2 ms·

Bro you made many assumptions. First women today have plenty of power. A lot of times more so than men. I only refer to prehistoric times. Men primarily drived

Bro you made many assumptions. First women today have plenty of power. A lot of times more so than men. I only refer to prehistoric times. Men primarily drived survival in prehistoric times. Without a man a women could not survive. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t contribute it means she was not the primary driver. Women contribute a lot, but that contribution is in the end supplementary because it is not critical for survival and this definitely shapes evolved behavior. It means for survival a man is required for her, this is asymmetric for a man and you can see this in how women and men select mates. Men select based off of superficial markers for fertility. Women select more on practical markers for capability. This is because a women’s survival is dependent on the man’s capability while a man’s survival is not as much dependent on this. Additionally please don’t make the argument personal. If you disagree attack the argument don’t attack or make assumptions about my character. Thank you.

Mezzie 7mo ago
[flagged]
- threethirtytwo 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - circlefavshape 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - threethirtytwo 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - circlefavshape 7mo ago
        I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful

Mezzie 7mo ago

[flagged]

threethirtytwo 7mo ago
[flagged]
- circlefavshape 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - threethirtytwo 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - circlefavshape 7mo ago
      I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful