TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

A Feminist Biologist Discusses Gender Differences In The Animal Kingdom "So, from the perspective of biology, it would be very surprising if human males and females did not have distinct, hardwired behavioral tendencies..this puts me at odds with much of traditional feminist theory."

DougDante

April 14, 2017
275 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/13/a-feminist-biologist-discusses-gender-differences-in-the-animal-kingdom/#36509d6f19b5
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title A Feminist Biologist Discusses Gender Differences In The Animal Kingdom "So, from the perspective of biology, it would be very surprising if human males and females did not have distinct, hardwired behavioral tendencies..this puts me at odds with much of traditional feminist theory."
Author

DougDante

Upvotes 275
Comments 84
Date April 14, 2017 9:19 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/65bk4h/a_feminist_biologist_discusses_gender_differences/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-feminist-biologist-discusses-gender-differences.925877
https://theredarchive.com/post/925877
Red Pill terms in post
feminismfeminist
Top posts by DougDante

Father who beat man to death for raping his five year old daughter faces no charges in Texas: Fathers have a natural right to defend their children.

14016 upvotes
March 15, 2017
/r/MensRights

Penn State will pay $2.4 million for not disclosing crime statistics: They didn't consider boys raped on campus "real" rape victims.

7858 upvotes
March 19, 2017
/r/MensRights

I Changed "Men" to "Black People" in an Everyday Feminism Post, And Here's What Happened. It's unfair to feminist misandrists to decontextualize their hatred. It should be enjoyed in its original form.

6281 upvotes
November 24, 2016
/r/MensRights

'Game Of Thrones' Star Forced To Apologize For Saying Men Can Be Victims Of Sexism

5090 upvotes
November 3, 2017
/r/MensRights

College student who lied about getting raped begs to dodge jail

5088 upvotes
September 10, 2017
/r/MensRights

Court finally stops trying to make Detroit man pay child support for child that isn't his: Thank you attorney Cherika Harris, who took on this case with probably little personal financial reward

4365 upvotes
December 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

The demonisation of boys in our school system. This photo was taken by a young man in an Australian school.

3991 upvotes
October 20, 2016
/r/MensRights

Campaign to remove Clementine Ford as the speaker of a Lifeline event for tweeting 'Kill all men'

3799 upvotes
April 30, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Pingaz99 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Great article I think a salient point was that low class men are treated worse than women in the patriarchy which is often forgotten by feminists and destroys the whole notion of men being the privileged sex. When in reality its really always been about class.

[–]the_unseen_one 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What really irks me is that the standard feminist talking point is to focus on how many men are in positions of power by pointing to world leaders, Congress, and CEOs. But on the flip side, they intentionally ignore the fact that men make up the majority of the bottom rung of society, and that they have always had far fewer social programs and charities willing to help them. As far as I am concerned, the few powerful men cancel out the multitude of bottom rung men in terms of gender power dynamics.

[–]fac1 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of intelligent points in this article, but there's also a lot of stupid. For example:

"the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts"

...so, men being in charge is responsible for women finding some men unattractive and not wanting to marry them? What?

[–]UDT22 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

100% spot on

[–]poorpersonality 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy is a silly theory that only silly people use to explain whatever they want to. Stop mentioning it unless you want to look silly! :)

[–]mistixs-5 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

they're forgetting childbirth - something that is unconsensual for many women in patriarchy (since the husband is in charge), many historical women went through roughly a dozen times (thus spending much of their lives pregnant), killed many historical women, & is literally hundreds of times safer today than historically.

[–]heimdahl81 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are forgetting the benefit of childbirth for women. In an agrarian society, having more hands to do work means a greater chance of survival for everyone. This is especially true in harsher environments. Some of the few examples of polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) occurred in the mountainous plateaus of Peru and Tibet where the growing season is short and more male workers were necessary to provide sufficient supplies in a short time period to survive the cold season. In short, having more men around means greater survival chances and a higher standard of living for the women. Whether they are husbands or sons, the effect is the same.

[–]mistixs3 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

How is that a benefit of childbirth? Men get sons too without all the literal blood, sweat, and tears

[–]heimdahl81 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men's blood sweet and tears comes from laboring in the field while women labored in the home. Men and women helped in ways that only they could and both benefited.

[–]Atheist101 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

childbirth didnt kill women, it was the lack of adequate and clean hospital and maternal care which killed them.

[–]Vandechoz 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

eh, this is too close to "the lack of a cancer cure kills people, not cancer"

[–]Luchadorgreen 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Except that a lot of the deaths during childbirth were caused by infections introduced by doctors practicing poor hygiene.

[–]mistixs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In some cultures (such as the Hmong) women give birth alone and unassisted. There are very high maternal mortality rates.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Childbirth is supposed to happen though, it's literally what parts of female bodies were designed to do. Cancer is what happens when things go wrong.

[–]the_unseen_one 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, that's not it. A lot of shit can go wrong in childbirth even when care and hygeine is perfect. Breach births are fucking terrible, to the point that standard modern practice is to to a C-section rather than risk vaginal birth. I agree that the other guy is wrong about childbirth somehow making the treatment of men ok, but let's not pretend it's all fucking grand.

[–]mistixs7 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

even today in clean hospitals with maternal care, childbirth sometimes kills women.

and even if that wasn't the case: if you need care from other people so that you don't die, then it is indeed childbirth itself that killed women.

[–]IronJohnMRA 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

this puts me at odds with much of traditional feminist theory.

That reality is a real bitch, isn't it?

[–]EricAllonde 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but she deserves some credit for choosing scientific thinking (change hypotheses to fit the facts) over the religious thinking typical of indoctrinated feminists (ignore or deny facts that contradict the dogma).

That is unfortunately rare among feminists.

[–]Satansyngel 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yea but then again minus credit for considering femist gobbledygoob at all in the first place.

[–]dragonsandgoblins 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, I think everything no matter how outlandish it sounds at first brush should be considered. Now some things are so clearly insane that you can find good reasons to dismiss them fairly quickly, but those are rarely anything so complex and shifting as one of the largest ideologies in the world.

[–]Satansyngel 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you attempting to argue that feminism isn't "so clearly insane that you can find good reasons to dismiss them fairly quickly"?

[–]dragonsandgoblins 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is huge, complex, and not necessarily consistent. It takes some time to consider because of that.

[–]TejrnarG -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, it doesn't. If you have a degree in Biology it should be christal clear to you that feminist theory is pure garbage.

[–]dragonsandgoblins 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article makes it sound like she thought it was garbage. It also sounds like she approached it rationally and actually thought about it like an intelligent person. "Something being clear" without devoting thought to it is how men's issues get so widely ignored. People think "Oh it is clear that men have all the power" and then we end up where we are.

[–]Quopoo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would give a bit more credit to this women then that as in today's society, we grow up being taught that feminism is the only possible way to be a good person in society, and socially if you go against feminism, especially in academia it's almost impossible to be respected. It puts people in a very tough spot when they start looking into things like the wage gap, and realise a lot of what they've been taught doesn't make any sense but to suggest otherwise is to be labeled a woman-hater.

[–]terribletweets 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know what you're saying, but it's hard to give credit for something so blindingly obvious.

[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Think of it like this:

When someone successfully breaks free of an openly religious cult, like say the Moonies, we would generally recognise that as an achievement and congratulate them on achieving their freedom. Even though they've only finished up at the same place as we start from, i.e. a free person, it's still an achievement given where they started from. After all, lots of people are unable to break free of cults and spend decades or their entire lives in one.

In the same way, this scientist is resisting the enforced groupthink of the cult of feminism. I think that's worth recognising, it's something few feminists achieve.

[–]terribletweets 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I hear ya.

I dunno though, when I broke free from certain indoctrination I just felt stupid that I'd been conned. Any credit I give myself for getting out is balanced by the idiocy of getting in.

[–]EricAllonde 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

I am always bemused at the way feminists cling to the idea that we in western countries live in a patriarchy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. And this biologist says:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder [e.g. 17]. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.

In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts.

So...

a) I don't see much polygyny around today, so if "the patriarchy" isn't producing any of that, exactly what is it doing? Nothing that I can see...

b) In centuries past when we did have a patriarchy, women had it much better than the majority of men. But notice how feminists view historical patriarchies: not a single second of thought about, let alone concern for, the majority of men who lived miserable lives and were denied any chance to mate. Instead 100% of their concern is directed at the freedoms denied to the women of that era, who were relatively comfortable and protected by comparison to the majority of men.

[–]Jex117 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

In centuries past when we did have a patriarchy, women had it much better than the majority of men.

Hmm debatable. We talk about "housework" and being the "stay at home parent" today like it's some kind of menial task. These days houses take care of themselves. I don't just mean the robotic vacuum cleaner or the self-cleaning stove. Most people don't realize just how much time & effort indoor plumbing has saved us.

There's this old reality tv show called Frontier House where they had normal people live oldschool homesteading lives - turns out being a "housewife" or "doing the womans work" basically meant running buckets of water in & out of the house all day long. It was a grueling job.

[–]EricAllonde 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Hmm debatable. [...] Most people don't realize just how much time & effort indoor plumbing has saved us.

Irrelevant. I wasn't comparing centuries past to today, I was comparing average (i.e. non-elite) men living under patriarchy to women living under patriarchy.

There's this old reality tv show called Frontier House

Did you even read the article we're commenting on?

That's not a patriarchy, that's our normal 2-person-marriage based society, just with less technology than we have today.

[–]Jex117 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't really expecting such a hostile response but I guess it's still pretty early in the morning.

Irrelevant. I wasn't comparing centuries past to today, I was comparing average (i.e. non-elite) men living under patriarchy to women living under patriarchy.

I'm pointing out that average life as a housewife wasn't much better than average life as a coal miner or lumberjack in centuries past. This seems specifically relevant to the comparison you were making. This idea that women "had it better than men" in centuries past is really quite debatable.

Did you even read the article we're commenting on?

Yes. I also don't see the need for these hostilities. What about the article would you like to discuss? I thought we were comparing who "had it better" in centuries past, but ok, let's completely derail into a discussion about biology then.

That's not a patriarchy, that's our normal 2-person-marriage based society, just with less technology than we have today.

You said "In centuries past when we did have a patriarchy, women had it much better than the majority of men." and I simply pointed out that a housewives life in the 1800s wasn't much better than her husbands. You make reductionist statements like "women had it much better than the majority of men" then snap at me for pointing out that there's a bit more nuance to it than that. Excuse me if Frontier House was the only example I felt like citing at 6:30am.

[–]Tammylan 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm pointing out that average life as a housewife wasn't much better than average life as a coal miner

How many housewives got black lung from their work? How many of them were given white feathers by the early suffragettes and shamed into exchanging their life in the coal mine for the trenches of WWI?

[–]Jex117 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

How many housewives got black lung from their work?

You don't get blacklung by lugging buckets of water - you get a broken back and blown out shoulders, which they did indeed get. Which would you prefer, black lung, or joint damage? Again, this wasn't a much better option than coal mining or lumberjacking. It was shit for nearly everyone; modern 3rd world countries, with all their faults, have better healthcare today than any American in the 1800s ever did.

How many of them were given white feathers by the early suffragettes and shamed into exchanging their life in the coal mine for the trenches of WWI?

You're citing 20th century examples in a discussion about 19th century life but ok, let's roll with it. As we all know war has historically always been fought by men. But that doesn't make war an everyday example of average life for people throughout history. War is the exception, not the norm.

[–]EricAllonde 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Which would you prefer, black lung, or joint damage?

Black lung will inevitably kill you and there's no cure even today, so yes: it's by far the worst of those two options.

[–]Jex117 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes. A painful awful death, slowly suffocating in your own fluids. A terrible way to die.

But are we going to pretend that having your disks blow out and ball joints grind to dust is a particularly better option? Living in endless pain for who knows how many years. This doesn't seem much better. I don't understand why so many people here can't accept the idea that women had shit lives just like men did. People don't even seem to accept the idea that America used to be a patriarchal society.

[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My view is simple: living > dying.

If the pain is too much to deal with, you can always kill yourself. But most people don't, most people choose to live even if they're in pain.

If you have a terminal illness, that choice is taken away from you.

I don't understand why so many people here can't accept the idea that women had shit lives just like men did.

I don't dispute that, I merely pointed out that, as the author also noted, under a real patriarchy women's lives were much less shit than those of non-elite men. Women had it better than the majority of men under real patriarchies of the past.

[–]all-round-good-egg 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Which would you prefer, black lung, or joint damage?

What are you on about? It isn't an either or. Miners got every weight bearing and joint beasting injury in addition to black lung and the chance of getting crushed to death at any moment or dying in an explosion. I was in an old mine the other day, I couldn't even stand up straight in parts of it. It was a humbling experience.

In the deepest shafts, it would take the men a couple of hours per day being transported up and down to the seams. Unpaid. All in candle light. That's when they got a shift, often they wouldn't.

You can't equate the two with a straight face. You really can't.

[–]Jex117 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can't equate the two with a straight face. You really can't.

Which is why I specifically and repeatedly said "it wasn't much better." Obviously maintaining the household, no matter how hard, is always better than working underground in the mines - but this idea that women were historically living in luxury like modern housewives do, with our modern self-cleaning houses with indoor plumbing and on-demand delivery services / renovation services, is simply intellectually dishonest. Housewives had very hard lives back then - a lot of men these days wouldn't takeup a job that's as hard as theirs was back then.

[–]all-round-good-egg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is saying that most housewives in the 18th century lived a life of luxury. Speaking of being intellectually dishonest. It is fair to say that some did though, whilst their husbands went out to work long hours in different jobs.

[–]EricAllonde 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't trying to be hostile, but it sure does seem like you haven't absorbed anything of the article under discussion.

Let me point to this again:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder [e.g. 17]. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.

In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts.

You keep referring to traditional marriage-based societies and mistaking them for patriarchies. They are not. Marriage was the solution to patriarchy. Social norms that dictate men & women couple up in 2-person marriages ensure that almost all men are able to find a mate, just as almost all women have always been able to.

So looking back at the structure of a patriarchy, which sounds like the least appealing way to live out your life?

a) as any woman, meaning that you'd be one of several/many mates of a high-status male who had the power & resources to support a large family;

OR

b) as a non-elite male, who would spend your entire life in grinding drudgery, working in the service of an elite male - unless you died young as cannon fodder in battle - with no hope of ever having a female partner, let alone kids and raising a family.

I'm gonna say a) is the far more appealing option. Sure you have to do some housework without the benefit of modern technology, and you have to take your turn to have sex with the man of the house, but that seems much less awful than b).

Do you disagree?

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I thought it was generally accepted that America in the 1800s was indeed a patriarchal society. Fathers ran the households, managed the finances, made the big decisions, etc. Women straight up didn't have the same options as men in education, science, medicine, or politics. Fathers could straight up marry their daughters away without their choice. Hell, they could send their kids off to the workhouse if they got sick of them. Was this not a patriarchy? Or is it only a patriarchy when elite males universally attain polygyny?

[–]EricAllonde 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm deferring to the biologist here, she describes patriarchy as producing polygyny. Animals which form social structures based on 1 male + multiple females are described as "patriarchal". Everything indicates that polygyny is a standard feature of partriarchies.

Women straight up didn't have the same options as men in education, science, medicine, or politics. Fathers could straight up marry their daughters away without their choice. Hell, they could send their kids off to the workhouse if they got sick of them.

I agree that women and children had fewer rights than they do today, but that's not really a patriarchy because social norms enforced a "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" rule. There were rare exceptions like the Mormons, but generally any man who tried to collect multiple wives would be rejected by society, often violently.

[–]HugoBorden -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm deferring to the biologist here, she describes patriarchy as producing polygyny.

Since she’s a biologist, she’s not an an authority on human societies. That’s sociology.

The popular term ‘patriarchy’ has typically been applied to Christian and Hindu societies that are monogamous. As well as to Moslem societies practising polygamy.

[–]superhobo666 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s sociology.

No, the only authority sociology has is deciding to spell my name right or not on my starbucks cup.

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know most of sociology is crap. But there’s also the ‘black budget sociology’ – the guys who enforce the NWO agenda behind the scenes. Working for the Big Brother by monitoring the slaves.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thanks to Aprilisse for linking some things I was going to link.

There's another good video by Lindybeige: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmbDPsyt6I

He talks about inward-looking and outward-looking power using the Greek Oikos as an example.

I would also say about marrying daughters against their will, that some men did does not mean that they could under the law. Technically, husbands can straight up beat their wives in Canada. That doesn't mean it's legal.

Do you have a citation as to fathers sending their kids off to the workhouse?

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I feel like we're splitting hairs here. I just want to know straight up - was 1800s America a patriarchy, or not? If Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy, then I don't see how 19th century America wasn't.

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry to keep commenting, but what you call "splitting hairs" seems to be me asking for citations for your claims.

You claimed women couldn't work or get an education, but women could certainly work and get educations prior to the 1800s in the west. What's interesting to note, I would hope, is that most of the women who chose to enter the trades back in the 1400s were orphans--women who were unlikely to make a good marriage. Becoming a tradesman wasn't an easy life--indentured as a child into essentially an unpaid internship that got you little more than room and board, then journeyman status (travelling from town to town), and finally you'd get master status and be able to set up a permanent shop in your mid-twenties.

A woman who married a tradesman, on the other hand, could learn the trade from him, and inherit his master status and his proprietorship if she was widowed, and even take on apprentices. All without having to go through the hardship and toil of being an apprentice or a journeyman.

Married women surrendered some (not all) of their property upon marriage into the authority and administration of their husbands. In return, they received:

  • Dower rights (the right to prevent their husband from selling any "real property" if she objected). Dower rights don't represent a financial interest in the property, but a "life interest"--that is, she had a right to live in the house if she chose, and could prevent him from selling it out from under her.

  • An entitlement to his financial support, and could sue him in an ecclesiastic, equity or common law court for abandonment if he failed to do so to her satisfaction. If she felt he had mismanaged or squandered property she had brought into the marriage--even if it had legally passed into his ownership--women were able to (and did) sue their husbands, and often won (as per documentation from the 16th century onward). The law acknowledged that any property she brought into the marriage was to be used for her benefit.

  • Rights via the law of agency. This law allowed her to make purchases on her husband's credit for "necessaries" (food, clothing for herself or family members, household items like soap or candles). She would essentially go to a shop and tell the proprietor to bill her husband, and it was assumed that he'd pay (because he was legally required to). While the law generally only covered items that would be considered necessaries, many women used their authority as their husbands' agents to purchase livestock, business inventory and other things that did not fit the definition of "necessaries". Interestingly, you can find ads in newspapers taken out by separated/divorcing husbands disavowing the debts their wives were racking up (many women racked up insane levels of debt to pressure estranged husbands to grant them generous maintenance payments), but this measure was generally considered insufficient to protect the husband. The law required him to visit each shop and inform each shop owner that his wife was no longer entitled to make purchases on his credit.

As for the "women were treated as property" thing (which I assume you're getting at), my car is property, but it isn't entitled to anything from me legally. It's not entitled to gas or maintenance. It can't sue me for selling my parking space, or for not taking proper care of it or its accessories. If I decide I want to trade it in, I'm not stuck paying to maintain it for the rest of my life.

Women gave up some rights when they married, but they got a fair amount of special legal exemptions and entitlements in exchange. But that raises a very sticky issue: you can't give up rights you don't have, can you? I mean, here I thought that women had no rights back in the 1800s (or the 1600s, or the 1400s).

The reality is that single women were considered "femme sole", and had virtually all the same legal rights as single men to property, income, work and education. In addition, they retained something called "children's privilege", which means that unlike men, they were entitled to the financial support of their parents after the age of majority.

If I recall, Lizzie Borden was 32 years old, unmarried and living with her parents, because she was legally entitled to their support if they could reasonably provide it unless and until she married. Sons could be "put out of the house" at majority without legal repercussion, even if the parents were wealthy.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also, you haven't provided a citation.

[–]AnotherDAM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jex has been popping up a lot lately - pretty certain she is a grad student assigned to troll this board.

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on how you define a patriarchy.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So 1800s America wasn't a patriarchy? This seems intellectually dishonest; I can cite examples of Saudi women who've also had access to higher education - does that mean Saudi Arabia isn't a patriarchy, when it quite clearly is? Specifically what constitutes a patriarchy then?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't just mean the robotic vacuum cleaner or the self-cleaning stove.

Get back to me when those things are free, when you don't have to empty out the robo vacuum, when there's a robo-pickuper and duster, a robo clothes washer that takes dirty clothes into the wash, pulls them out of the wash, folds them, puts them away, etc, etc.

houses run themselves.

Ha. ha.

[–]Swiss_Cheese9797 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn son

[–]mistixs5 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

they're excluding childbirth - something that many historical women went through roughly a dozen times (thus spending much of their lives pregnant) often unconsensually (because the man was in charge), killed many historical women, & is literally hundreds of times safer today than historically - from dirty, dangerous labor (it's indeed called 'labor' for a reason).

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Many" is a vague word. In the Middle Ages, the average number of births per woman was something like 5. The average age of first marriage for women was between 19 and 25 (same for men). And the rates of childbed deaths are somewhat exaggerated by the advent of hospitals and doctors, which initially increased them.

When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that handwashing for doctors could reduce these rates significantly (by 90%, in fact), he was comparing two populations: poor women and wealthier women. Poor women had lower rates, because they couldn't afford to be attended by a doctor, and it was doctors who were causing the infections via transferring of germs between corpses and laboring women.

Yes, childbirth was risky, but it wasn't nearly as risky as it was for a brief period between the advent of medical, rather than midwife, intervention and the adoption of the germ theory of disease.

On top of that, I would contend that giving birth without assistance or medical care 800 years ago would be less risky than it would be today, as the interventions we've introduced that save lives (caesarian section, etc) have allowed certain traits (like inadequate pelvis) to be passed down that would otherwise not have been.

Now, if you want to think about what the worst conditions in which to give birth, sub Saharan Africa is the place you want to look at. A 1 in 39 lifetime risk (and this is including unsafe abortions) in a region of the world where the birth rate is still quite high. Not good, but death in childbirth was never an inevitability for women.

And back then, like today, there were more women than men alive precisely because at every stage of life, from birth to death, men were more likely to die.

[–]Imnotmrabut 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A Go To text on this issue for decades has been Elaine Morgan, "The Descent of Woman", 1972.

It's evolution written from the female perspective and roll .... so it;s odd that so many feminuts ignore it and hate it. P¬))

Feminut antipathy to science and biology that contradicts and negates dogma is nothing new.

[–]HugoBorden 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Elaine Morgan

Her theory was mostly feminist flim-flam. Check this out, for example,

http://kimberlymoynahan.com/2012/04/water-apes-carrying-the-torch-for-a-failed-theory/

But the public was captivated. By 1987 Morgan had generated enough interest in the theory that a conference was organized by the European Sociobiological Society and the Dutch Association of Physical Anthropology. ... the scientists ultimately came down on the side opposing the Aquatic Ape Theory.

What Morgan doesn’t seem to realize is that with so many hundreds or even thousands of trained eyes looking at AAT over the last forty years, if it held any water at all, a good number of anthropologists would have excitedly jumped on board. Instead, while her credentialed supporters include the likes of medical doctors, geologists, geographers, and nutritionists, none are paleoanthropologists—the very experts she is hoping to sway.

[–]Jesus_marley 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When it’s presented to the public, that evidence mostly gets co-opted into ideological cannon fodder. Sometimes the interpretation is feminist, sometimes it’s misogynistic,

I don't see any kind of bias here.

[–]fiadiana 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The author is accurate and honest, and therefore is not a feminist.

Feminism is not an equality movement as the author naively presumes. It is a female dominance movement disguised as an equality movement; it seeks to increase the power and privilege of women where men have more, while defending female power and privilege where women have more. This subterfuge is fundamental to all feminist practice; therefore, feminism is based on a lie. The lie is that men are never disadvantaged relative to women, and that women never have greater power and privilege than men.

The contradictions between this essay and the feminist ideology of the "patriarchy" reveals the lie. The author states that women are also able to monopolize resources in a sedentary agricultural society, and that low status men have it worse than women. While these statements are obviously true, they are vehemently denied by ideological feminists. And deny them they must, because to admit them would undermine feminists' power.

In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts. Unfortunately, we’ve done a terrible job at understanding and communicating this, to the point that most men in this situation are convinced that feminism, not patriarchy, is actually the root of their problems.

There has been no failure of understanding and communication. The misrepresentation of men by feminists is entirely deliberate. Feminists must keep these low status men in their place, because they are the manifestation of the female privileges and power in society that feminists seek to defend: the privilege of being cared for and intrinsically valued, and the power to compel men to do the dirty and dangerous work that women refuse to do themselves.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fiadiana 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Interesting point. The phrasing is ambiguous and I see your interpretation. But I've read papers relating to my original interpretation; how women monopolize and regulate male access to sex in response to men monopolizing economic resources, hence the perennial money for sex exchange which underlies both prostitution and marriage. The author put it this way:

Males are slightly more promiscuously inclined on average, which results in a demand/supply imbalance that is commonly corrected through material exchange.

That is the most succinct summary of the economics of sex I've seen!

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fiadiana 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is kind of a chicken or the egg deal.

I agree, it works both directions. Much of female behavior even today is focused on extracting resources from men, despite the fact that women actually need those resources less than ever before, as the male monopoly was broken long ago.

Many of the long standing traditional gender roles involve elements of competition and cooperation between the sexes. It can be win-win. He gets sex, she gets protein, both win. Even chimps trade food for sex.

[–]ThatDamnedImp 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are just like Christians: they refuse to give up the belief that humans are God's special animal.

[–]Mallago 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because "traditional feminist theory" is nonsense.

[–]Akesgeroth 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'll note that no other species in the animal kingdom builds oil platforms either.

I'm not saying that the reasoning is bad, just that humans tend to not be like the rest in some respects.

[–]Jules_Elysard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whilst social monogamy is the most common mating pattern, human males and females enjoy diverse short and long term mating strategies [18]. Males are slightly more promiscuously inclined on average, which results in a demand/supply imbalance that is commonly corrected through material exchange.

Im doing my master thesis on this subject - would you like to know more?

[–]heimdahl81 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On monogamy or the exceptions? If it is the exceptions, then yes.

[–]TianWoXue 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

huh. file this under = no shit.

You mean underneath it all we are just a species of animal? Whodathunkit?

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Image Archive -- http://i.imgur.com/8kPB1o8.jpg

[–]Draggonzz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Once in a while they stumble into an epiphany.

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basic psychology teaches this. The cells in males produce different amounts of certain important chemicals in the brain and body than women, leading to behavioural tendencies.

This is also why women tend to avoid psychology scientific linked qualifications and head straight to quick and easy therapy courses.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Imnotmrabut 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

?

Suzanne Sadedin

[–]Satansyngel -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminist nonsense* there's no such thing as feminist theory

[–]EricAllonde 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct.

People need to always remember that feminism isn't a science, it's an ideology, a form of religion. That's why feminists cling to beliefs that are disproven by facts, the same way that young earth creationists do, for example.

[–]mistixs-3 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

"Men are overwhelmingly responsible for the dangerous, exhausting, and unpleasant physical work that confers little money and less status [13]."

She forgets childbirth (it's called "labor" for a reason), something done by 81% of women compared to only a minority of men who perform "other forms of dangerous, exhausting, and unpleasant physical work that confers little money and less status".

In this sense, it is women who are far overrepresented in labor.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mistixs 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a myth that childbirth pain lasts a single day & you're "all better after." There's a great deal of pain after having a human being rip its way out of your body, that can last months or years.

http://overlakeobgyn.com/healing-after-childbirth-a-gentle-guide-and-timeline/

Recent research out of Salford University in the UK found it takes more like a year for the average woman to feel back to normal – both physically and emotionally – after giving birth. And, upon closer examination, the abdominal muscles can take as long as two years to return to a strong, healthy tone.

also 77% of mothers report back pain persisting one year after childbirth, 49% urinary incontinence, and 40% both BP and UI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471341/

50 to 80 percent of women who give birth experience tearing of the pelvic skin and muscles. For more than 1 in 10, the tearing is severe enough to damage the anal sphincter muscle

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/childbirth-injuries-prolapse-cesarean-section-natural-childbirth

the effects often last even into old age. pelvic organ prolapse is detected in 41.1% of women 60 years of age or older, who have not had a hysterectomy. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0501/p1111.html a main contributor to pelvic organ prolapse is childbirth. http://www.surgeoncolorectal.co.uk/common-conditions/pelvic-organ-prolapse/

Furthermore, pregnancy can be extremely difficult and painful too. even "just" morning sickness, which most women experience to a moderate or severe degree: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-survey-debunks-myth-of--morning-sickness-nausea-and-vomiting-of-pregnancy-nvp-happens-throughout-the-day-206565841.html

and on top of all the pains of pregnancy, having to go to work on top of that.

if we're talking about before standard work weeks.

if we're talking about before standard work weeks, then epidurals are also irrelevant.

[–]romulusnr -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

However, the whole point of being human, pretty much by definition, is to have higher thought processes that allow you to overcome those tendencies.

Edit: TIL this sub is all about being subservient to animal urges.

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

Why? Traditional feminists, not to be mistaken for liberal Feminist who believe that they should be entitled to act like men, because yeah... Men should definitely set the standard for how women are... Yeah go out slut all the men, you're a feminist! The men support it!

Traditional feminists recognize these differences and lots of them won't even include transgender women in the conversation about women's rights.

Liberal feminists hate traditional feminists because they touch on subjects where people have to look at their values as a whole, and criticize how those women are only adopting male standards of sexual entitlement for themselves, instead of encouraging men to have values and be respectful towards women and their individual autonomy.

Whatever makes sex more available to men, and lowers women's standards, will usually gain more followers.

We are different sexes. But the entitlement that men feel towards having, using, and abusing women, is a societal sickness and it's not natural. And we aren't living in the stone age anymore, so people should definitely take accountability for themselves and how they treat their partners on both sides.

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