Oh, you ladies! Apparently, if you were left to your own devices, we’d all still be living in caves. The dude at The Black Pill, the blog formerly known as Omega Virgin Revolt, explains the grave danger that uncontrolled ladieness poses to civilization. (The thing, not the computer game.)
What is civilization? There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc. When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women. Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology. Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.
Seriously. If we dudes hadn’t clamped down on your lady behavior, we’d be fucked. Dudes like Mr. Black Pill would be out there trying their best to build up civilization by posting lady-hating screeds on the internet and not having sex with anyone, and you gals would be undermining all their hard work by doing terrible lady things like, say, working in government, doing scientific research, teaching filmmaking, writing books, making interesting jewelry, working as EMTs, being Secretary of State, and writing Supernatural fanfic. Wait, that’s already happening. Uh oh. Civilization is in danger!
And of course evil feminists are at the heart of the Lady Plot Against Civilization.
So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology. Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature. Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women. Civilization was developed by men, not women. Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now). Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women. Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women.
So watch it, ladies. As soon as we work out this whole having babies without ladies thing, your days are numbered! Then all we’ll need to do is to figure out how to get all the dudes in the world who actually like and respect women and think of them as fellow human beings to abandon them for sex robots. Piece of cake.
Johnson, you are incredibly wrong about everything.
In a Hunter-gatherer society, most of the calories are supplied by foraging and small-game hunting, activities usually carried out by women.
And no, the game would not have “all been hunted by other animals.” That’s not how it works, otherwise whole species would be wiped out (cheetahs are faster than wolves, therfore all game is eaten by cheetahs and none by wolves). Also also, there is no way at a single man, no matter how strong, could have killed a mammoth by himself. The killing was also a group project, in which many men and women were involved.
Just where are you getting your incredibly inaccurate information from? the facts I mentioned abive are not controversial – they are the current consensus in anthropological circles.
I’m finding the idea of super-strong men killing mammoths by chucking lone spears at them rather amusing. Clearly our new friend is not a hunter, or a historian.
@ Gillian
What was that movie where Raquel Welch wore a furry bikini? That seems to be his source. Maybe some day he’ll work his way up to The Flintstones.
i think you are a bit muddled, Johnson. i rather favour the notion that agriculture allowed peoples to become less nomadic and therefore a particular version of civilisation began.
oh hurrah so we observe something in Nature™ and we project whatever beliefs we have onto it and hey presto our revolting prejudices are confirmed.
i prefer to think i am capable of a moral choice.
Johnson: Don’t be silly. Man has lived 99% of his existence in a primitive state and what we call rape didn’t exist. This is just something we invented recently and there is no such thing as rape in Nature
Tautology is tautologic. Also the basic idea is wrong. For simple examples look at ducks, and orangutans.
This @Jessay- the concept of “rape’ does not exist in Nature, it’s simply mating.
Is still wrong. Rape (i.e. sex without the consent of one partner) does exist in nature. Again, for simple examples, see duck and orangutans. It might be easier for you to find chickens. Roosters will jump on hens, even when the hens are fighting to keep them off.
In species with estrus, this is less common, but by no means unheard of.
Females also needed men to survive for their food unless you think you can survive on grass.Females would be nice to men (have sex) and they’d get a manmoth steak in return.
Bullshit. You’ve never taken a course on wilderness survival. The amount of food available, pretty much everywhere (the tundra and the Gobi, and the African deserts being the notable exceptions) is astounding. Look at the Kalahari… the majority of the food in the diet of the San/Kung etc. is small game and vegetables. Getting a large animal is a big deal, and somewhat out of the ordinary.
And btw, it is really quite recent in human history when man discovered that sex caused pregnancy and then later that a specific man was the father of the female’s offspring.
Citation needed. All of the earliest stories we have (gilgamesh, the Old Testament, etc) show a decided link between who slept with whom, and the children therefrom. So you are going to have to explain to me how people in the past (who weren’t any stupider than people today) couldn’t figure out a simple cause and effect chain until just before they learned how to write.
Johnson: @Rutee-I don’t know if English is your native language
Is there a reason you are choosing to be an ass?
Now to the meat of the matter:
perhaps you misunderstood but I said that the reason they had to hunt big game was because all of the small game was got by faster predators like wolves, foxes etc. You’re assuming that game was plentiful and there for the taking but man was in competition with the other animals.
You’ve never hunted for your supper have you? I’ll wager you’ve never lived on nothing but what you could put in the pot. Smaller game is a lot easier to hunt than larger. It’s more plentiful (ever heard the phrase, “breed like rabbits”?).
A line of snares will get rabbit, squirrel, etc. Liming a branch can net dozens of birds. Birds can be snared, and in the spring the sound of fledgelings can lead one to the adults. Fish is a lot easier to collect than mammals, and can be, “farmed” with the use of things like weirs, in addition to traps and lines.
Killing a large herbivore is a so-so option for food. 1: they are prone to being better able to get away/defend themselves. 2: They can’t be hunted passively. 3: One has to either preserve the meat, or be willing to trade death/injury/loss of time if one fails for food for only a few days 4: One has to be able to get whatever meat one does get back to camp. 5: One has to deal with whatever scavengers are about.
All in all, while large animals were certainly useful additions to the larder, outside of places where no other steady supply of food (ice age glacial face tundra, the modern arctic, etc. N. African Deserts, the Gobi: not the deserts of the American SW, which are actually pretty decently equipped for food; certainly for a small group. though they are a bit sparse for anything more than a dozen people or so) or where the source was 1: great in number and 2: easy to follow (as with bison after the horse made it to the Great Plains) there is no reason to believe (and strong evidence against) it being a large part of people’s diets. It was almost certainly (for the reasons given) more trouble than it was worth to make it the be all and end all of the protein source, when so much more was available, and easier to get.
valerienorth: “Men have the disadvantage of having to depend on the good humor of another human to forward their genes into the next generation”
Unlike women who can have babies just by thinking about being pregnant.
Johnson: . And as I said before, many of these people are bored frustrated kids both male and female with no friends who live in their own little world that bears no resemblance to reality.Many are even likely mentally ill.
Citations needed. A lot of these people? Really? You know this because?
Or is it that you want to be able to marginalise them by accusing them of being losers? Or use the convenient stigma of, “mentally ill” to avoid dealing with the cultural memes that support the ideas they have taken to extremes.
The reason we mock misogyny isn’t that the ideas are rare, and outlandish. We mock it because it’s not. It’s merely wrong. Yes, the examples we find are the most outlandish aspects (at least I hope the more outlandish are more rare, and marginal, than this), but your comment actually supports institutional misogyny by pretending it’s just, “nutjobs” who are like this.
It’s not. They may not be a minority, but they aren’t mentally ill.
Sorry, they may not be a majority.
The mammoth thingy: and you know, dudes, that just killing the mammoth is not enough to turn it into yummy food. There’s a WHOLE SHITLOAD (and that’s more literal than i like to think) of work that has to be done to convert said dead body into yummy calories. And women did a lot of that work.
Plus, the mammoth theory dudes never seem to think about grubs and bugs and other nifty sources of protein. Finding grubs and bugs to much just doesn’t have that glamor does it, dudes: “we hunted the bugs for you!”.
Especially when it doesn’t take manly thews and big long sharp um spears to get some grubs.
ithliana: So true. These guys don’t think about it. They ponder the grocery, where the meat is plentiful, and easy to get, and they see how much less of it they need to eat than nuts, berries, etc. (which are a lot easier to store), and they think that’s what food looks like.
They also don’t look at things like nomadic agriculture, where the crops aren’t cereals. The Ohlone had systems of ground tending/harvest, which provided huge amounts of food, with minimal effort and no need to establish “cultivation”. Which mean the hunters could be few in number (which was good, because they were higher consumers than most, being obliged to spend a lot of time prepping for the hunt, which took wood, etc. Ohlone culture was really interesting; but so atypical to the idea of the “manly hunters bring home the important calories).
Then we have the PNW, where a sedentary culture was so resource rich they had competitive gifting, largely based on passive hunting.
People are so much more complex than MRAs/other essentialists like to think.
It may be true that hunting helped men establish hierarchy and curry favor with women ( men of the Ache tribe in the Amazon have a saying “women like meat”, and the double-entendre and connotations definitely carry over), but it was never about “I will provide you with all the food you need and you will give me sex.” it doesn’t work that way. The human race would never have survived if 50% of the race was fully dependant on the other 50% for survival throuught its life.
I mean, sickly babies were abandoned to die dor most of human history. Old folks were abandoned when they could no longer fend for themselves. All because a hunter-gatherer tribe cannot afford the burden of someone who only consumes resources over an extended timeframe. And those MRA idiots believe that this is how humanity has worked for generations. The amount of ignorance about biology, anthropology, zoology, and a few other “-ologies” that you need in order to believe that simply boggles the mind.
Johnson you do realize Clan of the Cave Bear is a work of fiction, right?
I am not an anthropologist, but I recall last time the mammoth topic came around, someone posted a link to how the Kalahari Bushmen (apologies for getting the name wrong..) treat the meat hunted as belonging to everybody. The hunters bring it back and share it. And apparently there is a tendency for young men to think they’re awesome when they do a good hunt, and the rest of the people make it clear that it was just their job. THe link someone posted was a story of an ethnographer being smacked down like this.
tl;dr; In modern societies dependent on hunting, the hunters get membership in the community for hunting, not sex & special props.
@Pecunium – I think Johnson is grooving on The Clan of the Cave Bear. That said, there have been isolated groups that didn’t connect sex and conception – but they sure as hell had a concept of paternity. (Off the top of my head, the most famous example is the Trobriand Islanders who, according to Malinowski, believed that babies were created by ancestral spirits entering the mother’s womb, and babies look like the father because sex shapes the womb.) The idea that sex makes babies is a “recent” understanding is so patently stupid that I don’t think even Johnson believes is.
“People are complex” is really their problem, isn’t it? If we simply pretend that people are simple, predictable and can be classified in terms of their wants and behavior by how easily they pee standing up, then life is predictable and easier to navigate. It’s comforting to assume that men can be easily ranked as alpha, beta, omega and their personal interactions neatly ordered. It’s reassuring to think that women all want a small subset of things have a particular, limited subset of behaviors, such that they can be controlled, much as one teaches a dog to sit or to avoid chewing one’s shoes. The idea that people are complicated, not always predictable, and cannot be slotted into little boxes is scary as fuck for people who believe their people-skills are rudimentary.
And of course when reality doesn’t match the model that makes them very, very angry.
Yes, I understood you, the problem is your point is factually inaccurate; laughably so. That’s not how ecosystems work at all, actually.
I’m not assuming anything; that was the case in man’s habitat, such as it was. Shit, son, do you know how ecosystems work? Only about 10% of the calories transfer up a trophic level; There’s a reason herbivores exist in higher number than carnivores. I’m not even focusing on game so much as gathering.
Uh, mammoth had non-man predators, you ignoramus. Further, huge game* was not super common throughout the planet, and it’s not like everyone had access to it.
Your cause and effect is shit, sir, and I didn’t say farming; I said gathering.
Okay, even if I accepted this point (It was like 12 degrees colder; that makes a big deal in the types of plants and animals are available, but it isn’t going to turn warm europe into siberia), you do realize that that would only be, you know, europe, right? There’s another 6 continents, many of which had higher populations, and most of which have been populated for quite a long time on the scale of human histor
“In a Hunter-gatherer society, most of the calories are supplied by foraging and small-game hunting, activities usually carried out by women.”
I would just like to point out that any arguments founded on the supposed activities and social structures of ancient hunter-gatherers are inherently tenuous, because contemporary assumptions about them are speculations based on bone and tool fragments, and often on anthropologists’ own evo psych-flavored assumptions about “human nature.” Contemporary hunter-gatherer cultures are not necessarily “unchanged” from their earlier history, and they vary substantially in their practices and society. If there’s one extrapolation that I’m willing to make, it’s that pre-historic hunter-gatherers were equally varied.
Also, though sadly I haven’t met any, I highly doubt that Neanderthals had magical psychic cellular memory like they do in Clan of the Cave Bear. And if the Cro Magnons were newly arriving in Europe (were they newly settling the area in the book? I can’t remember) they would not have been as lily white and European-featured as I believe they are in the novel. As I’ve said, my own primitive dyke mind has only a slippery grasp of science, but those aspects seems suspect to me.
Thats just stupidity. Sure some of the racist sexist whatever are younger kids who don’t have much of a social life but thats not what all of them are (or mras). From what I have seen the people like that are your every day joe shcmos unless you got them talking about whatever subject riles them up. I always found it really ridiculous that people try to paint sexists/racists as those evil villains and the “real sexist” or whatever to make themselves feel better about their own sexism. So they can say, “Here is a real sexist! I am not.”
Also the weird assumption that socially awkward lonely people/mentally ill people are bad makes me roll my eyes. Go fuck off Mr.rapeisnaturalreallyIswear
@CassandraSays:
Crud, there’s a Far Side cartoon in which there’s a mammoth with a very upset look on its face, and a spear sticking out of its side, confronting a lone caveman, while from behind a nearby hill two other cavemen are shouting “Air speeeaaarr! Aaiirr ssppeeaarr!” and I can’t find it on teh Googulz.
Which is probably just as well, from a copyright law point of view.
@Gillian:
Isn’t there archaeological evidence that Neanderthals and/or Cro Magnons cared for their elderly and/or disabled? I seem to recall a Neanderthal grave, the occupant of which lived into his mid-40s and had broken a long bone in his arm or leg, and it had healed before he died. There was also flower pollen which suggested he was buried with flowers and possibly other tokens of affection. Certainly doesn’t sound like he was abandoned.
And even when we had developed agriculture, a lot of it was subsistence farming, even in historical times, and we don’t have much of a culture of turning our elderly out of the house when their productivity lags. I mean, we’re not Wal-Mart, on the whole
I thought Eskimos-put-grandma-on-an-ice-floe was a stereotype.
THIS.
I could have sworn I read your comment in full. I remember the bit about Neanderthal psychic memory. How come, then, did I miss this before trying and deciding I was failing to make a similar point?
Like, in that there is no codified criminal code in Nature, and in the same way that the concept of property doesn’t exist without imposing a human construct, etc — sure. The concept of rape and its historical treatment is further confused in that, for a time, women’s rights didn’t really exist on their own, and only accrued as an element of the woman’s husband or father’s legal rights.
I mean, I’m a little confused as to what you’re trying to say here, Johnson, but let’s start with the basics. That laws are man-made does not prove that laws are bad. And that laws to protect women’s rights arose only relatively lately definitely does not prove that men have been disadvantaged, now that women are afforded the same individual protections as men. And Poetryfrog is clearly right that everyone, no matter what gender, cannot reproduce alone. My mind is boggling that that’s something someone who has figured out how to use a computer box is trying to argue against.
I love both, too! And the lyrics are totally laughable — though they also totally sum up for me what it feels like to be a misunderstood, maudlin 15-year-old warrior-poet against the world. If a double-decker bus crashes into us, to die by your side is such a heavenly way to die!
Anyway, I think we can still get married, Cassandra! As long as you’re not a Dave Matthews Band fan or something *shudder*
QFT
look at ducks
OK.
Those are ducks going their own way!
Those are ducks with a clear sense of PURPOSE, by gum.
Those are ducks who are not afraid to express their opinion of ducks around them (flap flap flap flap).
DUCKS!
Rutee, I don’t think men were gathering most of the time, they were out hunting. The meat they brought home caused humans to grow bigger brains. No doubt women spent more times around plants than the men did.