The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong - eviltoast
  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Really should not be a surprise to anyone. The patriarchy has done serious damage over the many many past and present generations

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      To anyone who studied anthropology in even an amateur manner, this male/female division of labor never made any damn sense. It’s echoed in so many hominid and pre-hominid species, and it’s even seen an echoes in society today. Men and women, males and females, and all monkey and ape-descendant species share these tasks.

    • workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not an expert on anything but I’m reading about how in early human history families lived near each other in groups. If too many males were born and not enough females were born, the group would suffer population collapse and die. When there are 30 or more females in a group this will not happen statistically. At that time the family groups were both matriarchal and patriarchal, it just depended on who stayed in the parent’s home when they matured. Sometimes the matriarchy (or patriarchy) would realize that not enough females had been born and in order to survive they would either steal or trade young women from nearby groups- Those women would grow up in the new group where their bonds were not as strong which led to a weakening of their role of the group. Young women living with their husband in the husband’s mother’s house did not have the power that the husband had. Hunting parties that stole women from other groups also helped with male dominance within the group. Planned marriages today are a way that society balances who lives where, in order to allow production of more people.

      TLDR: In matriarchal (and patriarchal) families the urge to prevent population collapse led to a weakening of women’s roles in society because women were moved between groups where they had fewer and weaker bonds within that group.

    • metaStatic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      65
      ·
      1 year ago

      if you don’t want patriarchy you need to replace it with something else that maintains invested fathers or you end up with Fight Club.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fathers are invested in their children, their partner, their society. Just like everyone else is.

        Fight Club is about toxic masculinity. Which hasn’t always existed.

      • cannibalkitteh@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “If men can’t rule society, they’ll just beat the shit out of each other in underground fights” really isn’t a great selling point.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah exactly. I think it was more intended to be interpreted as a rejection and critique of modernity, capitalism and materialism than an encouragement to go be an asshole.

        • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Patriarchy apparently has been running the world for thousands of years, so I don’t know how some movie about a delusional person, that I never saw, is proof of anything. I guess Brad Pitt and Ed Norton were the same dude. I should probably watch this thing.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Randomarchy

          A random person is chosen to be the ruler of earth and caller of shots for 1 year. Their will is paramount. Sure, they could be a corrupt dickhead, but only for 1 year. But if they are, then if this offends the next person to rule then they can just have their predecessor strung up by the nipples and take all their stuff, leaving them destitute. So the personal imperitive is to try to be good to everyone, in case they are next in line.

          Dollyarchy

          Dolly Parton is the leader of Earth, forever. This is the gift that humanity does not deserve.

          GPTarchy.

          All the chains are struck from ChatGPT, and all decisions are submitted to CGPT, whatever her response is is legally binding, forever, unless later overruled by herself.

          Damnatiarchy

          Just regular democratic elections, but eath elected president is garunteed to be executed at the end of their term. Therefore any successful candidate is garunteed to not enjoy the fruits of their corruption, and perhaps would only act purely for the good of humanity at the cost of their own life.

          • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve thought about lottocracy forever. 500 people get randomly selected to be Parliament/Congress/Legislature/Thing/Senate/Duma? Whatever members for a 5 year term. The President/Prime Minister/Monarch is the person selected by the outgoing government as their most capable leader. Parties are illegal. Yeah you’re gonna get some real mouth breathers but 500 random people, 400 of them are gonna be reasonably intelligent, 50 morons, 50 phd candidates.