conjecture, niether of us have any idea who "came up" with terms like "wanker" or "c**t" and the assummption that it was a group of people that mostly have the same gender is extremely unlikely. Also I reject the notion that gendered insults generally skew towards women.

            >coverture
            This doesnt even apply to all women, just married women, and just because women werent allowed to own property or make contract in their name does not equate them with property. Also annulment existed alongside coverture.
            Your characterization that this equates women with property is inaccurate, dishonest and hysterical.

            >Just talk to the average woman; she will be more spiritual and socially conscious than the average man.
            It may seem that way to you. The sky may seem like it has polka dots to you. That doesnt make it true.

            >I meant that men do worry about their appearance now just as much as women do. In fact, I don't really buy the idea that they didn't used to.
            I know exactly what you meant and we're in agreement. European men used to give massive shits about their appearance, that is pretty well documented.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What do men have to offer to women, other than their semen? In modern times, they don't even need a man's protection or money anymore.
        every security apparatus across the world is developed, staffed and ran primarily by males
        what an asinine point this is lmao

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > In modern times, they don't even need a man's protection or money anymore
        So wagecuck offices aren't led my men? Kek women are so incompetent they can't without men. It's wagecucking for some random man or getting married and modern women pick the former because getting money without getting their pussy pumped is always a win for women.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          funny... today there was a case in my city where a thief tried to break into the house of an elderly woman and she was carrying a gun, she was in the house with her nephew and do you know what happened? She shot the criminal and no one was robbed;)
          women no longer really need male protection or provision.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The large majority of people who design, make and sell guns are also men by the way. Same goes for industrial agriculture by the way.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >To be fair, I prefer most women to most men. I think most men are no better than apes.
        This is such a bizarre view from a man. Women, that is, the vast majority of them, are the same. The greater male variability hypothesis, google it.
        >Who commits more violence, men or women? Who has more derogatory terms for the other, men or women? Who came up with religions and political systems which deem half of the species as no better than property, men or women?
        Who cares? Women do nothing, they're just robots, basically.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Women do nothing, they're just robots, basically.
          Look around you. Most men today are "robots" too. Why? Because that's just most humans in general, when left to their own devices. We're just apes — all we really want to do is eat, frick, and sleep all day. There was only a period in human history (a fairly brief one all things considered) where it SEEMED like men were more active and creative because a very small number of rare men who WERE like that (for what actual reason, who knows — no scientist can pinpoint anything in our biology that would cause it; it seems entirely a matter of psychological happenstance) exercised their will over everyone else (i.e., violently enslaved everyone).

          As for "all women are the same" — tell me, is this information coming from a civilization that's been under the rule of these hyper-violent men for thousands of years, or one that hasn't been? Point being, of COURSE women would appear the same under such conditions — these psychopathic men and their minions spent the last several thousand years brutally raping women both physically and mentally to the point where women had no choice but to completely lose their sense of self in order to survive. But given just a few hundred years of being able to break away from that enslavement, women are already starting to outperform men on multiple fronts — so what's the truth? Well, scientists, who actually have empirical evidence for their claims, would tell you something like this

          https://i.imgur.com/N5JIpfp.jpeg

          Incels lost haha
          This guy and his matriarchal wife won.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What do men have to offer to women, other than their semen?
        Critical infrastructure. Women aren't diverse enough to build, maintain, and further civilization.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Men are more autistic than women, even if you factor in that women are probably underdiagnosed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        change your gender, Black person

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shut up dumb Fed.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What does "insecure" even mean. Some powerful dude oppressing everyone else needs a level of confidence, he is risking his life after all, some other thug could kill him at any time. He may be an evil piece of shit full of petty emotions, but he's not really "insecure", is he.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He’s insecure because he believes people will hurt him. But it’s okay to be insecure, not everyone is good or trustworthy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is a difference between rational insecurity and emotional insecurity, surely, otherwise it is meaningless to throw around "insecure" as people do.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thats not what insecure means moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah it does

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Insecurity has to do with how you view yourself, not with what some outside force will do to you.
            People who take an umbrella outside because they think it will rain arent doing it out of insecurity, they are doing it out of worry.
            Youre welcome for the free english lesson moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry I speak eight languages so correcting morons is difficult for me sometimes. Insecurity depends on external conditions because it’s a belief that develops from living experience. People who take an umbrella are insecure since they do not believe that they have the capacity to escape the harmful effects of the rain. Ugly people have the right and probably an obligation to be insecure about their ugliness because it is something that acts against them. In the same way being insecure about a relationship is justifiable if you are vulnerable or deficient in some way that makes it likely to collapse.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anciety depends on external conditions because it’s a belief that develops from living experience. People who take an umbrella are anxious since they do not believe that they have the capacity to escape the harmful effects of the rain. Ugly people have the right and probably an obligation to be anxious about their ugliness because it is something that acts against them. In the same way being anxious about a relationship is justifiable if you are vulnerable or deficient in some way that makes it likely to collapse.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Worry depends on external conditions because it’s a belief that develops from living experience. People who take an umbrella are worried since they do not believe that they have the capacity to escape the harmful effects of the rain. Ugly people have the right and probably an obligation to be worried about their ugliness because it is something that acts against them. In the same way being worried about a relationship is justifiable if you are vulnerable or deficient in some way that makes it likely to collapse.

            Based

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Worry depends on external conditions because it’s a belief that develops from living experience. People who take an umbrella are worried since they do not believe that they have the capacity to escape the harmful effects of the rain. Ugly people have the right and probably an obligation to be worried about their ugliness because it is something that acts against them. In the same way being worried about a relationship is justifiable if you are vulnerable or deficient in some way that makes it likely to collapse.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sadness depends on external conditions because it’s a belief that develops from living experience. People who take an umbrella are sad since they do not believe that they have the capacity to escape the harmful effects of the rain. Ugly people have the right and probably an obligation to be sad about their ugliness because it is something that acts against them. In the same way being sad about a relationship is justifiable if you are vulnerable or deficient in some way that makes it likely to collapse.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Sorry I speak eight languages
            Mentally colonized

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re right, empirechads speak only one tongue

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It (French word) that my (French word) has led to some (French word)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its doubly funny that brits like to pretend they hate the french

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its a friendly hatred

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            pretend?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pedantic…

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Seulement un peu

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, cute, you know Congolese, Pierre.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ta mère est ma putain

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            English image board, moron

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian, though of course women would do more childbearing tasks and men hunted more big game. There's no evidence to suggest they were more subservient to woman simply because they had a womb and were feminine, and many practiced polygamy.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do women have to offer to men, other than being plapped and rearing them children?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is your point

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >given our track record we seem a lot less contemplative and secure in ourselves
    Can you give some examples of what you mean? Also why are you pretending to be a man? You could have made this thread without the gay little made up story you made up.
    Your writing style makes it very obvious youre a woman.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is the most reddit thread i've seen on this shithole board in quite a while.
    kill self, immediate

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds like a lot of emotional arguments based on how she felt people should live. The first man bonked the first woman on the head and the pp was king ever since.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Adam and Eve were either fraternal twins or genetic clones of each other. Christians try to cope otherwise, but this is a fact. Eve was literally made from Adam, from his DNA. They are a perfect match, and God made them before he cursed incest. Incest was a holy union in the Garden of Eden, it wasn't until much later on that God made it so that humans were forced to have sex with strangers for genetic diversity. All of the problems you see in modern relationships are a result of living with a stranger. No one understands each other better than brother and sister, and incest will be blessed again when Eden is restored.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a woman's body remains more marvelous in itself than anything we've ever created
      Until she gives birth and hits the wall that is.

      Christ promised immortal glorified bodies when Heaven will be on Earth, eternal youth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      Christ promised immortal glorified bodies when Heaven will be on Earth, eternal youth.

      God made man the authority, but men and women are meant to be true equals when the world is made heavenly.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is no sex in paradise, the new earth, so stop dreaming about your sis.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a woman's body remains more marvelous in itself than anything we've ever created
    Until she gives birth and hits the wall that is.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    funny that everyone here agreed with the OP
    why? bunch of sameflag

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your girlfriends theory is unfathomably stupid. Patriarchy/male dominance has most likely been around since the dawn of the species. If men are servile to the womb bearing feminine, then why do things like rape happen? If men are the submissive ones, then why are men the stronger sex? I see women say things like this from time to time, and I think that these theories are made to cope with the fact that women are the weaker sex. I feel bad for women; it's clear that they got the short end of the stick in a lot of ways. I'm not saying any of this out of hatred; I love women, but a lot of their biology kind of fricks them over.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If men are servile to the womb bearing feminine, then why do things like rape happen?
      If humans are mostly law-abiding citizens, then why do things like crimes happen?

      >If men are the submissive ones, then why are men the stronger sex?
      Because someone needed expendable cannon fodder.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women are inferior to men, because those who get pentrated are beneath the penetrator.
    Women's bodies are designed to be penetrated by men and carry their kids.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >those who get pentrated are beneath the penetrator.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid_wasp
      That's why insects are the pinacle of evolution.

      And with the advent of modern science, it won't be just insects.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy#Uterus_transplantation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Insects really do be living in a sci-fi horror.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Amazon positions

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In patriarchy, men serve women.
    In matriarchy, women serve men.
    Whoever pays the bills makes the rules.
    Modern people simply can't grasp what authority is actually based on.
    The girlfriend here (and Anons) don't seem to realize that women have had essentially equal if not more power than men, historically. Just because the history book has more words about Alexander doesn't mean his mother wasn't equally important. This is the danger* of woman. Underestimating women and their cunning is how we ended up where we are.
    Giving them authority for nothing, basically, is what led to our current mess. They already had authority, based on their service of motherhood and childrearing. Every man needs a mother. Men have authority based on physical protection; from violence, starvation, or otherwise.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Patriarchy btfo again

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wrong. patriarchy is good and natural. not providing for the womb your children will occupy is a fast track to civilizational collapse. good job being filtered like a moronic woman.
        matriarchy can be summed up as "wombs killing each other"; and by "serving men" I mean that hypergamous women compete for the top 1% of men and civilization dies.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not only that but single mothers are crime factories too

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >single mothers are... LE BAD!
            >single fathers are...
            oh yeah, those don't even exist because men don't give a frick about children

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. Single fathers don’t exist because courts make it so you dumb roastie. And in places like France paternity tests are illegal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why would courts make it so if they didn't know that men are completely untrustworthy?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            why would you make this post if you werent a mouth breathing moron?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not an argument.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So stop whining, homosexual.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            youre the one thats whining moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not why they do it, moron. It’s because of societal conditioning and the fact that women give birth and not men. Unless you think we’re a bunch of fricking sea horses, then carry on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maternal bonding is not "societal conditioning." Men neurologically do not bond with children to the same degree as women and are therefore less reliable as single parents.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s because society doesn’t let us. Completely does not refute my argument. Again, it’s a construct.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >she said she believes men historically served women because they're biologically designed to be servile

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hey, IQfy
    >Today I'm gonna share my opinion with you
    >But I already know how you'll react if I presented it as my own, so I'll attribute it to my girlfriend
    >She's a woman btw
    I really dislike this genre of thread. You see a lot of it on Twitter, i.e. "hur hur hur this joke came to me in a dream".

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just say you want to be dommed by your gf and pegged you turbogay

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Amazon positions

      You lost

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lost what, what are you yapping about anon

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Here

          Amazon positions

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I was talking to my girlfriend
    No you did not, it's clear to me upon reading your post that you are a woman pretending to be a man. You are doing this in order to make your ideas seem more palatable to your audience of men.
    > Men are far more disposable and expendable.
    I don't really see how this translates to men belonging to a more submissive position.
    >It's why we build and invent things; it's a coping mechanism.
    This is what makes men superior to women though, whereas women, and most men, are easily satiated. There will however, always remain a select few men who possess a fire in their hearts, what you dismiss as 'insecurity.' Whereas Alexander may have had 'daddy issues' stemming from being in his father's shadow as he conquered Greece. It ultimately resulted in him conquering the entirety of the Persian Empire in his brief life. Whether or not Napoleon had any 'insecurities' from him being short, ugly, fat, balding, a cuckold and the various other pejoratives his detractors call him. It does not negate his achievements. Subjugating almost all of Continental Europe and reshaping the social order for centuries to come.
    >woman's body remains more marvelous in itself than anything we've ever created.
    This is ultimately one of the many things in your post which highlighted to me that you're a woman. Postmodern women such as yourself don't revere or even hold in esteem anything or anyone that doesn't worship them, or allow them to worship themselves better. They coat themselves in paint and modify their bodies in order to facilitate this narcissistic self-worship. They don't tend to be interested in any culture that isn't related to this. They prefer shitty gooner erotica, mindless pop music and netflix soaps. Hence why you view your own body and that of other women to be better than anything with artistic merit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is your point dude?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What you call 'insecurity.' Is actually a good thing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No you did not, it's clear to me upon reading your post that you are a woman pretending to be a man.
      Does it threaten you somehow that I'm a man who actually did talk to his girlfriend about this? It's funny to me that you'd even deny this.

      >This is what makes men superior to women though
      Within that value hierarchy, sure. There are other value hierarchies, just like there are other kinds of consciousness out there. Here's the problem: men like you are, at bottom, solipsists. You don't acknowledge the consciousness of others, not really. You andromorphize, that is, imbue gods, animals, and objects with characteristics and behaviors of men. This is why you fail to see other value hierarchies. Men are not superior to women — they are different, they have different strengths and weaknesses and play different roles and occupy different spaces. Neither men nor women have an advantage over the another great enough to make the other obsolete from an evolutionary standpoint.

      >This is ultimately one of the many things in your post which highlighted to me that you're a woman.
      I didn't say what we've created wasn't marvelous. I meant that none of it is as marvelous as what non-human nature has created. Evolution is already the perfect AI. The universe will eventually flick us away when it's tired of us, as if nothing ever happened. I still love the arts and high culture.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's funny to me that you'd even deny this.
        There's really no point in lying, come on now. It's as clear as day you're a woman and I wasn't even the first, or the last, in the thread to point it out. The shitty pintrest image, was the first give away. The description of male nature you gave is only one a woman could think and agree with. Let alone the inane self-worship you engaged in towards the end.
        >You don't acknowledge the consciousness of others, not really. You andromorphize, that is, imbue gods, animals, and objects with characteristics and behaviors of men.
        Can you elaborate on what you mean by this or provide any examples? I won't lie, I'm having a hard time figuring out what it is you're describing. Are you talking about animism? My reverence for historical figures?
        >Men are not superior to women.
        Would you claim that women are superior to men then? How would this gynocentric society be different to a matriarchal one? How would it be any different to the gynocentric society we currently live in?
        >I meant that none of it is as marvelous as what non-human nature has created
        If you truly meant that, then why didn't you lead with it? It would have made more sense to claim that nature, of which women's bodies are apart of, is far more majestic than anything mankind has made. You chose to say 'women's body' instead. Says it all really.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Men are not superior

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you the Anon I was replying to?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Again: men are not superior to us

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There's really no point in lying
          Exactly, which is why I'm not.

          >Can you elaborate on what you mean by this or provide any examples?
          Would you consider a positively charged electron superior to a negatively charged one? Because that's the difference between men and women. When you call one superior to the other, you're like a narcissistic electron.

          >Would you claim that women are superior to men then?
          No, and if you had actually read the post you replied to, you'd already know this.

          >If you truly meant that, then why didn't you lead with it?
          What difference does it make when you don't / can't read?

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    feet

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "The man", I guess that would be "Chad", is irreplaceable. Jesus is irreplaceable and is served every day and he is a he. Nobody calls Jesus a she.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >feet
    >prone ass
    OOOOOHHH IMMMMM GONNNNNNA BBBBRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >she believes men historically served women because they're biologically designed to be servile
    >he didn’t immediately rape her to prove her wrong
    Do you also have an open relationship OP?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the same men breed, genetic diseases goes through the roof. Also what a misandrist take OP.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nice feet 🙂

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    w*men cant change lightbulbs lol, they cant run civilization without men

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the last several thousand years of patriarchal rule has been a historical anomaly
    can she prove this claim?

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We're going to genetically modify men to be small and athletic, and women to be tall and fecund before the end of the decade. In the future men will be about 4 feet tall and women will be over 6 foot

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should dump your girlfriend and find other men to date

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She is a moron and so are you. The natural order of humanity is just the natural order of monkey, alpha males hogging all the pussy while beta males get beat up or even killed if they try to get some. The females don't do anything other than nurture the younglings and get pounded when they're ovulating.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >humans are monkeys
      Good to know who you consider to be your family members.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you implying that humans aren't Hominids?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Humans literally are apes, creationism isn't real. It's not a matter of consideration, your ancestors looked like little monkeys and it doesn't matter that you don't like this.

          homosexual sapiens are their own species.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            With the same patriarchal social structure as our relatives.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bonobos are matriarchal and we're as close to them as to chimpanzees. So, going by this line of thought, we are equally matriarchal and patriarchal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bonobos are the exception among Apes, and even then they are something of a mixed bag rather than a proper matriarchal species like Spotted Hyenas.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They're not a "mixed bag," but calling them matriarchal is actually misleading, I guess. They're matrifocal, as in bonobo society is structured around mothers specifically.

            Mothers, by the way, always scorn any form of social domination, because their maternal instinct knows that such a thing is dangerous to the young. Matrifocal societies therefore tend to be more "horizontal" in design rather than "vertical" (which is another way of conceiving the differences between how men and women think).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which is another way of conceiving the differences between how men and women think
            Exactly, men are in a hierarchy, women are equal, that is how it is with chimps and that is how it is with us.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Men place things into hierarchies while women pull things out of hierarchies, because their maternal instinct informs them that hierarchies are a threat to the livelihood of children. A matrifocal society like bonobo society operates around this maternal instinct, i.e., it's primarily non-hierarchical, instead prioritizing the needs of mothers and their children over men and non-child-bearing women. Without having the educational background to communicate it in these terms, my girlfriend was essentially saying that human societies were mostly matrifocal before modern patriarchies developed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So democracy IS feminine, got it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And based.

            >Mothers, by the way, always scorn any form of social domination
            demonstrably untrue
            [...]
            No female chimps have their hoerarchies as well, they just manifest differently. There is even a very famous example of a lesbian butch chimp from the burger zoo in netherlands that participated in the male hierarchy.

            >demonstrably untrue
            >t. knows nothing about mothers
            Try talking to your own and seeing what she thinks about social domination.

            >bonobos are primarily non-hierachical
            you know nothing about bonobo social structure and made this up on the spot

            Bonobo "social hierarchies" have a combination of males and females while being ultimately centered around females and children. It's not hierarchical in the sense that men conceive of hierarchy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mothers always scorn any form of social domination, because their maternal instinct knows that such a thing is dangerous to the young.

            spotted hyenas:
            >Females usually dominate males, including in cases where low-ranking females generally dominate over high-ranking males, but they will also occasionally co-dominate with a male.[62]
            [...] High-ranking hyenas maintain their position through aggression directed against lower-ranking clan-members.[9

            bonobos:
            >Although infanticide has not been directly observed, there have been documented cases of both female[113] and male[114] bonobos kidnapping infants, sometimes resulting in infants dying from dehydration. Although male bonobos have not yet been seen to practice infanticide, there is a documented incident in captivity involving a dominant female abducting an infant from a lower-ranking female, treating the infant roughly and denying it the chance to suckle. During the kidnapping, the infant's mother was clearly distressed and tried to retrieve her infant. Had the zookeepers not intervened, the infant almost certainly would have died from dehydration. This suggests female bonobos can have hostile rivalries with each other and a propensity to carry out infanticide.[115]

            Humans before the supposed "historical anomaly brought upon by highly insecure men":
            >Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent.

            Now feel free to cope how none of this is truly an example of social domination or how mothers in their infinite wisdom realize killing a child is actually beneficial for that child.
            I mean isnt it obvious that a statement like "all x do y" is going to be false almost all the time?
            >Talk to your own mother
            She has been brainwashed by milennia of repression and violence according to you, why would it matter what she has to say?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Females don't "dominate" males or females. You're (or the idiots who wrote those passages you're quoting) confusing maternal defense mechanisms with the desire to subjugate others.

            Glad were in agreement that bonobo society is strictly and primarily hierarchical.
            How do you believe men conceive of hierarchy?

            >How do you believe men conceive of hierarchy?
            They conceive of it as a form of play or birthright. Matrifocal societies, in contrast, organize around the safety and survival of mothers and their young. There is not only greater fairness afforded members of the tribe in matrifocal societies, but also less violence, because the drive behind the organization is not violent in itself like male-designed hierarchies are.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Watch it with the insults princess.
            I gave you concrete examples of mothers participating in an aggressive, violent dominance hierarchy after you said this never happens.
            Now youre trying to set up a dichotomy where any time a male participates in a peckung order in this way its insecure repression of others and any time a female does the same its a maternal defense mechanism. Calling this a dishonest lie is an understatement.
            Besides you have no idea what goes on inside a ln animals head, youre making completely baseless assertions.
            >birthright
            Matrifocal societies have a way higher focus on birthright than do patrifocal societies, this is once again completely wrong. They are not more fair either, they are actually more nepotistic.
            I already gave you examples for this but you refuse to engage with them for obvious reasons.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is your point? Useless feminist

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Men arent naturally submissive and female centric groups have just as much hierarchy as male centric groups.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What was the debate here? What was your debate? the OP is clearly a memeflag?
            >female centric groups have just as much hierarchy as male centric groups.
            So no model is fair and good. Patriarchy is as rubbish as matriarchy and what is the solution? a utopian equality? a forced completerianism or another model?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are very confused.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Men arent naturally submissive
            Everyone is born naturally submissive, and all fetuses in fact start female. Given the same education and nutrition, boys and girls grow up very similarly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they aren't. babies don't give a frick who you are, they demand milk and they will cry about it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and they will cry about it
            A submissive maneuver.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the closest thing they have to beating you over the head with a blunt object. they'd do it if they could.
            crying to show remorse is submissive, crying to demand a titty is not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or you know they can get a job like a normal person

            >What do men have to offer to women, other than their semen? In modern times, they don't even need a man's protection or money anymore.
            every security apparatus across the world is developed, staffed and ran primarily by males
            what an asinine point this is lmao

            Women are really just good looking wombs

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Given the same education and nutrition, boys and girls grow up very similarly.
            they won't. they proved it with very cruel human experiments.
            they proved it again with endless statistical studies.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sociological studies are worthless. Only neuroscientific ones matter, and going by those, the differences between boys and girls are there, but not in ways that are typically assumed.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/girl-brain-boy-brain/

            It's the closest thing they have to beating you over the head with a blunt object. they'd do it if they could.
            crying to show remorse is submissive, crying to demand a titty is not.

            All infantile crying is an expression of helplessness and both boys and girls do it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All infantile crying is an expression of helplessness and both boys and girls do it.
            A bit dishonest. Babies are helpless but they are not expressing helplessness. They can and do make demands.
            This isn't a feminist or anti-feminist take. It's reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Babies are helpless but they are not expressing helplessness.
            Yes they are.

            >They can and do make demands.
            Even when they do, it's both boys and girls doing this. There's nothing here that's unique to one or the other.

            At best, we can maybe say that neither men nor women are naturally submissive.

            >the differences between boys and girls are there, but not in ways that are typically assumed.
            So you're just taking a needlessly standoffish tone to agree with me.

            But I don't agree with you. Both boys and girls have highly malleable brains. This is why there's "feminine boys" and "masculine girls" and why we even distinguish between sex and gender to begin with.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well we may be malleable but that doesn't imply the roles and the traits are arbitrary and it doesn't imply we've assumed incorrectly.
            Regarding sex and gender I don't think we actually do share the same reasons for the distinction. These words existed before psychology and even biology, so they aren't necessarily defined scientifically, and today they're politically charged because everyone wants a piece of the opposite sex, usually to be "free" from the things that make us unattractive to them or to be "free" from having to date them in the first place.
            Adults don't typically have these issues because once you get married and have kids you're less butthurt about everything.
            The modern distinction between the terms comes from psychologists from the 50s, prior to which, gender was just a colloquial way to refer to sex.
            But Masculinity and femininity, beyond gender and sex, are also metaphysical terms, pretty ancient, which don't simply refer to "traits dominant in men" and "traits dominant in women".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >At best, we can maybe say that neither men nor women are naturally submissive.
            Well that's a silly and unnecessary compromise. A second ago you were happily rowing along thinking we all start off "female and submissive" without a care in the world until the home depot commercials brainwashed us.
            But the differences between boys and girls are apparent even as toddlers.

            Don't let yourself be a 50 year old married mother still thinking you were cheated out of dominance by a capitalist conspiracy. Divorce your father and join the real world.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is why there's "feminine boys" and "masculine girls"
            men and woman can have a mixture of traits but boys are male and girls are female unless there was a birth defect. it's not arbitrary at all and there's a reason healthy people are insulted to be known as effeminate and butch.
            the "feminine boy" and the "masculine girl" are fantasies of people who feel trapped by expectations and insecure in their ability to fulfil them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the differences between boys and girls are there, but not in ways that are typically assumed.
            So you're just taking a needlessly standoffish tone to agree with me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"neuroscientific"
            >pop sci article by an author who covers exactly 1 topic
            lmao

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As opposed to women they arent naturally submissive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also I suggest you read up on how oxytocin facilitates aggression and ethnocentrism. Extreme love cannot exist without extreme hate. A mothers love is not at all as kumbaya as you probably believe.
            Someone whos quoting hannah arendt shouldnt have problems recognizing an obvious dialectic when it presents itself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Glad were in agreement that bonobo society is strictly and primarily hierarchical.
            How do you believe men conceive of hierarchy?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >bonobos are primarily non-hierachical
            you know nothing about bonobo social structure and made this up on the spot

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Mothers, by the way, always scorn any form of social domination
            demonstrably untrue

            >which is another way of conceiving the differences between how men and women think
            Exactly, men are in a hierarchy, women are equal, that is how it is with chimps and that is how it is with us.

            No female chimps have their hoerarchies as well, they just manifest differently. There is even a very famous example of a lesbian butch chimp from the burger zoo in netherlands that participated in the male hierarchy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Humans literally are apes, creationism isn't real. It's not a matter of consideration, your ancestors looked like little monkeys and it doesn't matter that you don't like this.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh yeah well if im a monkey why don’t I fling my poopoo at you?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >She is a moron and so are you. The natural order of humanity is just the natural order of monkey, alpha males hogging all the pussy while beta males get beat up or even killed if they try to get some
      also fwiw that is why pedophilia is disliked. not that there can't be Chad pedos but in 90% of cases it's incels who molests kids because they're intimidated by women. also you don't want to groom young girls to sexually respond to incels.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She is a moron and so are you. The natural order of humanity is just the natural order of monkey, alpha males hogging all the pussy while beta males get beat up or even killed if they try to get some. The females don't do anything other than nurture the younglings and get pounded when they're ovulating.

        not exactly. you're allowed to mate with someone of comparable genetic worth to yourself. so incels cannot have hot women, those are only for high quality Chads. incels can mate with landwhales or cave trolls however and that's acceptable.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You really do argue like a woman and you have the ignorance and arrogance. A landwhale or a troll won't sleep with an incel because women only want partners that are better than them (Hence the wojak fricking a landwhale meme)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta but you assume all women think the same and this is your problem. Some women do end up maturing a little and realize that it's better to settle than to chase high maintenance Chad, just like how some men end up maturing a little and realize that it's better to settle than to chase high maintenance Stacey. Even Chad and Stacey can reach this conclusion eventually and they're often much happier for it. Not to mention, some men and women still come from Protestant households where they're taught to not focus on popularity and appearance but on moral determination and family values, and in those cases the men and women won't want partners who are better but who are more well received by their families.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They’ll settle after getting run through and then will hate their spineless husband because he’s not like the unattainable men who plowed them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop watching porn and browsing IQfy and you'll realize that what you just wrote has no basis in reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is empirical evidence le false while "official" gallops and polls which are also based on aggregated empirical evidence le true? Just because they support the side you want?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't have empirical evidence

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I don't exist.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your personal life would be anecdotal evidence, not empirical.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you not know the difference between empirical and anecdotal evidence moron?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The modern order of humanity is not the same as the natural order of humanity.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh bonobo comparison even though I have literally never researched the topic hurr durr
    >Surprisingly, we found higher rates of male-male aggression among bonobos than chimpanzees even when limiting analyses to contact aggression. In both species, more aggressive males obtained higher mating success. Although our findings indicate that the frequency of male-male aggression does not parallel species difference in its intensity, they support the view that contrary to male chimpanzees, whose reproductive success depends on strong coalitions, male bonobos have more individualistic reproductive strategies.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >she doesn't believe in patriarchal or matriarchal rule, but a kind of joint-rule that's ultimately gynocentric, currently impossible in modern society due to multi-generational contamination from those psychopathic men.
    fine. sure. agreed, currently impossible.

    There is no basis for her views on history though. South American tribes are still getting girls pregnant at 12. Some never get their first periods. There is absolutely no evidence that men in a pre-historic civilization haven't had the upper hand and wouldn't brutalize or enslave the women to get what they believe is 'theirs'.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Woman has a batshit moronic take due to living in a batshit moronic society

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Also nobody would have cared what Jared Fogel did if he was 6'2" and had huge pecs. He wasn't, so he didn't get to be a player and instead just went to jail where
    he's in protective custody like all pedos/high profile inmates. anyone he'd bunk with are just other pedos.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I was talking to my girlfriend about male-female relationships and she said she believes men historically served women because they're biologically designed to be servile to the "womb-bearing feminine," and the last several thousand years of patriarchal rule has been a historical anomaly brought upon by highly insecure men who inflicted abuse on other men and women to usurp control.

    No this is genuinely just modernist nonsense being projected onto the past. There's this weird feminist myth that the past was this lovely egalitarian place where women were treated more fairly because of the prevalence of Venus figurines in ancient cultures and the Venus cult. In reality its just the philosophical progression of cultures moving away from the worship of the earth that binds them and instead moving towards a more ambitious sky father as technology gets better allowing for better transport and inevitable conflict with other groups. The delegation of work in ancient societies or otherwise premodern ones was done so on a practical basis. Men were better at somethings than women were. And with more free time on their hands a lot of the menial work gets lumped onto women to keep them safe and occupied while men do the dangerous stupid shit.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So men are biologically designed to do something but will admit that all observable history men have not done that. If the theory is their instincts are to act a certain way and they never act that way than the theory is refuted.

    It just sounds like she has an idea for how she 'wants' things to be and is upset at reality for not going along with it. It all sounds very Christian. They also did this thing where they insisted that there is a 'natural way' for things to be and in the same breath so it never happens that in nature. And just like the Christians she says this is because of some sort of lowly sinful people fighting against the 'natural order'.

    You should be ashamed at finding this less than comedic. You do not need a historian or anthropologist. She herself provided the own refutation of her own theory dude!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You didn't refute OP
      Semanticflag

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Men should be servile to the womb bearing feminine
    >YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ME TO KILL MY BABIES

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She’s wrong, assert your dominance as a man and frick her back into obedience.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I do generally agree with that sentiment; but ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. Gynocentric societies were recently taken out by natural selection.

    For some reason, for whatever reason, patriarchal societies naturally flourish and dominate over gynocentric and matriarchal societies.

    All the gynocentric peoples are dead. The whole of the Earth is their grave, and we cannot hope to avoid even so much as treading upon their final resting place.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >because they're biologically designed to be servile to the "womb-bearing feminine," and the last several thousand years of patriarchal rule has been a historical anomaly brought upon by highly insecure men who inflicted abuse on other men and women to usurp control.
    Disregarding the gender wars thing. Has it ever been truly proven that human society was ever not patriarchal? From what I know it’s always just theories. Take the Minoans for example. How many times has it been repeated that they were matriarchal even though nothing we have about them suggest as such? Not only that. Greek writers had no oral recollections of a matriarchal past for the Crete. On the contrary what the Greeks have about Ancient Crete suggest they were pretty standard for their time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Check-out the new study
      The ANF were matriarchal

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Incels lost haha
    This guy and his matriarchal wife won.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    remembering that the bell curve shows men dumber than women

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dumber and smarter

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A few of them,yes.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.23.600259v1
    Remembering that UP's girlfriend isn't that wrong.
    the thing that civilization = patriarchy is wrong and see the study... the first settlements were matriarchal

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You didnt even read the study you posted moron:
      >This theory was originally inspired by dominant female figurines found at Pottery Neolithic sites across Anatolia and the Aegean, interpreted as deities symbolising fertility or as representatives of matriarchal organisation (1, 2). However, neither material culture nor bioarchaeology has provided additional evidence for female-biased roles in these societies (3, 4).
      >Still, our findings, including the predominance of the matriline connecting intramural burials and the special burial treatment accorded to subadult females, highlight the role of the maternal lineage in Çatalhöyük society. We do not know whether these practices reflected strict matrilineality or gender status differences (i.e. matriarchy), whether they might have been connected with the apparent egalitarian relationships in Çatalhöyük, or whether other Neolithic settlements of the 7th millennium BCE in Anatolia and the Aegean with similar female figurine symbolism had adopted similar practices.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Still, our findings, including the predominance of the matriline connecting intramural burials and the special burial treatment accorded to subadult females, highlight the role of the maternal lineage in Çatalhöyük
        Yes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Matrilineal does not equate matriarchal. Orthodox israelites are matrinlineal and they banned women from reading holy texts up until pretty recently.
          Do some more research.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Matrilineal does not equate matriarchal.
            >they had matriarchal concepts
            according to who?

            Matrilinealism is a branch of matriarchy. whether you like it or not, and opens up space for other matriarchal practices
            the study comments on who "said it"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The people who wrote this study know a lot more about the topic than you, thats why they made certain to include the quotes I gave because they know that matrilinearity does not necessarily eqiate to matriarchy as there are many examples of current societies that are matrilineal but considered patriarchal. They are not ideologues jumping to conclusions like you are.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The people who wrote this study know a lot more about the subject than you do
            and much more than you, why didn't you read the entire study, use instructions that in the bottom line say about things beyond matrilinealism, etc.
            >tmatrilinearity does not necessarily equate to matriarchy
            they are correlated and open doors to other aspects of matriarchy. matriarchy nor patriarchy is something unifying or restricted, if you think that, you are moronic. the patriarchy of the 50s lacked several concepts from Roman and medieval patriarchy... can you understand now? and the study doesn't even just say about matrilinealism. she mentions other concepts, read again... women had an elevated role, whether you wanted them or not.
            >because there are many examples of current societies that are matrilineal, but considered patriarchal.
            I already explained this above, and all of these still have matriarchal aspects. a slow society is "just matrilineal" without having other matriarchal aspects, since it implies other things. You don't know what matrilinealism is and what its social implications are. You can say that such societies divide power in a familial and social way, but not with this delayed division.
            >They are not ideologues jumping to conclusions like you.
            well... I agree with them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Matrilineal does not equate matriarchal. Orthodox israelites are matrinlineal and they banned women from reading holy texts up until pretty recently.
            Do some more research.

            literally every society that is still alive had or still has women leading men outside of their configuration at home.
            Even in the modern world, with most couples, women determine the look of their house, etc., but men will be kind of the face of their house

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and that is why societies that have the clan as their political unit are the ones where women can have a lot of power outside the home.
            and this comes via matrilineality mainly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Picts and Spartans had inheritance laws that favored women over men, which gave them a great deal of power, but I don't really know if I should call them matriarchal societies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We studied social organisation, mobility patterns and gendered practices in Neolithic Southwest Asia using 131 paleogenomes from Çatalhöyük East Mound (7100-5950 BCE), a major settlement in Central Anatolia with an uninterrupted occupation and an apparent egalitarian structure
        >contrast to widespread genetic evidence for patrilocality in Neolithic Europe, the Çatalhöyük individuals revealed no indication of patrilocal mobility.
        >We also identified differential funerary treatment of female subadults compared to those of males, with a higher frequency of grave goods associated with females. Our results reveal how kinship practices changed while key female roles persisted over one thousand years

        read the entire study and not the parts that are convenient. if they were not matriarchal (they had matriarchal concepts) they were something close to that but they were certainly not patriarchal
        My argument stands, by the way. You do realize that much of what the study found was used at the beginning of the IE studies to determine that they were patriarchal, right? It's something you can't ignore.
        Try again

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Still, our findings, including the predominance of the matriline connecting intramural burials and the special burial treatment accorded to subadult females, highlight the role of the maternal lineage in Çatalhöyük
          Yes.

          https://i.imgur.com/bdxZWvp.jpeg

          https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.23.600259v1
          Remembering that UP's girlfriend isn't that wrong.
          the thing that civilization = patriarchy is wrong and see the study... the first settlements were matriarchal

          There's already a thread about this, you morons. but anyway, ok, they weren't patriarchal but they weren't like modern Sweden either.
          so what is the argument here?

          ANF bros? We wuz matriarchalz n shietz? Juts like the matrilineal hallstatt? Nooooooooooo
          Stop the act, buffet

          >Hallstatt
          the study itself was surprised by this and said it was rare.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is the claim that any kind of advancement outside of Mesolithic barbarism has to be, necessarily, patriarchal. which is not the case.... as the study proved.
            In any case, it is clear that they were not like Sweden, Sweden is misandric, which is different from matriarchal or matrifocal (although they are branches of matriarchy). Turkey was a female or at least matrifocal society.
            but you still don't know what matriarchy is.... about the Celts, it was a matrilineal dynasty

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Matrilineal does not equate matriarchal.
          >they had matriarchal concepts
          according to who?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            equivalent, maybe not 100%, but equivalent. This brings women into society
            semantics don't work
            the pattern is that in matrilinealism society women always have more power

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You haven't said anything until now. Why is matriarchy not bad and what is its "correct" definition?
          matrilinealism sucks lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not going to lecture you on things you should learn from real anthropological texts, but basically there were and are "matriarchal" societies - in which women have control of the home, clan and/or political power, via matrilinealism.
            But men are not women, and when women are in power that doesn't mean they will act like men act when they are in power. It's not an exact inversion.
            There are definitely societies, and other quite powerful ones that lasted a long time, that had women in high positions, and even at the center of the family/social structure, with matrilinealism and matrifocalism... I am a matriarch myself.

            As for “how it worked”, there is no single way a society can work.
            I'll explain the rest to you and your unknowing friends in the next comment

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            2/2
            General features:
            - Clan-based societies: there cannot be a nuclear family without patriarchy, as women need support during pregnancy. That's what your moronic friends don't understand.
            Women tend to more easily dominate family and social life, and a society that is based on powerful clans rather than states is more likely to have women in power.
            - Women do not have power in all areas: military life is always a men's area, and the meme that “matriarchal societies are not warriors” or “have effeminate men” is actually the opposite of the truth. the men basically dedicate their lives to war in many of them. examples: Tuaregs or Sarmatians and Early Alans (although not the Scythians - also notable for having some incidence of women fighting), the martial races of South India (the warrior castes are/were matriarchal).
            - Monogamy: generally matriarchal societies do not allow women to be loose - it is the promiscuity of both sexes that is diminished - women have less reason to cheat if they choose their husbands based on personal qualities.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah yeah. Very cool and everything. But face it. Mothers were unable to fight for their children.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, so? Women aren't warriors, we all know that

            [...]
            >but basically there were and are "matriarchal" societies
            Name one society where women were in a superior position to men, you cannot.
            >Clan-based societies
            Patriarchal societies built by men, they all claim descent from a single Man, so you are wrong on this point as well.
            >Monogamy
            Outright lie, in feminized societies, there is a huge emphasis on female polygamy and sexual superiority, we can see this even in current egalitarian societies, where it is true.

            >women were in a superior position to men
            I quite literally said that an exact inversion doesn't exist, of patriarchy. But depending on how you define "superior" position, there's plenty. Women owning the property? Being the educated ones? Matrilineality? There's no society in which are treated as useless and where women do everything of course, but counting any society in which there's egalitarianism (power, value, etc. - of roles are there) but women dominate in a few things, matriarchal. And these are definitely there. There's nothing where women complete dominate though.
            And if you don't think it's enough, I mean in matters of dominance, then you are forced to say that patriarchy died in the middle ages. You and your friend from above still don't know what matriarchy is.
            >Patriarchal societies built by men, they all claim descent from a single Man, so you are wrong on this point as well.
            What? Are you implying that matrilineal societies don't exist? Every single matrilineal society is clan-based, and they trace descent from the women only.
            being a matriarchal branch and placing women within certain branches of society
            >in feminized societies, there is a huge emphasis on female polygamy
            feminized =/= matriarchal. the former is a degeneration of patriarchal societies. harems are for men. women already have sexual superiority in egalitarian setups indeed. btw, I did say that serial monogamy was the norm, not lifelong monogamy. 'matriarchal' societies don't punish women for having past relationships typically. but matriarchal society isn't the same as "women as individuals getting what they want",
            matriarchal traditions have restrictions put on women too. I know you just want to make a point about the degeration of the west or whatever, but you could at least try to learn before making universal statements.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not going to lecture you on things you should learn from real anthropological texts, but basically there were and are "matriarchal" societies - in which women have control of the home, clan and/or political power, via matrilinealism.
            But men are not women, and when women are in power that doesn't mean they will act like men act when they are in power. It's not an exact inversion.
            There are definitely societies, and other quite powerful ones that lasted a long time, that had women in high positions, and even at the center of the family/social structure, with matrilinealism and matrifocalism... I am a matriarch myself.

            As for “how it worked”, there is no single way a society can work.
            I'll explain the rest to you and your unknowing friends in the next comment

            >but basically there were and are "matriarchal" societies
            Name one society where women were in a superior position to men, you cannot.
            >Clan-based societies
            Patriarchal societies built by men, they all claim descent from a single Man, so you are wrong on this point as well.
            >Monogamy
            Outright lie, in feminized societies, there is a huge emphasis on female polygamy and sexual superiority, we can see this even in current egalitarian societies, where it is true.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ANF bros? We wuz matriarchalz n shietz? Juts like the matrilineal hallstatt? Nooooooooooo
      Stop the act, buffet

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Victorian England

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The male brain is different from the female and is more moronic!

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How so? how men are servile to women? men, can force women to do whatever the frick they want with sheer strength, not to mention, what men are usually more ambitious and driven to attain power position due to testosterone. the only way you can have SOMEWHAT ''matriarchal'' society, is when men of said society are way too busy with war, like in sparta and nomadic cultures. and I am not even talking about what men are smarter historically speaking, since, if they weren't society which had female scientists would have wiped out others

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *