#partiarchy

Its ok, thanks for the clarification.  The question is tricky because the answer to it likely lies in ancient pre history, like 200,000 BCE and there aren’t exactly very many records.    So there is no 100% known answer, instead there are a mass of theories.   I have my own theory, but first i want to talk about the notion of the “Natural world” or “Evolutionary Psychology” as an ideological worldview

Basically there are multiple political ideologies, mostly on the right but sometimes on the left, which basically holds that what ever human beings did when we first emerged as a species is somehow inherently good and we should make an effort to go back to that sort of idealized way of living. So its this notion that there is this “natural” style of behaviors humans are suited too and we are somehow spiritually broken if we move away from this.  Its very stupid, and is really inherently conservative, human beings have changed, society has changed, and the early hunter gathers weren’t some sort of idealized Utopian society, in fact like most societies, it sucked.  Like reading isn’t invented until like 3,200 BCE, its still a good thing that we have reading.  So a lot of MRAs are really into the idea of being like “oh hey, when we were small family units wandering the  plains we did this, that is somehow relevant to things today...”

So to answer your question, matriarchies basically never emerge because the earliest human societies were patriarchies, and breaking away from that is very difficult, because people in power hate giving up power and the longer a shitty institution has been around the more difficult it is to remove. 

Now for why it emerged in the first place, again there are many theories and none of them are absolute, but my personal theory is that it is because of pregnancy, which basically gives men the opportunity to assume more power.  But I have a materialist disposition.  

Patriarchy did get much worse once humanity became settled around 1200-1000 BCE  

Watching this video set me thinking about the effects of the social justice and feminist movements on human intelligence. I think both will give it a boost.

Feminists are forever talking about “patriarchy,”,  “mansplaining”, “manspreading” and “toxic masculinity”, so are likely to find it difficult to form a meaningful relationship with a man. They are thus less likely to have children. Some might be put off by the possibility that they will give birth to an enemy of humanity, a boy. Their dogma might make them become lesbians, even though their natural inclinations could be heterosexual.

Feminists will believe they are intelligent if they have a degree in gender studies, lesbian dance theory or some other bullshit, but their beliefs are so contrary to the evidence that their intelligence cannot be very high.

Meanwhile, more intelligent women are likely to be happy to have mutually beneficial relationships with men, and so will tend to have children. With many feminists excluding themselves from the gene pool, the next generation will be more intelligent than this one. Keep up the good work, feminists.

Social justice warriors might be persuaded that they are men trapped in women’s bodies or vice-versa and have their genitalia severely mutilated and rendered useless. If they are not suffering from a genuine mental illness, and do not have a genetic disorder, they are doing the next generation a favour by not contributing their stupidity to it.

Making Judgements #sexbot #tw #patriarchy

Warning: Offensive language and triggers aplenty. Apologies in advance.

Female sexbots are hated - why? What about the men who own and use them? Which of the following statements do you agree with?

The sexbot-as-machine is:

A deceiver, an unfeeling succubus that leeches away the strength of men with feigned passion.

The ultimate objectification of the female form, reducing sacred woman to profane sex-toy.

A catalyst for the abuse of women by unempathetic men.

The sexbot-as-woman is:

A thieving mistress and destroyer of marriages.

A promiscuous slut, devaluing what is most precious and bringing anarchy to the chess game of social mating.

An evil whore, spreading contagion of body and soul.

The man-as-sexbot-user is:

A sad, lonely man incapable of getting or keeping a woman; probably a virgin or, if not, he’s never had sex he didn’t pay for first.

A sick, twisted individual for preferring an artificial woman over a real one.

A misogynist who enjoys absolute control and sexual objectification of women.

Sexbots are only machines; judge them according to their technical merits. Be careful of your assumptions if you judge those who create them and those who use them. Question also whether we too should be judged, for our societal hatred of women outside the hierarchy of patriarchy. Swap the genders here, and take the test again...

The sexbot-as-machine is:

A deceiver, an unfeeling incubus that leeches away the strength of women with feigned passion.

The ultimate objectification of the male form, reducing sacred man to profane sex-toy.

A catalyst for the abuse of men by unempathetic women.

The sexbot-as-man is:

A thieving [mistress?] and destroyer of marriages.

A promiscuous [slut?], devaluing what is most precious and bringing anarchy to the chess game of social mating.

An evil [whore?], spreading contagion of body and soul.

The woman-as-sexbot-user is:

A sad, lonely woman incapable of getting or keeping a man; probably a virgin or, if not, she’s never had sex she didn’t pay for first.

A sick, twisted individual for preferring an artificial man over a real one.

A misandrist who enjoys absolute control and sexual objectification of men.