How would you feel if your sister's boyfriend raped her and the police didn't exist? Do you think your caveman ancestors felt differently?

disposable_pants · 2017-02-03T13:52:56+00:00

Even today, the difference in sexual attitudes between farmers and non-farmers is really striking. Opposition to gay marriage correlates extremely closely to how agricultural a region is. Interestingly enough, this holds true even for people who just live in agricultural regions. An accountant living in cornfield country is vastly more likely to support Trump than an accountant living in a city.

The difference isn't due to farming; it's due to exposure (or lack of exposure) to diversity. Contemporary people who live in rural areas generally don't visit places with different kinds of people, and generally don't live around different kinds of people. Sure, they may have gone on a vacation to Florida that one time, but they very likely spent all of their childhood in the same town, went to a school in the state they grew up in, then moved to another town/small city in that state to start their career. And almost everyone they live around has a similar story, because very few people grow up in a major city and decide to move to the middle of nowhere to start their life.

Thus your implied conclusion:

We don't know much about the societies of the Paleolithic, but we know certain facts: They were not farmers. Non-farming people consistently show a marked tendency towards liberalism.

Doesn't follow. It's not as if planting seeds in the ground makes one more socially conservative; it's that planting seeds in the ground means one probably has less exposure to diversity, which makes one more socially conservative. Pre-agricultural humans didn't have a lot of exposure to diversity, so they were probably socially conservative.

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2017-02-03T13:34:27+00:00

I am not a cultural relativist, so yes, it is wrong.

This entire question falls apart if you aren't a cultural relativist.

DashneDK2 · 2017-02-03T16:12:08+00:00

how are you so sure

We don’t. These are the things we know for a fact:

1) Human pregnancy and childrearing is an extremely – and in the animal kingdom completely singular – large investment. Human females cannot feed or protect themselves for large portions of their life. Somebody else did it.

2) The human species is characterised by a fairly marked sexual dimorphism. Especially noteworthy is female neoteny. The sexes are evolved to fill different slots in life and pursue different goals.

3) Prehistoric times were exceedingly violent. We know this from things like counting the number of human remains which had a violent end (more than 40% of human remains from the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods collected at the Danish National Museum died from human violence). Men are stronger than women. Women didn’t do the violence and there weren’t that much in the way of possessions worth fighting over – so what were the men fighting over?

4) We are descended from a much larger percentage of females than males. Some form of polygamy was going on.

What kind of society do you think those clues point to?

And then we have all the records from pretty much all current tribes who live a like they did in the hunter gather period. And those guys don't fuck around, they're are brutal. Rape & murder & genocide and selling women off like chattel. These things are not nice.

The truth is, there isn’t a peaceful matriarchal past lying in history waiting to be discovered. This is your golden era. 21st century Western society. At no place in geography or time in history has women had it better than here and now. This is your time to shine.

MarriedLifter · 2017-02-03T13:50:23+00:00

Don't confuse your caveman ancestors with farmers who lived 5,000 years ago. I mean people with no agriculture, no organized religion that we know of, no personal ownership of land, no fixed permanent area called "home".

This is what anthropologists usually call a band society, with an upper limit of 60 or 100 people. Band societies don't have official leaders with job titles, but they do tend to have what TRPs would refer to as "AMOGs": guys who are charismatic, persuasive, or just generally looked up to, almost entirely because of who they are.

In some ways, it's not a bad way to live. Band level societies tend to have fewer diseases than farmers, and people tend to be noticeably taller. You don't have to kiss the ass of some king or lord. In a good year, you maybe work 20 hours a week and spend the rest of your time hanging out and talking.

In other ways, band societies can be kind of terrible. In some places, one out of every five men will die of murder. Women are often kidnapped, raped and forced into marriage. There's a ton of macho posturing and raids, with people getting killed, and sometimes long-running vendettas. So you can see why humans will often look up to the first asshole who can impose some order and enforce some laws.

Also, in a band-level society, birth spacing tends to be about 4 years or so, and there are often years with very little food and a real risk of starvation. In comparison, farmers are sicker and shorter, but they can crank out babies like crazy. So farmers eventually outbreed the band-level societies, even though being a farmer basically sucks (except for the lower rates of murder, kidnapping and rape).

And because all of the written histories seem to describe patriarchal societies with rigid gender roles,

This isn't necessarily true. OK, sure, ancient Rome was a total sexual shitshow, with powerful men raping their slaves (male and female) left and right. The ancient middle east was less perverse but extremely patriarcal.

But plenty of other societies weren't too bad. The ancient Egyptians would seem sexist by today's standards, but women had the right to divorce their husbands and they had a fair bit of control over their lives. Upper class Norse women (the farm owners) frequently ran their family farms while the men were off raiding, and if you messed with them, they participated in the same system of family vendettas as the men.

cuittler · 2017-02-03T15:22:07+00:00

This post was reported for having an unrelated/inflammatory title and I tend to agree, but as there's already some discussion going I won't remove it. Just keep in mind for next time to relate the title to your post a bit better please.

[deleted] · 2017-02-03T20:04:45+00:00

Get back to work, this is the dumbest shit ever

Aaren_Augustine · 2017-02-03T14:14:11+00:00

If you think these nomads all felt "a woman must always submit to her husband, right or wrong" my only question is: how are you so sure?

https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

Yes. War brides, man. Where do you think Stockholm Syndrome came from? Think it was fashioned by the guys who made the Atlatl and spear? You think they sat that woman down and negotiated with her?

Survival of the most diplomatic? Please, Ugh's gunna cut a bitches heart out when displeased Sun God creates drought and famine.

exit_sandman · 2017-02-03T15:28:09+00:00

My 2c on this subject: it isn't the trade, it's the size of the community. Farming communities tend to small, simply because farming is a craft that depends on few people settling large swathes of land.

In small communities, the social dynamics are thoroughly different. On the one hand, control is easily established because a single person can keep tabs on all community members. On the other hand, you don't need a bureaucracy or an elite caste because all members know each other without having to resort to intermediaries (which also greatly facilitates social control). I.e. you get communities that are strictly hierarchical yet at the same time the hierarchy has few levels.

This has multiple consequences.

First, if everyone knows everyone, strangers become even more of an outsider. In large communities (cities for example) on the other hand, its members are used to regularly dealing with people they barely know (if at all), so one stranger or another won't be perceived that much differently (also, they're more exposed to strangers).

Second: perception of risk. If you're a few families (something like, say, 30-40 people), half a dozen strangers might be an actual threat to your family. The same guys however won't be the same risk for a community of 1,000 people.

Third: deviation from the communal behavioral standards become more pronounced because everyone is on some level invested in the lot of the tribe as a unit (because, as I mentioned, everyone is familiar with everyone). If you have ten boys and ten girls of marriagable age, but two of the girls had gangbangs and already got pregnant by who-knows-who and nobody wants to marry them, this suddenly means that you only have 8 datable women for 10 datable guys.

What I am describing here isn't just a privilege of farming communities, it's also the same with f.ex. bedouin desert tribes who don't farm, but otherwise also have strictly patriarchal, tightly knit communities with extreme social control mechanisms.

uncuntscionable · 2017-02-03T16:15:14+00:00

What does the topic question have to do with the body of the post again?

goatismycopilot · 2017-02-03T17:29:56+00:00

Why are you on this farmers and nomads trip?

dragoness_leclerq · 2017-02-03T15:50:07+00:00

All the reddit anarchists and libertarians would just LOVE to be in that kind of situation with no police. They would just grab their katana, other weapons of choice, don their fingerless gloves and kill everyone who ever made fun of them or made them angry.

This thread will quickly offer up some great material for /r/iamverybadass

BiggerDthanYou · 2017-02-03T13:45:37+00:00

Have you been reading feminist anthropology works?

Because that's basically just the "6000 years ago female sexuality was denigrated with the onset of patriarchy" argument.

The numbers range from 12000-6000 years, but some (or many. I actually don't know what the actual consensus is) anthroplogists brought up basically the same arguments. The earliest records of patriarchy date back to that time and we don't know exactly what happened before written records, but I think it's fair to assume that power hungry men invented religion in order to enslave the population which also lead to patriarchy.

alreadyredschool · 2017-02-03T13:45:46+00:00

And because all of the written histories seem to describe patriarchal societies with rigid gender roles, people frequently make the incorrect assumption that surely all human societies since we evolved were patriarchal with rigid gender roles.

Sure others existed, they were so efficient and great that they developed space crafts 5000 bc and left for another solar system. No wait, they were shit and we destroyed them with our superior system or they adapted to a better one oh and we are the ones who invented space ships.

If men are better hunters let the women pick berries and trap critters. It's about efficiency.

AutoModerator · 2017-02-03T13:22:28+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Justapasserby557 · 2017-02-03T18:43:52+00:00

I think the difference is in ownership. One common thread among indigenous people is that no one really owns anything-- it's usually communal property. Some peoples even feel/felt this way about sex. Can't remember the name of the tribe, but I saw an interview where a tribe expressed their view of paternity. They believed that all men in the village are fathers to all the children because they all had sex with the mothers and their collective semen formed the babies. That was their view on how babies were made, and it led to all children being cared for equally. If you look at some of our closest relatives, especially ones where infanticide occurs, they have a similar sexual strategy; the female will mate with several males so that none of them are sure of paternity and her babies won't be killed.

Then people started owning things, like land, and from that came a desire to know that a child was yours so that you wouldn't have to share with non-family members. From that came the desire to have wives, and the desire to have rigid definitions of who owned whom and what.

[deleted] · 2017-02-03T19:59:05+00:00

What boyfriend? Krug, the caveman? If he actually raped my sister and I wasn't there to stop it, Krug is a dead caveman.

If I was there to stop it, Krug is a dead caveman.

If my sister says "No, you no kill krug, rape not that bad, was ok" I leave her there and walk away. Guess she wasn't raped after all.

holyjesusitsahorse · 2017-02-04T23:22:52+00:00

There are several concerns I'd have with this:

Literally all civilizations begin from farming. Without a big food surplus, you can't rise up to the level of having paved roads. If the farmers = intolerance pattern continues to hold true, it seems likely that the dawn on agriculture also brought a dawn of sexual intolerance which had not previously been the norm.

As other people have highlighted, you've taken a modern cultural trend and from it drawn the conclusion that there must be some inherent link between the very practice of agriculture and a virulent distaste for buttfucking. That ultimately doesn't make a lick of sense.

A lot of this is instead about the difference between tribal group dynamics and urban group dynamics, which are unlikely to be determined by whether or not a society is settled.

And because all of the written histories seem to describe patriarchal societies with rigid gender roles, people frequently make the incorrect assumption that surely all human societies since we evolved were patriarchal with rigid gender roles.

We know this is untrue because we have seen hunter-gatherer societies where men and women are equal in all important respects.

You're throwing together two concepts here in a very feminist way. Saying that a society was conceptually equal doesn't mean that there were no such thing as gender roles. In fact, I'm not aware of a primate society, let alone a human society, that didn't hold a significant distinction between male and female.

It may well have been that you have tribes with a "tribe mother", or with key female religious figures, but there are very few where a girl can just up and decide one day she wants to go out and fight wars.

Farming cultures prefer rigid top-down hierarchies. After the French Revolution, who rebelled against the new pro-democracy Paris government? The dirt-poor peasantry of the rural Vendee region. What did they want? To be ruled by a king! They fought and died to not have a say in their own rule.

I don't want to nitpick, but this is badhistory.txt. The war in the Vendée had far more to do with the oppression of Catholicism and with the various drafts of resources and able-bodied men that were put in place.

Similarly, it's fairly misleading to talk about the National Convention being democratic at that point in time, and even if you were to say it was, it was driven overwhelmingly by the mob in Paris, not the needs of the Vendée.

rreliable · 2017-02-07T08:03:56+00:00

First of all, are you talking about feminist rape or violent rape?

Are we talking about a situation like this? Where a male wants to come inside a girl, even though she fully consented to sex, and doesn't even consider it rape herself?

Or are we talking about violent rape, where there is force and actual bodily injury happening, like in the NFL?

EchoZeroEleven · 2017-02-03T14:10:18+00:00

Wish your post was related to the click bait title.

I'll answer your title instead of your post.

Answer:

It doesn't matter what I'd feel. If there's no police, then there's nothing protecting him from me.

despisedlove2 · 2017-02-03T13:43:36+00:00

This is a very interesting and thought provoking way of looking at it.

I think the farmers tend to be closer to natural realities, while supporting an active interface and role within a larger human society. In some sense, they are the reality glue that connects a human society to its natural underpinnings.

To extend this thought, it is also useful to look at British fishermen and merchantmen. All royalists and enthusiastic participants in the Royal Navy down the ages. The backbone of the British Navy that broke the Invincible Armada, for instance. Proud Tories and very religious. Labor has usually had a rough time making headway through them. Given what they say about sailors, pretty surprising.

Or if you are from Gloucester, MA, or have watched the Perfect Storm, maybe not so much.

Title	How would you feel if your sister's boyfriend raped her and the police didn't exist? Do you think your caveman ancestors felt differently?
Author	rreliable
Upvotes	4
Comments	107
Date	February 3, 2017 1:22 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5rtvsk/how_would_you_feel_if_your_sisters_boyfriend/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-would-you-feel-if-your-sisters-boyfriend-raped.270268 https://theredarchive.com/post/270268

Comments