TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

tonyespresso

May 15, 2015
12 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists?CMP=fb_gu
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Early men and women were equal, say scientists
Author

tonyespresso

Upvotes 12
Comments 8
Date May 15, 2015 8:04 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/363hhk/early_men_and_women_were_equal_say_scientists/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/early-men-and-women-were-equal-say-scientists.980166
https://theredarchive.com/post/980166
Top posts by tonyespresso

Muslim Woman Made Up Hate Crime on Subway, Police Say

1170 upvotes
December 15, 2016
/r/PussyPassDenied

Ellen Pao loses gender discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins

759 upvotes
March 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

Surveillance videos did not support accounts of young women's allegations of being attacked

645 upvotes
March 2, 2016
/r/MensRights

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science

365 upvotes
August 15, 2017
/r/MensRights

‘What Is the Point of Men in the 21st Century?’

296 upvotes
May 25, 2023
/r/MensRights

"white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges,” Saida Grundy

189 upvotes
May 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Woman kills husband over his affair in 1979, gets suspended sentence

186 upvotes
June 26, 2015
/r/MensRights

Push for Gender Equality in Tech? Some Men Say It’s Gone Too Far

170 upvotes
September 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]_pluto_ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My main complaint with this article is that it overstates the idea of "male dominance."

It is true (and this has already been known for decades if not centuries) that hunter-gatherer bands live in peaceful egalitarian societies with relative equality between the sexes.

Once agriculture and complex social organization emerged, we devolved into hierarchies similar to our great ape ancestors. The "alpha male"/psychopath returned to the scene and the rest is history.

However, it is simply incorrect, or at least grossly simplistic, to regard these new societies as "male dominated." They were and are dominated by an elite class made up of both men and women. Both sexes enforce these hierarchies. Though it is true that the man usually (not always) is the ostensible "chief" or "leader," men as a class are no more dominant than women, unless you include being forced to die in wars as a form of domination.

[–]MonkeyCB 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not surprising given that with fewer problems people face, the more they bitch. When you're just surviving, there won't be anything to really worry about outside of eating and not being eaten. Who cares if you have a bigger hut or three spears instead of two.

[–]_pluto_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Hunter-gatherers don't "just survive." In fact there is a large body of data indicating that the norm in such groups is "luxury." See eg "The Original Affluent Society." From Wiki:

"Through knowledge of their environment hunter-gatherers are able to change what foreigners may deem as meager and unreliable natural resources into rich subsistence resources. Through this they are able to effectively and efficiently provide for themselves and minimize the amount of time spent procuring food. "[T]he food quest is so successful that half the time the people do not know what to do with themselves".[3] Hunter-gatherers also experience "affluence without abundance"[3] as they simply meet their required ends and do not require surplus nor material possessions (as these would be a hindrance to their nomadic lifestyle). The lack of surplus also demonstrates that they trust their environment will continuously provide for them. By foraging only for their immediate needs among plentiful resources, hunter-gatherers are able to increase the amount of leisure time available to them. Thus, despite living in what western society deems to be material poverty, hunter-gatherer societies work less than people practicing other modes of subsistence while still providing for all their needs, and therefore increase their amount of leisure time. These are the reasons the original affluent society is that of the hunter-gatherer.[3]"

My personal opinion is that the author goes too far in the other direction, implying a quasi-utopia. Obviously, in the event of environmental catastrophe or (eg) an attack by a predator, luxury quickly turns to desperation. They don't have access to modern medicine/dentistry etc. But enthographies of many hunter-gatherer bands do indeed indicate a life of relative luxury, with lots of time enjoying life, sex, hunting, food, spirituality and and so forth.

The main difference between then and now is hierarchy. Under hierarchy, we devolve into a real "struggle of all against all," a characteristic that Hobbes ironically ascribed to "savages."

[–]MonkeyCB 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I find it hard to believe they don't require surplus. Now I'm not going to claim to know too much about this, but people breed, and as the group grows, there will be more demand. If that weren't true, there's no reason for us to develop agriculture.

Also, being killed off at any given time by a predator wouldn't exactly be problem free lifestyle. It's kind of like being the 10th emperor in that 50 year period of Roman history where 25 emperors were assassinated. Sure you live well, but you could die at any moment. Not exactly a comfortable life.

And then there's also other tribes trying to kill you.

[–]_pluto_ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I find it hard to believe they don't require surplus.

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of every anthropologist who has studied the issue.

"Also, being killed off at any given time by a predator wouldn't exactly be problem free lifestyle."

Hence my statement that these societies were/are not utopian. We don't really know how much danger there was from predators (certainly less than being hit by a car under modernity), but if extant hunter-gatherers are anything to go by it wasn't that big a deal. A bunch of men who have spent their whole lives throwing spears are a force to be reckoned with.

"And then there's also other tribes trying to kill you."

This is a fallacy popularized by Steven Pinker, who is not an an anthropologist nor archaeologist. War did not evolve until about 12,000 years ago. The archeological record demonstrates this conclusively. See eg:

http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/Pinker's%20List%20-%20Exaggerating%20Prehistoric%20War%20Mortality%20(2013).pdf

War made no sense for nomadic hunter-gatherers because they had no land to defend and no surplus. This is explained by Douglas Fry:

"The very nature of nomadic-band social organization makes warfare, slavery, or despotic rule well-nigh impossible. The small social units lack the ability to engage in large-scale slaughter—and since positions of authoritative leadership are also lacking, there is nothing to plunder, tools and weapons are rudimentary, and population density is extremely low. The archaeological facts speak clearly, showing for particular geographic areas exactly when war began. And in all cases this was recent, not ancient activity—occurring after complex forms of social organization supplanted nomadic hunting and gathering."

Edit: congratulations to people downvoting me for posting links to peer-reviewed papers and hard science. Is this r/MensRights or r/Feminism? I don't care what your ideology is. Facts are facts.

[–]MonkeyCB 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You've made your point and backed it up. It's pretty stupid that people are downvoting you.

[–]_pluto_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you.

[–]dydx62 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is cultural anthropology a science? Physical anthropology seems to be, but cultural anthropologists are so deep in quagmire of cultural relativism, and blank slate dogma that I have difficulty trusting anything they say.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter