I never really thought of it but isn't it weird how pretty much every single society has always treated women as lesser?Is upper body strength really that important that it made men the dominant gender for thousands of years?Just seems kind of nonsensical desu.
Women are sexual beings. They have periods, they get pregnant, they have boobs, produce milk, etc. Everything about their biology inhibits their capacity for labor and judgement in favor of reproduction and motherhood. When women are given the power to select their mates, society usually collapses not long after. This is because of hypergyny. Since only men are capable of maintaining society, and since history is largely the subject of studying past societies, it then makes sense that men are the "main characters" of it. This is also why cultures that enforce arranged marriages have the highest fertility rates in the world. They survive while the rest die.
tl;dr women are primarily useful for making babies, but when they get a choice they always choose to deny their primary use which kills everyone. That's why they've been practically enslaved for all of human history.
>>16555388Men are literally superior at everything except childrearing. Women might have a slight advantage in some socially-orientated skills like reading emotions.
>>16555435Define raising children.I will rely on the strict sense of his argument;Without the paternal male presence in a family, the child becomes a basically spoiled and limitless person, when he does not become a disgusting effeminate, he can become a criminal. Are the children of single mothers that we see evidence of the supposed superiority of women in raising children? You see how the world is today, a lot of it is due to the fact that they are raised by women, a symptom of our feminine world.and about reading emotions, I must assume this is correct, I don't see how this could be wrong, men have abstract thinking.I assume this is a bonus of the surprising female manipulation capacity (as bad as it is) I have a theory that this is the reason for the high number of female psychologists. Not that they're all good, honestly, most of them are feminist memes.
>>16555435What do you mean by social orientation? I don't understand who created this argument, honestly. I think that if men were so inferior to women in this matter, they did not literally create the civilization (or pre-civilizational) social norms that we find in history, I mean, it was men who unite tribes and groups for a greater good, be it WHG level or EEF. but women are incredible beings and better at everything else, they are beautiful and neotonin is evidence of that. I love women it's surreal.>>16555483Ok?
>>16555491why "ok"? I didn't understand.although your last paragraphs are a bit matriarchal, the rest is partially correct, yes. I love women but I know how they are and how dangerous it is to treat them like Princesses and give them rights and consideration beyond what is necessary and essential... I met my girlfriend a year ago, I am very much in love with her.
>>16555495>>16555491Do you know what's sad? Not all men who gave women rights in society were simple progressives, many were like you two, clear but softened and relative thoughts in relation to any subject involving women. as if it were emotional blindness.women are naturally emotional, BUT when it involves any subject about the feminine, especially with regards to relationships, men become as emotional or even more so than women. following my line of reasoning;One of the guys who gave direct messages to them knew what women are like, but his mind makes it gradually softened and assimilated with simple emotions. It's sad to say, but even the most misogynistic ones can be partially "controlled" or assimilated by women.....we lose our reason when it comes to women.
>>16555506I don't know if I understood correctly, but I think I understand your premise. the guys above could be using a meme, by the way.Isn't there a speech by a Roman politician about exactly this? where are women making up their husbands or something to set up something long term? including the senate? Abrazo mexicano
>>16555388You can ignore all the incel talk in this thread because the answer is really simple. For thousands of years every single society has been warlike to some extent. Since men are better at war it makes them more valuable. It's not nonsensical to put more value in your warriors. It's also not nonsensical to want more power for your war efforts compared to those who don't participate.
>>16555388>I never really thought of it but isn't it weird how pretty much every single society has always treated women as lesser?That's not entirely true. In many cultures throughout history and still today, women have taken the dominant role in the household. But homemaking doesn't make it in the history books so you end up with an inflated view of the degree to which men rule society.
>>16555388women didint have wages and economic freedom back then they were slaves to the men be it fathers or husbands,when they got the right to work they got personal freedom and by extension the chance to fight for political rights.Its not up to women or if society is chud or not but how the economy is organized.
