cosmictinker21 said:If you look at actual recorded history, the whole idea of a matriarchy is basically a myth. In reality, women were mostly treated like pieces of movable furniture, nothing more than manual labor or breeding stock. They were essentially property—owned by fathers, husbands, or brothers who could trade them for livestock, swap them for cash, or just toss them out on the street whenever they felt like it based on whatever local custom or "law" was in place at the time. It wasn't uncommon for things to escalate to physical abuse or permanent injury... it was just how the system functioned back then.
Let’s take a much deeper dive into the past... In many animal packs, it’s actually the alpha female who calls the shots. She picks the partner, leads the hunt, decides when the group migrates, and even dictates the social hierarchy of the rest of the pack. We're talking about apex predators at the very top of the food chain here—situations where the offspring aren't under immediate threat, so the whole "ensuring the survival of the species" argument isn't even the primary driver... think wolves or hyenas...
The dynamic with lions is a bit different... The lioness pretty much runs the whole show—handling the hunt, organizing the strategy, keeping an eye on the cubs—yet she still shows this quiet, respectful deference to the male, letting him take the first bite of the antelope. She’ll even carefully move the little ones out of the way when the boss decides it's time to retreat into the shade. Why? It's simply because in the Serengeti, those cubs are constantly exposed to danger, which creates a need for a harem structure. The male lion essentially lives like a sultan with his queens and concubines; he spreads his lineage far and wide, fulfills his sacred duty to reproduce, and once he’s driven the young males off into solitude, he can finally focus on just being the king of his domain...
Even with those fast legs, fawns—whether you're looking at deer, antelope, or zebras—just aren't ready to outrun a predator right out of the gate. It’s why nature relies on sheer numbers; you need a massive surplus just to offset the inevitable losses... It brings to mind that frantic, arrogant billionaire type, greedily hoarding and fertilizing his harem while kicking out anyone who actually shows a bit of genuine interest...
Take bonobos, for instance—they’re basically our closest biological and social cousins in the primate world. Because food is easy to come by and they're fairly large, the whole male-female power dynamic stays pretty balanced. Research actually shows that female bonobos are just as promiscuous as the males. It’s almost like a "free love" vibe where everyone mixes with everyone... provided the entire group steps up to look after the kids. You might have one mother watching her little one while someone else jumps in to teach them how to dig for worms or watch out for snakes. Then you’ve got chimpanzees, who are a lot more aggressive. The males tend to run the show there. Since chimps are smaller and physically weaker, their main survival strategy is often just running away... which unfortunately leaves the offspring to fend for themselves. And then there are gorillas, whose lives are dictated by food availability. They need massive territories, so they focus on maintaining a harem and ensuring plenty of offspring to keep the lineage going. A silverback gorilla is a hell of a protector for his group, though... definitely takes the job seriously.
So, because the forests started thinning out and gave way to more open savanna, our dear primate ancestors were basically forced to stretch their legs a bit... had to go out and hunt for new ways to find food and maybe some decent shelter. At that specific stage of human evolution, everyone was pretty much just looking out for themselves. There wasn't any concept of splitting the kill or checking in on the weaker members of the group who ended up going hungry... it was just survival of the fittest, I guess...
It wasn't exactly by choice, really. Circumstances just forced our hand. A need for a different way of life emerged because our ancestors slowly realized that if they stayed caught between the savanna and the woods, they were basically dead meat—starving, defenseless, too slow to run away, and way too weak to hunt or fight back... In that desperate struggle just to find enough food and keep their bare lives from slipping away, they ended up neglecting reproduction. Hm. Not exactly a glowing forecast for the future...
So, they eventually figured out ways to make catching game a lot easier, and they made sure to find decent shelter. They realized it was much simpler to just call the animals out from the tall grass rather than hunting them down through dense brush. Labor division started to drift toward physical strength over time, mostly because the pack became more tightly knit through individual interdependence. The females were busy gathering berries, keeping the fires going, raising the kids, teaching them the ropes, communicating, passing down knowledge, making sure bears didn't eat them, making sure bears didn't eat the kids, and also watching out for those famous hunters showing up with mammoth legs. Multitasking. We've all been there, right...
And that’s exactly why—because they were the ones collecting and passing on all that knowledge—mothers became the central axis around which the whole tribe revolved. While the men handled the hunts and some of the technical ideas, the women took care of everything else. Because of that, they were respected. They were the shamans, the teachers, the caregivers, the scouts; their word carried weight, just as much as the word of a smart, capable man. During that era, we see the first evidence of female-centric cults being honored (Mother Earth, the parent, the provider), and it wasn't until much later, with the discovery of metalworking, that the cult of the male principle emerged (think ram or fire cults). Physical differences led to different roles, sure, but there was still an equal sense of importance and dignity. There isn't really any evidence that one gender was favored over the other back then...
The first signs of ownership and dominance over women showed up once surplus value appeared. Once we transitioned into partial agriculture and domesticated animals, the guy who was physically strong or just lucky enough to grow extra grain or breed more lambs (which ensured his own kids were fed and numerous) suddenly had more material to trade. He got richer. And subsequently, more arrogant. He teamed up with guys just like him, formed the first military units, hunting became a smaller source of food, and he needed a way to burn off all that testosterone. So, he got greedy and wanted what others had. More. Larger territories. More food. More people surrounding him for protection. Women were pushed to the sidelines...
Sorry for this massive wall of text. 😢
Exactly! It was all about equality without being identical. They were just as valued and respected as the men, but they weren't out hunting or forging metal. Instead, they stepped up in other vital areas of the community—handling roles that were essential to everyone's survival. Those tasks were recognized as being just as crucial as hunting or metallurgy, performed with the exact same level of dignity as any "man's job." Women were women, and men were men.
The first signs of ownership and dominance over women appeared right when surplus value emerged. Once we transitioned to small-scale farming and domesticated animals, things shifted. If you were physically capable and lucky enough to grow extra grain or breed more lambs—which basically guaranteed a fed and growing family—you suddenly had extra material to trade. You became wealthier. And predictably, more arrogant. These guys teamed up with others just like them and formed the first military units. Since hunting wasn't the primary food source anymore, they needed a way to burn off that excess testosterone. So, they got greedy. They wanted someone else's stuff. More territory. More food. More people around to act as their personal security detail. Meanwhile, women were pushed to the sidelines.
My apologies for this mess.😢
Not sausage—you actually made some really interesting points there! 🙂
Chaos really kicked in once surplus value entered the picture. Greed followed right on its heels. Honestly, all the struggles women have faced from then until now started when that first tribal macho type—who already had a little extra—decided he wanted even more. From that tiny seed grew this massive, suffocating tree of patriarchal societies where women were constantly suppressed and undervalued.
Here’s my takeaway:
If women had stayed in that subordinate role from tribal times all the way to the modern era...
They would have been at their absolute best if they had contributed that unique spark within themselves to society, rather than just trying to replicate what men bring to the table.
Also, let's be clear: the issue facing women is actually a symptom of deep societal imbalance—one driven directly by pure material greed.
Exactly. Gender inequality is really just a symptom of a much deeper societal sickness. And you don't cure an illness by treating the symptoms—you have to go after the root cause.
- so, the fix isn't about trying to force women into a male-dominated culture built on greed. It just doesn't work.
- the real answer? tear down this whole broken system and rip out the very values it was built on from the roots up.
- but let's be real—that feels impossible. the system is global, massive, and practically programmed to protect itself. honestly, we’ll probably see even more of the same unless there’s a massive shockwave—like a total collapse of the Federal Reserve system, some major global catastrophe, or someone stepping up like V from *V for Vendetta*... if you've seen it.
- there is one sliver of hope left: that there's still actual goodness and wisdom out there. that love and humanity exist, and that light exists just as much as the darkness. I have to believe positive forces will continue to push against the negativity. The thing is, you don't notice it. Goodness isn't loud. It doesn't shout, it doesn't need a front-page headline in the *New York Times*, and it doesn't crave promotion. It works quietly, like a slow-moving river carving through stone. Maybe enough good people can reach a critical mass. Maybe they can slowly, evolutionarily, tilt the scales of this unbalanced system to build something better—a society where, fingers crossed, women aren't just "equalized" to men, but truly equal partners.
anyway, excuse my ranting about sausages.🙂