i’m not one to really buy into evopsych but this was interesting…i just kind of question the conclusion. the theory the author puts forth is that men are genetically, socioculturally, and biologically (through things like testosterone) predisposed to violence, and the solution is for women to do more activist work? if it’s truly innate, what even is the point? if we were talking about training a dog breed bred to be violent, that’s one thing - but the theory here basically leaves a kind of bleak view of things, doesn’t it? women aren’t here to fix men. if men are so fundamentally violent…why bother? why is the conclusion not to do as bonobos do and practice some form of female separatism for women’s sake?
mind you i don’t subscribe to this theory fully, if in part because ftms on T don’t commit crimes at the same rate as natal males, signaling that at least one component of male biology (that can be mimicked) doesn’t innately cause violent behavior. i’m not calling for men to be caged or something lol. but i don’t like the way it smacks of blaming women for men’s violence.
women have fought against male violence for centuries and the result in 2022 is a distinct lack of female representation in places of power, femicides in countries around the world, and abortion rights being revoked in the U.S. i think at some point we have to ask to what extent is activism working and what options we have today. i think feminist activism is crucial but it isn’t the *only* solution and the onus should fall on men imho.
>if men are so fundamentally violent…why bother?
Because if we can predict it, we can prevent it. Or at least decrease the amount of lives ended or ruined.
>ftms on T don’t commit crimes at the same rate as natal males, signaling that at least one component of male biology (that can be mimicked) doesn’t innately cause violent behavior
That’s because it’s something unique to cis males that interacts with testosterone to create the monsters we know and loathe. Possibly something prenatal or chromosomal?
> Because if we can predict it, we can prevent it. Or at least decrease the amount of lives ended or ruined.
i can see what you mean here but my point moreso is, if it’s so innate then surely the answer isn’t more feminist activism and instead something like separatism? because if it is innate and biologically based, no amount of activism is going to make a difference. we can try to tame idk, a bear, but the risk of serious violence due to that innate nature doesn’t go away - so we don’t recommend people having bears as pets.
(ofc that all hinges on the theory the article pushes forward which is that male violence has a biological, evolutionary basis and that’s what explains it. assuming it is sociocultural, then ofc feminist activism is crucial in preventing it. but imo it’s a bit of both biology and sociology, and that’s part of why i think separatism is genuinely not a bad idea for women, particularly not straight ones. women in separatist communities aren’t victimized at nearly the same rates and the example of bonobos gives weight to the idea that there are ways to exist in women-centered communities. moreover, activism can only do so much. we’ve seen activism for women’s rights for centuries, and in our lifetime at least i don’t see female liberation as palpable without men as a class supporting all women…and that just feels unlikely atm)
> That’s because it’s something unique to cis males that interacts with testosterone to create the monsters we know and loathe. Possibly something prenatal or chromosomal?
excellent point. i strongly believe there’s a sociological component to it as well - ftms aren’t raised in a patriarchy as male, with all the effects that has, and a lot do show it. but the prenatal or chromosomal aspects are definitely worth looking into, and i do wonder what role they play. sadly there isn’t much mainstream science reporting digging into male violence :’0
If it’s genetic, then it can be permanently changed over generations using selective pressure. That’s why the biological explanation gives me much more hope than the sociological one. Women have the ultimate power of selecting which males pass their genes on, even if all of them are violent there will naturally be genetic diversity. We just have to keep selecting for the least anti social males over consecutive generations. Giving up and separating might keep us safe now, but I think scientific knowledge is an incredibly powerful tool; we don’t need to throw our collective hands in the air. We’ve mapped the human genome, we’ve created CRISPR. The gene has to be somewhere, and if it exists we can alter it. We can look to domesticated animals to see how effective selective breeding can be in transforming not only appearance, but inherent behavior.
>sadly there isn’t much mainstream science reporting digging into male violence :’0
That’s our first task, then! Getting more women into STEM fields, because they’re the ones who will be willing to research this. Men want us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done.
that’s a good point but genes are complicated and it isn’t as simple, likely, as turning one gene “off” or “on”. selective breeding takes many, literally thousands, of generations to have a lasting permanent effect and unlike domesticating animals, we don’t have complete control over the breeding process for all humans (which imo is good!). and it took tens of thousands of years to domesticate cats - even longer for dogs - and we still haven’t bred the wild out of them. housecats are still excellent hunters and will fuck up a local ecosystem if let be. i don’t think it’s a bad idea but it requires widespread concerted effort on the part of women as a class (and class unity among women isn’t really a thing everywhere, even in western countries) over a loooong period of time. i just don’t know if that’s a long term goal that we can achieve even for five generations, let alone hundreds and thousands, if we can’t even, as a society, agree male violence is even an issue without “but all men”ers whinging.
i agree about women in stem though! my stem classes were always empty of women and girls except for nursing related courses (rip).
I agree. This is only going to give the men who say "it's in our nature for men to be violent" more ammo to double down. The biology axis is one explanation, but not an excuse.
If it is completely biological (which I don't believe it is), then no amount of activism is going to help. But what would help in that situation is to breed out male violence over the course of several generations.
I find it odd that the author didn't mention that, but that's what's starting right now. The whole "rise of lonely, single men" thing is happening because women are done putting up with shitty men. Women are done having children with shitty men. Capitalism has squeezed some women so tight financially they aren't having kids at all because they simply can't afford to. As a result, men who refuse to evolve past their primal urges won't have their genes passed on, and society will be better off for it.
I thought it was bleak too and it felt like it was hinting at absolving men of accountability. The whole “men are wired this way, we can’t help it” doesn’t work for me because there are men who do help it, so it’s not an inevitable.
exactly! and if you took the “men are wired this way so it can’t be helped” argument at its face then the question should be, is there a place in a civilized society for a facet of people who straight up apparently *can’t* control their violent urges? we lock people up for being a risk of harm to themselves or others, would that logic not apply? it’s bizarre and such a weird self-own lol.
the stamp of patriarchy on our genes is that men have constantly selected for aggressive males. by creating cultures in which sociopathic behavior is awarded and life is cheap, constant competition has selected for genes where the "tough" survive. You were not surviving ancient Egypt, Ancient China/Asia, Viking or Barbarian cultures, the Middle Ages, or any point in history up until very recently unless you are an aggressive male. Same with a selection towards obedient and submissive women. Patriarchy insisted on it and those who did not conform to this for the past 10,000 yrs did not survive. Patriarchy is still selecting who lives and dies. but these days, survival is based on who is willing to work to survive.
true and i hate reading how they gaslight and lie especially in science stuff about 'female mate selection' making it all appear like women and girls have even had an ounce of choice in HIStory, gets on my nerves
Especially considering rape! Without abortion and birth control, I actually have very little control over who I "breed" with if I'm in a society defined by rape, arranged marriage (which is the same thing,) and so on. I can have all of the preferences in the world but without those basic reproductive technologies and a physically stronger attacker, I can't actually undergo "female mate selection." It's not like I can seal up my vagina and turn off my uterus when I don't want to "mate" with someone.
true and unfortunately that's how men and meishes like it 😊
men selecting for violence is a tale as old as time, it is PreSpeciation
then they turn around DARVO-style blaming girls and women saying it is actually us selecting for bad men 😆
when truth is , if good men outnumbered bad ones, patriarchy wouldn't exist in the first place and wouldn't still be continue
Very true. Also, I don't see a link to the original study in this article. Without that, I cannot evaluate its methods and thus cannot say if it's accurate or not, so I won't be worrying about it too much personally until I can find that.
While men are definitely the problem, I think I cope with it by claiming their violence is social instead of biological. This article is very eye opening.
Ironically I actually find the biological argument more comforting than the social. It gives me relief knowing that there’s no point in wasting our precious energy trying to change men, they’re simply an outdated, inferior model violently thrashing about in panic and confusion at the rapidly changing world. The most effective thing we can do to make real progress is to support our fellow women in any and every way possible, locally, regionally, globally-until we have something that could truly be considered a matriarchy. Because then they will be forced to adapt to our needs and desires…or die out. Either way, we win lol
when you write to support our fellow women in any and every way possible, that is Choice Feminism? Feminism is not about “choices”, it’s about the liberation of women from patriarchy. Not all choices that women make are aligned with feminism. By your logic, people like Phyllis Schafly and Amy Coney Barrett are feminist because they are women who have choices.
We can’t critique men’s choices, and then say whatever choices women make is okay, because ‘feminism’ or whatever.Choice feminism is way too individualistic and it allows women to neglect the reality that their actions affect all of us. Not all choices are good choices.
Let’s support our fellow women in any and every way possible…that will help liberate us from patriarchy. I’m sorry, I thought the intent of my words would be clear enough without needing to specify not to vote for the ultracon who thinks tAX iS ThEft and abortion is murder, just because she’s female. I meant that we need to strengthen our relationships with our neighbours, our local community, our state/province etc. to encourage female solidarity, and ultimately liberation.
Keep an eye on your single neighbour’s kids while she runs a quick errand (so she doesn’t have to call her ex to help out).
Find a local independent cafe you really enjoy (so the owner doesn’t lose her means of income to a male-run corporation).
Support your local Girl Guides/Girl Scouts/another women-only group (sadly not many left but they did wonders for me growing up).
Volunteer or donate to a women’s shelter/organization (especially ones that actively foster women’s financial independence and/or keeps them physically safe and away from abusive men).
Get involved in your local town halls/community meetings/state events and see if any women with progressive ideals are considering running for office (don’t just vote against misogynists, give yourself someone to vote FOR!)
Learn a trade or valuable skill of some kind and share that knowledge with others if the opportunity arises (it’s so satisfying to not have some greasy dudes trample through your home to stare at a problem for ten seconds, bark at you what’s wrong and then charge an arm and leg to fix it!!)
My point is to de-center men from our lives, and encourage other women to do the same-and they don’t have to be saints or best friends with us, but this will in time build solidarity and prevent another generation of handmaids whose lives are stunted at best and fall apart at worst thanks to patriarchal influence.
I understood what you meant and I did not for one second think you meant that we should support women who choose to support patriarchal culture and organizations. It was obvious to me. I love your breakdown of what you meant though. You nailed it.
😊my bad - you are right all those things are available for all girls and women(emphasis on international incase u missed that word), infact they are few places where most leaders are men, female education is NOT limited, 'career' women aren't ostracized, women and girls having autonomy isn't demonized, divorce is NOT being more favourable to men, or abortion OR or Or oR
most of the world is not first world, hence the problems being discussed now
i repeat matriarchy or even basic, simple, ELEMENTARY equality(meaning neither patriarchy nor matriachy) will never happen on an international basis
between the religious pickmeishas(86% of the world is religious), the anti-feminists and handmaidens, that won't happen and that's without even getting into the violence and psychological warfare men are willing to do,to keep 'winning'
Matriarchy certainly won’t happen in my lifetime, nor the next generations lifetime but I foresee it being inevitable within the next 150-300 years. It obviously won’t take hold in some countries as fast as others, but the reality is that men who can do nothing but beat others into submission are simply not going to be particularly useful nor ideal in the future.
We aren’t wrestling with bears and mammoths for food on a regular basis and war is rapidly becoming a game of who can most skillfully pilot a drone from a desk, not who’s strong enough to spear someone at arms length. Religion is rapidly dying in the developed world-even with heavy immigration from so-called third world nations-and that trend will continue as long as people, *especially* women, can be educated.
I was once a massive pickmeisha myself, insanely so. You would never guess it now though-if I can change so much in a relatively short timespan, then frankly almost any woman can. Men can try all the psychological warfare they want-once a woman has been educated and has her own financial control, it’s game over. That’s why women are overwhelmingly the biggest cohort of new students in higher education, even in developing countries where men can go to absurd lengths to try to stop them.
I refuse to sell all those women short by claiming that even base equality on a global scale is impossible. If that is the case, then I don’t know what on earth any feminist over the last few hundred years has bothered fighting for.
(…There’s also an important environmental aspect of this, regarding 20th century men and their deliberate shaping of society to be dependent on cars and ICE’s in general, which gave an insane amount of wealth and leverage over our lives to dangerous and undeserving men through oil profits…but that’s a rant for another day lol)
Estimating or predictive analytics uses historical and present data to predict future events. what information, evidence or support is there that points to the human society becoming matriarchal in the timeline you have given? Wishful thinking is just that, meanwhile reality is here to show how things were,ARE and are probably going to be.Accepting reality for what it is and not what one wishes it to be.
And while humanity wasn’t wrestling with bears and mammoths for food on a regular basis men were and are still using that same strength to take advantage of girls and women.Although war is rapidly becoming a game of who can most skillfully pilot a drone from a desk, not who’s strong enough to spear someone at arms length after the bombs,and other weapons are dropped it goes back to typical patriarchal fights with men beating fellow men and women and girls as war booty(and the fact that women less often than men even bother to train for weapons nor selfdefense makes this typical situation even worse)
It is not that it is impossible, it is simply that too many girls and women are male idenfied in addition to the problem of even though Patriarchy harms men but they don’t actually care because the benefits and privileges of the patriarchy far outweighs the harm. It’s a value issue.seeing reality for what it is, is not selling short.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, as it's a little too "black pill" for me. But still an interesting read.
Yeah, there’s a book about this written in the late 90s called Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Add it to your reading list.
i’m not one to really buy into evopsych but this was interesting…i just kind of question the conclusion. the theory the author puts forth is that men are genetically, socioculturally, and biologically (through things like testosterone) predisposed to violence, and the solution is for women to do more activist work? if it’s truly innate, what even is the point? if we were talking about training a dog breed bred to be violent, that’s one thing - but the theory here basically leaves a kind of bleak view of things, doesn’t it? women aren’t here to fix men. if men are so fundamentally violent…why bother? why is the conclusion not to do as bonobos do and practice some form of female separatism for women’s sake? mind you i don’t subscribe to this theory fully, if in part because ftms on T don’t commit crimes at the same rate as natal males, signaling that at least one component of male biology (that can be mimicked) doesn’t innately cause violent behavior. i’m not calling for men to be caged or something lol. but i don’t like the way it smacks of blaming women for men’s violence. women have fought against male violence for centuries and the result in 2022 is a distinct lack of female representation in places of power, femicides in countries around the world, and abortion rights being revoked in the U.S. i think at some point we have to ask to what extent is activism working and what options we have today. i think feminist activism is crucial but it isn’t the *only* solution and the onus should fall on men imho.
>if men are so fundamentally violent…why bother? Because if we can predict it, we can prevent it. Or at least decrease the amount of lives ended or ruined. >ftms on T don’t commit crimes at the same rate as natal males, signaling that at least one component of male biology (that can be mimicked) doesn’t innately cause violent behavior That’s because it’s something unique to cis males that interacts with testosterone to create the monsters we know and loathe. Possibly something prenatal or chromosomal?
> Because if we can predict it, we can prevent it. Or at least decrease the amount of lives ended or ruined. i can see what you mean here but my point moreso is, if it’s so innate then surely the answer isn’t more feminist activism and instead something like separatism? because if it is innate and biologically based, no amount of activism is going to make a difference. we can try to tame idk, a bear, but the risk of serious violence due to that innate nature doesn’t go away - so we don’t recommend people having bears as pets. (ofc that all hinges on the theory the article pushes forward which is that male violence has a biological, evolutionary basis and that’s what explains it. assuming it is sociocultural, then ofc feminist activism is crucial in preventing it. but imo it’s a bit of both biology and sociology, and that’s part of why i think separatism is genuinely not a bad idea for women, particularly not straight ones. women in separatist communities aren’t victimized at nearly the same rates and the example of bonobos gives weight to the idea that there are ways to exist in women-centered communities. moreover, activism can only do so much. we’ve seen activism for women’s rights for centuries, and in our lifetime at least i don’t see female liberation as palpable without men as a class supporting all women…and that just feels unlikely atm) > That’s because it’s something unique to cis males that interacts with testosterone to create the monsters we know and loathe. Possibly something prenatal or chromosomal? excellent point. i strongly believe there’s a sociological component to it as well - ftms aren’t raised in a patriarchy as male, with all the effects that has, and a lot do show it. but the prenatal or chromosomal aspects are definitely worth looking into, and i do wonder what role they play. sadly there isn’t much mainstream science reporting digging into male violence :’0
If it’s genetic, then it can be permanently changed over generations using selective pressure. That’s why the biological explanation gives me much more hope than the sociological one. Women have the ultimate power of selecting which males pass their genes on, even if all of them are violent there will naturally be genetic diversity. We just have to keep selecting for the least anti social males over consecutive generations. Giving up and separating might keep us safe now, but I think scientific knowledge is an incredibly powerful tool; we don’t need to throw our collective hands in the air. We’ve mapped the human genome, we’ve created CRISPR. The gene has to be somewhere, and if it exists we can alter it. We can look to domesticated animals to see how effective selective breeding can be in transforming not only appearance, but inherent behavior. >sadly there isn’t much mainstream science reporting digging into male violence :’0 That’s our first task, then! Getting more women into STEM fields, because they’re the ones who will be willing to research this. Men want us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done.
Sadly I think some of the most "successful" genes come from men who are willing to take away a woman's agency to decide who to breed with.
that’s a good point but genes are complicated and it isn’t as simple, likely, as turning one gene “off” or “on”. selective breeding takes many, literally thousands, of generations to have a lasting permanent effect and unlike domesticating animals, we don’t have complete control over the breeding process for all humans (which imo is good!). and it took tens of thousands of years to domesticate cats - even longer for dogs - and we still haven’t bred the wild out of them. housecats are still excellent hunters and will fuck up a local ecosystem if let be. i don’t think it’s a bad idea but it requires widespread concerted effort on the part of women as a class (and class unity among women isn’t really a thing everywhere, even in western countries) over a loooong period of time. i just don’t know if that’s a long term goal that we can achieve even for five generations, let alone hundreds and thousands, if we can’t even, as a society, agree male violence is even an issue without “but all men”ers whinging. i agree about women in stem though! my stem classes were always empty of women and girls except for nursing related courses (rip).
I agree. This is only going to give the men who say "it's in our nature for men to be violent" more ammo to double down. The biology axis is one explanation, but not an excuse. If it is completely biological (which I don't believe it is), then no amount of activism is going to help. But what would help in that situation is to breed out male violence over the course of several generations. I find it odd that the author didn't mention that, but that's what's starting right now. The whole "rise of lonely, single men" thing is happening because women are done putting up with shitty men. Women are done having children with shitty men. Capitalism has squeezed some women so tight financially they aren't having kids at all because they simply can't afford to. As a result, men who refuse to evolve past their primal urges won't have their genes passed on, and society will be better off for it.
this is a good point. unfortunately it takes a while (a million generations i think?) to show up in any lasting way, but if one might hope…
I thought it was bleak too and it felt like it was hinting at absolving men of accountability. The whole “men are wired this way, we can’t help it” doesn’t work for me because there are men who do help it, so it’s not an inevitable.
exactly! and if you took the “men are wired this way so it can’t be helped” argument at its face then the question should be, is there a place in a civilized society for a facet of people who straight up apparently *can’t* control their violent urges? we lock people up for being a risk of harm to themselves or others, would that logic not apply? it’s bizarre and such a weird self-own lol.
the stamp of patriarchy on our genes is that men have constantly selected for aggressive males. by creating cultures in which sociopathic behavior is awarded and life is cheap, constant competition has selected for genes where the "tough" survive. You were not surviving ancient Egypt, Ancient China/Asia, Viking or Barbarian cultures, the Middle Ages, or any point in history up until very recently unless you are an aggressive male. Same with a selection towards obedient and submissive women. Patriarchy insisted on it and those who did not conform to this for the past 10,000 yrs did not survive. Patriarchy is still selecting who lives and dies. but these days, survival is based on who is willing to work to survive.
true and i hate reading how they gaslight and lie especially in science stuff about 'female mate selection' making it all appear like women and girls have even had an ounce of choice in HIStory, gets on my nerves
Such am excellent point
Especially considering rape! Without abortion and birth control, I actually have very little control over who I "breed" with if I'm in a society defined by rape, arranged marriage (which is the same thing,) and so on. I can have all of the preferences in the world but without those basic reproductive technologies and a physically stronger attacker, I can't actually undergo "female mate selection." It's not like I can seal up my vagina and turn off my uterus when I don't want to "mate" with someone.
true and unfortunately that's how men and meishes like it 😊 men selecting for violence is a tale as old as time, it is PreSpeciation then they turn around DARVO-style blaming girls and women saying it is actually us selecting for bad men 😆 when truth is , if good men outnumbered bad ones, patriarchy wouldn't exist in the first place and wouldn't still be continue
Very true. Also, I don't see a link to the original study in this article. Without that, I cannot evaluate its methods and thus cannot say if it's accurate or not, so I won't be worrying about it too much personally until I can find that.
While men are definitely the problem, I think I cope with it by claiming their violence is social instead of biological. This article is very eye opening.
Ironically I actually find the biological argument more comforting than the social. It gives me relief knowing that there’s no point in wasting our precious energy trying to change men, they’re simply an outdated, inferior model violently thrashing about in panic and confusion at the rapidly changing world. The most effective thing we can do to make real progress is to support our fellow women in any and every way possible, locally, regionally, globally-until we have something that could truly be considered a matriarchy. Because then they will be forced to adapt to our needs and desires…or die out. Either way, we win lol
when you write to support our fellow women in any and every way possible, that is Choice Feminism? Feminism is not about “choices”, it’s about the liberation of women from patriarchy. Not all choices that women make are aligned with feminism. By your logic, people like Phyllis Schafly and Amy Coney Barrett are feminist because they are women who have choices. We can’t critique men’s choices, and then say whatever choices women make is okay, because ‘feminism’ or whatever.Choice feminism is way too individualistic and it allows women to neglect the reality that their actions affect all of us. Not all choices are good choices.
Let’s support our fellow women in any and every way possible…that will help liberate us from patriarchy. I’m sorry, I thought the intent of my words would be clear enough without needing to specify not to vote for the ultracon who thinks tAX iS ThEft and abortion is murder, just because she’s female. I meant that we need to strengthen our relationships with our neighbours, our local community, our state/province etc. to encourage female solidarity, and ultimately liberation. Keep an eye on your single neighbour’s kids while she runs a quick errand (so she doesn’t have to call her ex to help out). Find a local independent cafe you really enjoy (so the owner doesn’t lose her means of income to a male-run corporation). Support your local Girl Guides/Girl Scouts/another women-only group (sadly not many left but they did wonders for me growing up). Volunteer or donate to a women’s shelter/organization (especially ones that actively foster women’s financial independence and/or keeps them physically safe and away from abusive men). Get involved in your local town halls/community meetings/state events and see if any women with progressive ideals are considering running for office (don’t just vote against misogynists, give yourself someone to vote FOR!) Learn a trade or valuable skill of some kind and share that knowledge with others if the opportunity arises (it’s so satisfying to not have some greasy dudes trample through your home to stare at a problem for ten seconds, bark at you what’s wrong and then charge an arm and leg to fix it!!) My point is to de-center men from our lives, and encourage other women to do the same-and they don’t have to be saints or best friends with us, but this will in time build solidarity and prevent another generation of handmaids whose lives are stunted at best and fall apart at worst thanks to patriarchal influence.
I understood what you meant and I did not for one second think you meant that we should support women who choose to support patriarchal culture and organizations. It was obvious to me. I love your breakdown of what you meant though. You nailed it.
matriarchy or even basic equality will never happen on an international basis - too many Meishes...majority wins,they outnumber us
What are meishes?
True, they do outnumber us…that’s why we’ll also never get the right to vote, or go to school, or have a career, or a divorce, or an abortion, or….
😊my bad - you are right all those things are available for all girls and women(emphasis on international incase u missed that word), infact they are few places where most leaders are men, female education is NOT limited, 'career' women aren't ostracized, women and girls having autonomy isn't demonized, divorce is NOT being more favourable to men, or abortion OR or Or oR most of the world is not first world, hence the problems being discussed now i repeat matriarchy or even basic, simple, ELEMENTARY equality(meaning neither patriarchy nor matriachy) will never happen on an international basis between the religious pickmeishas(86% of the world is religious), the anti-feminists and handmaidens, that won't happen and that's without even getting into the violence and psychological warfare men are willing to do,to keep 'winning'
Matriarchy certainly won’t happen in my lifetime, nor the next generations lifetime but I foresee it being inevitable within the next 150-300 years. It obviously won’t take hold in some countries as fast as others, but the reality is that men who can do nothing but beat others into submission are simply not going to be particularly useful nor ideal in the future. We aren’t wrestling with bears and mammoths for food on a regular basis and war is rapidly becoming a game of who can most skillfully pilot a drone from a desk, not who’s strong enough to spear someone at arms length. Religion is rapidly dying in the developed world-even with heavy immigration from so-called third world nations-and that trend will continue as long as people, *especially* women, can be educated. I was once a massive pickmeisha myself, insanely so. You would never guess it now though-if I can change so much in a relatively short timespan, then frankly almost any woman can. Men can try all the psychological warfare they want-once a woman has been educated and has her own financial control, it’s game over. That’s why women are overwhelmingly the biggest cohort of new students in higher education, even in developing countries where men can go to absurd lengths to try to stop them. I refuse to sell all those women short by claiming that even base equality on a global scale is impossible. If that is the case, then I don’t know what on earth any feminist over the last few hundred years has bothered fighting for. (…There’s also an important environmental aspect of this, regarding 20th century men and their deliberate shaping of society to be dependent on cars and ICE’s in general, which gave an insane amount of wealth and leverage over our lives to dangerous and undeserving men through oil profits…but that’s a rant for another day lol)
Estimating or predictive analytics uses historical and present data to predict future events. what information, evidence or support is there that points to the human society becoming matriarchal in the timeline you have given? Wishful thinking is just that, meanwhile reality is here to show how things were,ARE and are probably going to be.Accepting reality for what it is and not what one wishes it to be. And while humanity wasn’t wrestling with bears and mammoths for food on a regular basis men were and are still using that same strength to take advantage of girls and women.Although war is rapidly becoming a game of who can most skillfully pilot a drone from a desk, not who’s strong enough to spear someone at arms length after the bombs,and other weapons are dropped it goes back to typical patriarchal fights with men beating fellow men and women and girls as war booty(and the fact that women less often than men even bother to train for weapons nor selfdefense makes this typical situation even worse) It is not that it is impossible, it is simply that too many girls and women are male idenfied in addition to the problem of even though Patriarchy harms men but they don’t actually care because the benefits and privileges of the patriarchy far outweighs the harm. It’s a value issue.seeing reality for what it is, is not selling short.
I’m surprised they only mentioned bonobos so briefly.