it-goes-both-ways:
thespectacularspider-girl:
reperspectivity:
ace-pervert:
muchymozzarella:
forsakentevinter:
So my dad used to teach human evolution at the University of Minnesota, right? And his favorite thing was discussing Native American cultures and bashing misogyny.
So he’d start off class by going “Raise your hand if you think you know why men hunted and women stayed back in the settlements” and most kids would raise their hands. He’d list off a few various reasons and kids would slowly start participating. Then he’d go “How many of you think it’s because men are stronger” and of course most of the males would raise their hands with a few girls. He’d then proceed to rip apart the patriarchal views they had all been taught. “No,” he’d say, “It’s because if five men went out and three or two came back no one would bat an eye. They’d grieve sure, but society would go on. Now if five women went out and three or two came back you know what would happen? Society would collapse.”
And it was true. For many Native American cultures the only reason women did what they did was because the men couldn’t do it. We are (usually) taught a twisted, self-aggrandizing form of history despite evidence suggesting the complete opposite of it.
This was present in a lot of cultures in the past before white colonization (see: imperialism and genocide)
In Australia the Aborigines believed that women were more powerful than men and closer to gods because of their ability to give birth, and men would make themselves bleed just to be like women when they came of age
In the Philippines many people held practices which celebrated a woman’s first menstruation, encouraged free sexual exploration before marriage for young men and women, and believed women to be spiritual leaders, so that the only way a “man” could be one was to become a woman (transwomen were able and even encouraged to marry, and were identified as women within the community)
Also in the Philippines economic structures defined power, so a man who was poorer than his wife would take her name, and daughters would inherit and become heads of the family if they were the eldest
Westerners love to flout how great they are at women empowerment when it comes to other cultures that treat women badly, but actively try to hide the fact that there are thousands of other cultures who treated women better centuries ago than they do even today
And that’s a fact.
interresting , but I dont actually know how much of it is true
It’s true. But while these two like to use it as some kind of women-glorifying story, it’s actually supporting evidence for the core of what is plagueing modern society. Which is crippling gynocentrism.
Men were hunters because men were disposable. They were considered of less value because one man could impregnate five women, but one woman could not bear the children of five different men at the same time.
Thus women were considered more important. And men became sacrificial lambs. They have been throughout most of history. It’s why men are still doing 99% of society’s dirty work. They’re the ones doing the thankless jobs that no one else wants. Almost all workplace injuries and casualties are suffered by men.
The irony in this is basically that these two up here are working off such basic instincts that they see this inequality and don’t think “Hey, men haven’t been treated all that well back then, maybe there’s something we’re missing!” but instead think “feminism!”.
The only thing that matters is the woman. They have not progressed past the stage of hunter/gatherers.
Also, pretty sure men are stronger than women due to shit like testosterone and the ability to put on muscle mass more readily.
Humanity is excessively gynocentric while being selectively sociopathic towards men. Not only are we as a species intensely focused on the well being of women to the exclusion of men, but even trying to pay the tiniest sliver of attention to the problems of men is seen to be taking something away from women. A few of you may have noticed that addressing male victims of rape/abuse and consequently doubling the number of victims, will have people accusing you of apologising for and dismissing the problem completely.
A society could routinely slaughter first born sons and be considered the best country for human rights because they are judged entirely on how they treat women. Meaning even with routinely mutilating male babies and the only thing that’s considered objectionable being opposition to it, with no resources for male victims of rape and domestic abuse, with no legal recognition of rape of men by women (with other countries having no, or even recently removing, age of consent for boys), with these horrific human rights violations that women have never been subjected to, it’s oppressive to women because they can’t agree with each other on whether they want abortion or not and no men’s issues can be addressed until this ~patriarchy~ is overthrown. There are some even more frustrating ones where men and women are literally treated equally, such as some cultures requiring all people to keep their hair and majority of skin covered, and it’s like the male half of the equation doesn’t even exist, it’s a ~patriarchal~ society that revolves around oppressing women because they are treated equally to men, we need… equality?
Behavioural biology is at once fascinating and intensely frustrating.
What on earth does your dad make of the women’s studies lot, OP?
All OP showed was that in many cultures, the lives and well being of women is often seen as more importnant than that of men.
And yes, biologically, men are stronger just like biologically, women are more flexible. That isnt sexism. That is fact. That is playing on your strengths.