Are there any books that claim patriarchy is biologically innate rather than created by society?
No, because that's a retarded idea.Patriarchy is relatively new in human history. Matriarchy was far more common when you look back far enough.
>>25238929Explain?
>>25238909depends on how low your standards are
>>25238931I'm drunk but patriarchy is a phenomenon that develops with the rise of private property and class society. You can read Friedrich Engels The Origins Of The Family or whatever it is called. Don't worry, it is not just him talking out of his ass he bases his work on respected scholars from the 19th century.
>>25238929this and blacks built the pyramids and the great wall of china. we wuz kweens.
>>25238936>I'm drunk but patriarchy is a phenomenon that develops with the rise of private property and class societyThere are animal species that reproduce solely through rape
>>25238929True, matriarchy was fairly common in primitive societies, whereas advanced ones all became patriarchal.
>>25238929>>25238946Isn't that a myth by Marija Gimbutas
i wish we could go back to that one blip where the patrician elite believed ancient man was a unified, matriarchal goddess worshiping society.kino
>>25238937You are an American and you need to read more. Nobody is talking about someone being better than someone else. These are analyses of how societies develop. Also if racism is your forte Engels has you covered since he just randomly inserts that stuff throughout the work.>>25238940We are better than animals.>>25238946That is a part of the book. I recommend reading it. Engles gives us some ideas on how we can overcome all of that.
>>25238946that's not very woke of you sweaty
>>25238909Didn't Shulamith Firestone believe something like that? I forgot
>>25238948That is something else. I know of her but the Engels text is more rooted in scientific observation. I think she is the woman who talks about ancient Europeans societies being practically hippy communes. I don't know how well her texts hold up.
>>25238948so there was a period from like the late 1800s into the early 1900s where archeology developed a thesis that primitive man was a sort of inverse of modern society. It was still monotheistic, but matriarchal and worshipped one goddess; and it was universal until the invasion of the Indo-Europeans disrupted it with the first patriarchal polytheisms. Their data was largely comparative similarities in discoveries like scattered 'venus' idols, and psychological explanations of ancient myth (which was in vogue and considered legitimate science). And this made it into academic textbooks and those for public education in and around the 1930s, just as advances in archeology started to debunk it.It has survived only once it was taken back up by second and thirdwave feminists. Marija gimbutas is the standard of this hypothesis in the modern day, but she is a very late example.this is all going off what I remembered from the initial chapter of Triumph of the Moon, which is quite a good summary of how it developed and later influenced the neo-pagan movements.
>>25238946hmm... really makes you think
>>25238909Humans are naturally matriarchal imo. If you observe virtually any married couple behaving naturally you will see the woman is always commanding, nagging, directing and the man generally acts submissive. Like the Homer Marge archetype.
>>25238929I'm wondering if there's any scholarship about how patriarchy is just a myth made up to force a narrative?if not, I might start actually arguing that theory when I become a tenured historian.
>>25238950and you - are a worthless ESL third worlder. take that!
>>25239002Do you mean that it doesn't exist today or that it never existed in history?>>25239005I am, yes, how did you know?
>>25238929>Patriarchy is relatively new in human history. Evidence being: jews made it the fuck up.
>>25238949im trans btw in case anyone cares
Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia
>>25238936>I'm drunk but patriarchy is a phenomenon that develops with the rise of private property and class society.That's totally baseless commie bullshit.
>>25238946Apparently the British inadvertently wiped out a bunch of matrilineal societies in Africa by offering wage labor. Men from these societies just left and didn't come back once they had a viable option to support themselves independently.
>>25239110I'm willing to bet it almost certainly relies on some Marxian notion of patriarchy like 'men controlling the means of production' rather than simple political dominance by men which is how everyone else means it. Marxists always define shit in an annoying way so as to construct tautologies.
>>25238909Yeah the Bible
>>25239101seethe
>>25238931Ma'am, it's not true. It's just 60's slop designed to support 60's sexual attitudes. Anyway, make me a four course meal.
>>25239010never existed. but I just get irrationally angry when foreigners try and lecture Americans on what "is" and what "isn't"Exceptionalism is very real, but its neither a good thing or a bad thing. we are in practically different worlds.
>>25238909Yes. And written by a whoman nonetheless !
>>25238909Patriarchy and feminism is a shit test that escaped containment and took on a life of its own. When women go on about this shit, you just hear them out, keep your composure, and then find a way to get your dick in their mouth and pussy. Afterwards, they became placid and at ease. If they don’t get dicked down, they let the delusion grow and grow fueled by anger and sexual frustration. There’s no magic to it. It’s that simple and banal.
>>25239446Paglia is such a pick me cunt, I hate her
>>25239466Yeah, for Chad only
>>25238929Now THAT is a retarded idea.
>>25238909in prehistoric times, nomad warrior people were patriarchies while settler farmer people were generally matriarchies. Europe, once owned by settler farmers, was conquered by nomad warriors (indo-europeans aka aryans) and was thus a patriarchy ever since. Altough because the aryans mixed with the conquered, a matriarchal tendency persisted deeply buried and is now, after the world wars cost the best warrior blood, coming out of the shadows trying to claim its throne back
>>25238909Power by Juvenal doesn't go so far to say as it's "innate" because he points out so early matriarchal societies. But his thesis is the patriarchal ones always end up outcompeting matriarchies because females have to hold society back to keep power. Matriarchies can't reward their warriors (who will always be men) or their best workers ("...").
>I'm only interested in reading books that validate my worldviewwhy are rightoids so nakedly incurious and anti intellectual?
>>25240246Because it's fun?
>>25240246Have you read books that go against this narrative, faggot?
>>25238909The New Testament says it's spiritually innate, see 1 Timothy.
>>25238909It's biological nonsense that an entire sex could conspire against the entirety of another sex, either men against women, or women against men. People of the same sex compete far too much with each other to ever form such alliances.
>>25240286women in particular hate each other with a burning passion
>>25240246Because you bring it on yourself by engaging in institutional capture. You don't give us much of an option. K, leftoid?
>>25240221Why is that book not available on kindle?
>>25240515Then why do they always engage in self advocacy against their own men in favor of hostile outsiders?
>>25240583"their own men", they only care about their own sons, not some social construct idea of race
>>25240631>social constructRagebait term detected
>>25240660there's no objective biological marker for what makes someone count as "white", or "brown" that maps to conventional usages of those terms
>>25240879There's no "objective biological marker" for anything nigga, we made that shit up. Do you believe the concept of "subspecies" is somehow "real"?
>>25238909Why are you looking for books that prove what you already believe, instead of reaching a conclusion after being shown evidence? Do zoomers really
>>25240890I don't believe patriarchy is innate, I think it was a form of sexual socialism to curb hypergamy and redistribute pussy to the common man
>>25240889yeah it is all made up, so expecting some grand solidarity from women is absurd, they are much more focused on their immediate tribe and relations than men are
>>25240891But why does this cause females to screech?
>>25238909Do you even need a book for this?It seems pretty obvious to me that the physically stronger sex would be able to subjugate the physically weaker sex and direct society from there. You don't get the soft power of patriarchy without the hard power of male strength.
>>25240908because females are k-strategists. they don't want to waste resources on sub-par genetics. males have barely any resource expenditure, their real objective in selecting mates is not getting sick from the interaction. one always goes against the instincts of the other.
>>25240568sorry for engaging in institutional capture, I promise to never do that again
