Why does the patriarchy exist?

[Genderfluid Pirate]

I asked a bunch of feminists about this and they said it was capitalism's fault, because if someone has to go out and make a wage then someone has to stay home and take care of the kids. Wasn't entirely convinced.

I don't believe women are incapable of doing anything men can do. There's been female warriors, female scientists, etc... I think it's just that the average human is lazy and chooses the easiest path, so most women chose to let their husbands support them. If men had this option, many would have chosen it even if it meant slavery.
At the same time I see how the existence of private property meant it had to be defended, and if it had to be defended it "worked better" to have women push out as many kids as possible. Women became an investment for this reason, like cattle, and bred into stupidity and subservience like a domestic cow.

Could it be just that this kind of society is more sustainable in the long term than a more equal one? The Amazons were a part of the Scythians, which were nomadic.

Thoughts?

 

[Marco Fucko]

Because women are dumb lmao

 

[Niggernerd]

Because women need to be tard wrangled more than literal tards

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

If you look outside humanity to other mammals; the male of the species is physically superior to the female and will utilize violence if necessary to cow them into submission. Females of a species like Lions may retaliate likewise initially and in some cases can actually repel males they dislike, but those with a child where the child themselves is not directly threatened are far less likely to.

There is one notable exception to this rule, the Hyena. But the only thing notable about this is that it's the female that is larger and physically stronger than the male and it is the male who potentially faces the threat of physical violence for disobedience, otherwise everything else plays out exactly as it does elsewhere.

The Lysistrata made a joke out of the idea of one sex rising up to force the other into submission because the Greeks knew if they really had to they could shove their womenfolk back into the kitchen.

The threat of physical violence isn't as grave though in a modern era where women are educated and have access to weapons, both literal and socially.

Patriarchy did exist, but today the only thing that rules is money and that doesn't give a shit what's between your legs so long as you have plenty of it.

 

[TFT-A9]

I don't believe women are incapable of doing anything men can do.

can they oppress and control an entire sex for thousands of years

yeah didn't think so, checkmate

 

[Pampered Degenerate]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

 

[mindlessobserver]

A patriarchy, if such a thing even exists outside the Islamic world exists solely to keep males in line and not females. Human males need to be cultured and personally invested into societal and family success because it takes over a decade before a human child is capable of even starting to fend for itself. The female gestation of the child likewise long, time consuming and thanks to our huge heads incredibly dangerous. This means the base instincts of males need to be suppressed, or redirected to more productive pursuits. This action is always done by other, more powerful males.

It is no accident that since the advent of feminism and single motherhood there has likewise been a surge of uncultured males. To the point where women are now complaining they cant find worthy mates as all the men their age are staying home playing vidya or just want to fuck around on tinder. They smashed the patriarchy and now a large percentage of the male population is no longer invested in society.

It's only going to get worse unless something is done to halt the trend.

 

[epigenes]

it does and should exist, because men are better than women at literally everything other than giving birth, running extremely long distances and being emotionally distraught
allowing women into the workforce made it impossible for a lot of men to sustain their families on a single income stream. equality between the sexes is a myth and letting the less capable sex exist on "equal footing," or even worse, creating quotas for them, weakens societies

 

[Whatsup bud?]

I wonder how human sex dimporphism would have played out if we, say, laid eggs. Or if gestation was different and not as harsh/long

 

[DumbDude42]

because you need structure and order to have a long-term functional society

more specifically, you need a system that reliably provides men with a family and with security about paternity, because otherwise men have little to no incentive to play the part of productive and obedient worker drones that society needs to keep the lights on.

what happens under 'free love' and 'equality'? chads cultivate harems for fun while betas are expected to accept getting cucked out of existence while still paying the bills for everyone. as this keeps going on, more and more of them will just end up checking out and either turn to a life of delinquency or say 'fuck it' entirely and retreat into NEETdom. over time, this destabilizes and weakens society greatly, until eventual collapse (unlikely) or foreign takeover (more likely) happens.

the feminist reply to this usually boils down to "well fuck men we'll just run it all ourselves" and when you go with that approach the result is birth rates dropping far below replacement levels, so your people are set on a path to slowly die out, or to get taken over by mass immigration, or both.

Spoiler: tldr

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

If women ran the world we wouldn't know what we want for dinner and the human race would've starved to death

 

[No Exit]

I wonder how human sex dimporphism would have played out if we, say, laid eggs.

Most non-avian egg laying species have larger females that maximize on sexual selection. So we would most likely have a matriarchy since women would be bigger and stronger.

 

[DumbDude42]

Most non-avian egg laying species have larger females

you sure about that? the only species i know anything about are crocodiles, and male crocs grow almost twice as large as females and are extremely territorial towards other males

 

[Robert James]

Men, are bigger, stronger, have denser bones, have more grey matter (women have more white matter), are better able to compartmentalize, are better at quicker decisions, are better multitaskers, and don't need to have as many emotional needs met. Now women age faster and last way longer than men typically do and have advantages over men besides being able to have kids but they are more related to community support and surviving, more white matter means women can take more brain damage and still function normally. So it would make sense that a sexually dimorphic species the sex that is stronger/bigger would take charge.

That being said anyone that thinks we live in a patriarchy is a fucking retard, we haven't since advertisers learned women have all the buying power, Jobs started demanding longer hours taking the father away from the familly, and the government learned taking the father out of the relationship will ensure people are stuck with the welfare state. The best example of this is the black community where you aren't likely to know your daddy and you are more likely to be in a single mother household than not.

 

[Lonely Grave]

The concept of women as cattle was on its deathbed after the First World War - the second one threw a grenade into its casket. There's just no rationale for it anymore, women are part of the workforce and they're here to stay. The patriarchy is long dead, the feminists are just reaping the whirlwind that is the hollow victory that it really is.

 

[mindlessobserver]

it does and should exist, because men are better than women at literally everything other than giving birth, running extremely long distances and being emotionally distraught
allowing women into the workforce made it impossible for a lot of men to sustain their families on a single income stream. equality between the sexes is a myth and letting the less capable sex exist on "equal footing," or even worse, creating quotas for them, weakens societies

Women not being in the workplace is likewise a myth. The only women who didn't "Work" were high class women. It was a status of class symbol to have a wife who did not work. Poor and middle class women had to work up until the post world war 2 era. in hunter gatherer societies, women would do the "gather" part of that, and often were responsible for aquiring most of the food for the tribe. At least at the most dependable rate. In pre-industrial times the women would engage in much of the industry. Spinning, Weaving, making food (which without modern tools IS time consuming), and in industrial times women were just as likely to end up in the factory as the men. Or else engage in similar productive enterprises at home on farms and so on as they did in the pre-industrial period. It was only after World War 2 and the advent of the economic boom that the middle class could engage in the status accumulation that had up until that point been solely the province of the high class. Keeping the wife at home and at "leisure".

Though it should be noted that in pre-industrial societies high class women still had to work, mainly, running the estate while the husband was off at court or fighting. So yeah. What IS different is women being admitted into high skill service sector jobs like engineering, law, medicine and so on that had up until that point been the province of men. So highly skilled male workers have seen their economic power drastically reduced. The poor and lower middle class have not really seen much change economically. Socially however it has become MUCH harder to rise out of the poor and lower middle class as the barrier to entry doubled. Before the 1970's high status women focused on getting married to high status men rather then entering the work force. Now they go to college, taking up slots that would have otherwise been available to low status men of competency looking to climb the social ladder.

This has had the perverse effect of solidifying aristocratic family control, particularly at the higher social echelons. Which in a rather hilarious fashion is now biting those same high status women in the ass. There are not enough high status men to go around now as the men who could have risen got blocked by them taking up the high status college slot and then entry level career. Which means many are now going unmarried and childless because what few high status men are around have no problem marrying down the social ladder to a low status woman. High status women just do not do that.

I think alot of the SJW female anger can be attributed not to prior abuse, but rather to the fact that the worst of the worst female thinkers are often unmarried high status women with plenty of resources and connections at their disposal to amplify their rage at not being able to find romantic partners.

 

[Pope Fucker]

Because men are stronger and have domesticated women to fulfill their needs.

 

[Genderfluid Pirate]

because you need structure and order to have a long-term functional society

more specifically, you need a system that reliably provides men with a family and with security about paternity, because otherwise men have little to no incentive to play the part of productive and obedient worker drones that society needs to keep the lights on.

what happens under 'free love' and 'equality'? chads cultivate harems for fun while betas are expected to accept getting cucked out of existence while still paying the bills for everyone. as this keeps going on, more and more of them will just end up checking out and either turn to a life of delinquency or say 'fuck it' entirely and retreat into NEETdom. over time, this destabilizes and weakens society greatly, until eventual collapse (unlikely) or foreign takeover (more likely) happens.

the feminist reply to this usually boils down to "well fuck men we'll just run it all ourselves" and when you go with that approach the result is birth rates dropping far below replacement levels, so your people are set on a path to slowly die out, or to get taken over by mass immigration, or both.

Spoiler: tldr

View attachment 1283564

The pattern I see in both cases is women being useless thots who need men one way or the other. What if they weren't useless thots and were actually capable? If women didn't secretly want chad, men wouldn't have felt the need to create the patriarchy where every man (or most) were entitled at least a woman and women were forced to play along, because if they weren't they'd run to chad. What kinds of women like chad? Dumb thots. Maybe dumb thots are the problem.

 

[Кот Бегемот]

Women not being in the workplace is likewise a myth. The only women who didn't "Work" were high class women.

A lot of domestic duties are work, a lot of it isn't all that simple or easy. Managing household, laundry, rearing kids ... It's the same perception that changing oil or breaks on your car isn't work either, but it is, with specific monetary value. In different strata of society, women absolutely worked but in different ways and a lot of times it's simply not appreciated.

The definition of patriarchy is somewhat flawed, because even in most patriarchal of societies, women have a lot of soft power, never mind outright control. It's simply not always acknowledged enough.

In a war/competition scenario, which dominated our genetic evolution, when village looses all it's males, it can still survive and pass on genes, it's culture and traditions. This in fact happened in Europe pretty much up to WWI. Male populations were continuously wiped out between wars and conflict would resume as soon as sufficient male populations would recover. This was especially true in Native American tribes that went to war with each other like clock-work.

Males are biologically better at some things, women at others. Just appreciate that.

The pattern I see in both cases is women being useless thots who need men one way or the other. What if they weren't useless thots and were actually capable? If women didn't secretly want chad, men wouldn't have felt the need to create the patriarchy where every man (or most) were entitled at least a woman and women were forced to play along, because if they weren't they'd run to chad. What kinds of women like chad? Dumb thots. Maybe dumb thots are the problem.

you need read up on other closest kin (not negroes) but primates. Just want monkey documentaries on Natgeo or something, a lot of things will get clearer.

Females tend to be promiscuous by nature to vary gene pool, and often would mate with an outsider if no one is looking. All females want to climb the ranks and have their own ranks to boot, separate from male ranking. Chad is alpha, all women like alpha it's just that some don't have enough self esteem to think that Chad would be interested in them. Betas still have sex, don't worry. Some women like betas too. Don't be a beta dood.

 

[Whatsup bud?]

A lot of domestic duties are work, a lot of it isn't all that simple or easy. Managing household, laundry, rearing kids ... It's the same perception that changing oil or breaks on your car isn't work either, but it is, with specific monetary value. In different strata of society, women absolutely worked but in different ways and a lot of times it's simply not appreciated.

The definition of patriarchy is somewhat flawed, because even in most patriarchal of societies, women have a lot of soft power, never mind outright control. It's simply not always acknowledged enough.

In a war/competition scenario, which dominated our genetic evolution, when village looses all it's males, it can still survive and pass on genes, it's culture and traditions. This in fact happened in Europe pretty much up to WWI. Male populations were continuously wiped out between wars and conflict would resume as soon as sufficient male populations would recover. This was especially true in Native American tribes that went to war with each other like clock-work.

Males are biologically better at some things, women at others. Just appreciate that.




you need read up on other closest kin (not negroes) but primates. Just want monkey documentaries on Natgeo or something, a lot of things will get clearer.

Females tend to be promiscuous by nature to vary gene pool, and often would mate with an outsider if no one is looking. All females want to climb the ranks and have their own ranks to boot, separate from male ranking. Chad is alpha, all women like alpha it's just that some don't have enough self esteem to think that Chad would be interested in them. Betas still have sex, don't worry. Some women like betas too. Don't be a beta dood.

So modern warfare has fucked with this cycle. Not enough men dying regularly. What are going to be, or already are, the consequences of this?