Thursday, October 14, 2010

Matriarchy of the Past canard

This "matriarchy of the past" --and "in all nature"-- is curious pernicious trope.

It use to be part of liberalism's propaganda and now the men's rights retards have picked it up. MRAs ('Men's Rights Activists') simply say matriarchy is bad and that we escape it by becoming capitalists who build "civilization". Meanwhile liberalism wants to return us to a matriarchy of the past by toppling industry thus vectoring in a perpetual Woodstock where the sausage sandwich truck never runs out of chow (nor does the mom-given 20 dollar bill ever vanish) and Hendrix is always coming next and nobody fights over female dalliance --ever dancing en-swoonedly-- nor are they armed (the police would never allow it, silly).

Ahh... The great utopia that is democracy debate. Let the madness begin.

Most people believe a fact is any idea that is believed hard enough.

A curious thing about the religious and the anti religious (ie "atheists") and the "matriarchies of the past" idea is most _religious texts_ say we come from patriarchies--often utopian--made matriarchal by snowballing out of ruralism into urbanism. ("Cast from Eden to the Great Whore Babylon --the city.") ...That is correct. Score one point for ancient religious philosophers trying to figure it all out.

People are not educated, stubborn about it and just plain too retarded to learn properly. (And admittedly what liberalism calls education is none such.)

(Note that religious americans have a belief in constitutional proscriptions or compellings that never existed. And note that they call the new law process "un-american" when creating new laws and amendments is a firm founding point of the culture that their jingoistic patriotism is trying to preserve (through an assortment of cross purposes approaches).)

...On to an attempt to deconstruct matriarchy GIBBERISH. I welcome challenge from "real" relevant proponents --ie book writers-- of Matri o'Past. Preferably publicly. (And wear your name tag: I want posterity to know who they are laughing at.)


Attila was possibly poisoned by his latest concubine. Probably true.


Women always poison, always try to steal inheritance, always instigate competition, are always the desired and always engage in ignoble/ frustrating behavior.

This is a big thing the matriarchy crowd ignores.

Any period the matriarchy-crowd calls patriarchal would have all those thing too. Queen Isabella (Columbus fame ) poisoned her way into a throne; as did Cleopatra (who was _Greek Ptolemy_ --ie civilized); as did Sweden's Christina; and the British throne is littered with these head hunting dames. (There are more both known and unknown to history.)

The difference between Atilla's --supposedly matriarchal-- time and the other civilized --supposedly "patriarchal" -- times is that in Atilla's time these poisoners were called concubines. In the civilized periods these same poisoners were called queens.

The civilized period -- supposedly "patriarchal"-- has all the same female behaviors and penumbra (ie male desire and blindness etc) as the barbarian period --supposedly matriarchal. The difference is that as we leave the barbarian period we no longer see men robust enough to balance the ever occurring female chicanery out.

"Matriarchy of the past" is crackpot ism. Originally spread by liberals and jews. Long since admitted canard (a false report from the bush). It is now a favorite of MRM (Men's Rights Movement) wings.

These MRAs have conflated the idea of females being more naturally valuable than males (and as such the instigators and points of competition) with the females being active controllers/choosers and the males being passive.

After Rome fell, there was a return to the pre civilized way in Euro --the "matriarchy of the past"[sarcasm] LOL.

During that temporary non civilized phase, when Brunehilde --a mother of a regent (a baby king on a pillow used as rally standard by the tribal men) -- got uppity (stole power not her's), the Franks (or was it the Spanish Visi) tied her naked body to a wild horse and watched it drag her to death over the coming days. ("Oh, look, there she is now" ...galloping passed along the treeline. LOL.)

...The matriarchy of the past.

"Tipa-he was a New Zealand tribal chief that came into contact with English explorers in 1803. He explained to the English that he had several wives, of whom one he killed because she had a troublesome tongue."

Again, the matriarchy of the past. [eye roll]

Male violence scares females beneath a certain sexual-value threshold.

Primatoids are known for “brutish uncivilized” behavior.

Meanwhile, civilization IS male mutual wrist-grabbing daisy chain; then female sex value chicanery increases (untethered now and emboldened); males lose leverage vs females in slippery slope snowball over generations.

e voila: feminism

Took a long time but here we am.

Further, any matriarchy of the past tale was a canard (from late 19th century (jew /goy) wishful thinking BS that grew legs for a while). Long since debunked/or admitted BS. (And don’t read D Amneus: he was not a biologist or anthropologist or anything real. What he was was a divorced father of the first wave in the 60s there [probably rendered insane by break water to his face].)

Ie you should be providing evidence for matriarchies rather than asking me to provide evidence that primitoids are brutes. Also show how primitive males aren't sexually jealous of female game playing/mind fuck/dalliance etc; and how these brute males don't hit girls.

Blacks are not in ghettos now because they are “reverting to matriarchies.” There are hundreds of differences between black ghettos (which are unique to civilization) and black tribes of africa (no less ancient tribes of africa before the euros came there and corrupted them). A glaring difference is that we –-the euros-– curtail black male jealousy and its violence towards females and prop up female headed households through
outside-the-community intervention unique to our western civilization.

(A civilization created because all of you are warped and don’t think clearly at all. Eg: freedom-from-state rhetoric as a tactic for stopping this state that has formed from your freedom rhetoric; also the english language itself is another fine example of warped brains.)

One must be pretty blind to not see this stuff.

You don’t think black tribesmen hit females? You don’t think getting hit dis emboldens fledgling grrlpower?



Female humans did not select the males in the past. Just like female bears don’t select their mates; just like female lions and female elephants don’t.

In species like lions, bears and elephants too, oh my –including the early humans– the most violent males are simply pushing the other males out of breeding. The female is not “selecting” the most violent.

females being the catalyst for competition (“fem sex value”) and being the selectors of the winners are two different things.


Then you go “why am the female still be to picking the violence, thenba?”

To understand, think about gambling over teams or horses. The bet-er is not selecting the winner; he is PREDICTING a winner. Same with females in species where there is male violence (eg mammals): the females who know how to spot a winner have done better, but they aren’t necessarily deciding who the winner is. The modern females still posses those “jimmy the greek” (predictor) powers.

The sea horse males are not selecting for more violent females. The males, simply being vectors of reproduction (through previous evolution quirk), are a bottle neck/catalyst that causes females to have to compete against each other to breed. Given other prereqs of the sea horse environment (namely that violence-side-effects are not detrimental like they are for say flying birds), that competition is `femana a `femana -–violence. The winner female physically pushes the loser females off the territory that the male was eating on. Ie the seahorse have the same social sexual dynamic as mammals --except for the gender flip quirk. An exception that proves the rule.

In species where the females do select directly –eg flying birds (as opposed to re-terrestrial-ized/grounded birds[where in battle damage is tolerable again])– there is usually less direct male violence. In those female-select-species, the females who desired males who have harder lives in non sexual-combat arenas have out bred their sisters who had different desires(modules).

Now that the spreading cancer sore called civilization has gelded the male human (the new “peaceful man”, new for about 4000 years) we are finding that the “jimmy the greek” modules the females have are throwing a monkey wrench into the jew /wasp utopia by compelling the fems into still liking the the old-way fashioned brute male (however nature/ nurture doth form him).

The only way for the profiteers of this “utopia” to deny that is to ignore/censor/ or otherwise muddy up the evidence. Evidence like the fact that female humans like male ‘thuggery’ on reflex desire –and therefore promote it– the same way males like sexy things finger fucking themselves on the vidjyo. (Ie even if other conditionings tell you “that person is no damn good”, you still are enamored anyway.)

This BELIEF that females do the picking is a political narrative meant to “flip the script” and make maleness across nature passive in the narrative and females the first person point of view character. Whether this political script flipping is self aware-purposeful or accidental-subconscious conformity to the zeitgeist is irrelevant to the fact that female as selector is a political contrivance.


Sodom and Gomorrah were not "forests of apes." They were CIVILIZATIONS!

Civilization. Ie a dynamic where the previous tribal way’s alpha male (the bestest kid from kid hood) was ousted by lilliputian coup (the ALPHA BETA GAMMA dynamic) and a new social dynamic formed where in the female game playing, frustration inducing powers –that are _always there anyway (but sublimated below the best males)_ –became more powerful, because now there were fewer “naturally” dominant (“warrior type”) males around.

Ie civilization.

Fucking jeez! already!


The couple of colonial outback cults –Utah or early colonial dynamics or proto dixie etc– that re-saddled the female were not western civilization. They were throw backs dependent on geographical distance from western culture.

These patriarchal cults –ie female regulation and arranged marriage– were also isolated geographically like Euro sapiens haven’t been for thousands and thousands of years.

They also had very limited techno and no individualist/predator capitalism or industrialism.

"The meek shall inherit the earth" is a liberal effete civilized anti male notion. It is because of that snowballing liberalism that feminism became _inevitable_.

Words don't make reality; reality makes reality. The reality is white men are wimps; the females INEVITABLY took over because of that.

Chrisendumb is part of the snowball that made white males wimps. Feminists didn't cull back the vikings or the celts --chrisendumb did.

This isn't that hard to understand too. You are simply ignorant of your own history.

People acting masculine in the last few centuries in the outback of america and other colonies is NOT Christianity; it is outbackism. This masculinity was allowed because the runts back in the cities --christians-- needed masculinity to clear the rough frontier. But now that that is done it is business as usual for the white male wimpdom--ie getting rid of masculinity, per civilization's 5000 year old meek shall inherit ideals.

Again this isn't that difficult to understand. You are simply ignorant and only look at what you want (namely words rather than reality and history).

I’d never seen feminists actually looking at bonobo monkeys as something to emulate until recently and that just blew me away. I’d already used that as an insult, and there they were saying “I wish I could live like a dumb primate with my ‘gina in the wind.”

Bonobos are chimpanzees.

It is like this:

Force and matter (like steam and ice --but for analogy only)

Cause and Effect are the motor. Billiard ball bank-shotting on a 3D table (length, width AND height); domino effects... Nothing moves without something previous moving upon it. It gets complicated as branching ricochets-- and ricochets and ricochets-- start building up.)

Hydrogen(one proton) then heavy hydrogen (more neutrons per atom; "isotopes"); then helium(two protons) form.

Then organic matter (carbon and nitrogen).

Natural Selection means different variants form, because of cause and effect; Only some variants convert more energy into more of their conversion trends (at the expense of other trends) --eating and reproduction; the surrounding previous cause and effect [the "environment"] does the selecting of the successful trends. Amoral/unthinking cause and effect decides.

Then viruses and DNA-molecule LIFE. (Viruses are RNA molecules technically not living self replicators. Viruses might come after DNA as variant off of it or before as proto strain OR totally different parallel life trend.)

Then bacteria (no nucleus) (Eg algae)

Then Eukaryote LIFE (good nucleus) (Eg amoeba)

Then fungus

Then plants --first as moss (Lichens --proto moss-- are algae and fungus in symbiosis acting as template for new selection to occur: what was selected was moss. The concept of "scaffolding": eg snake venom(modified saliva made by the snake's genome) which got selected from a niche created by proto-snakes using septic bacterial symbiosis in their mouths --not of the org's genome-- as a hunting tool.)

From another branch of eukaryote life ANIMALS form.

First sponges

Then coral and jelly fish. (Jelly fish are free individualist coral.)

Then worms

Then mollusks

Then arthropods from different worms. (Arthropods are horseshoe crabs; lobster + shrimp; crabs; spiders; insects; milli and centi.)

Then chordats (VERTEBRATES) from different worm strain ("prechorians" ["pre backbone ites"]).

Then fish (first lobe fin, then ray)

Then amphibians from lobe fin type

Then reptiles (turtles and crocs then lizard snakes.

Then mammals.

Then birds from bipedal crocodillian types (along with so called dinos from those bipeds.)

The mammals come from "dimetrodon" reptiles. A Fin-back type with homeothermic tendency (self regulating body heat --marrow in fin bones).

First are "monotremes" mammals (egg laying--eg platypus)

Then pouch having ("marsupials") (Eg kangos)

Then placentals. (womb)

(Mammals make milk which is modified sweat gland oil. ...Babies started living on mamma's body; that started new selection niche: milk and nipples formed. Note that through parallelism other species make "milk" (modified-to-baby-nutrient body effuse).)

First womb are called multi tubers.

Then creodonts: "Pinnipeds and fissipeds" (fins and paws). The pawed are "arctoidates" (dogs and bears) and "aeluroidates" (hyenas and cats). (The finned are the seals and whales/dolphins.)

Then ungulats (hoofed): The perisodactyls(three toes [horse rhinos]) and artiodactyls (two toes [bovide {bulls, goats}, suideans{pigs} cervides{deer}]).

The multi-tubers are insectivors. Anteaters sloths, bats, primates and rodents and rabbits. (From the proto rabbit types come the ungulats.)

The primates are:

lemurs tarsiers

new world monkeys

old world monkeys (langurs, bonnets, recces' maccacs, baboons)

The apes (no tails; revolving shoulder pits--"brachiation"). (Gibbons, orangs, gorrilla, chimps [two flavors], hominids.

The hominids are robust and gracile. From the gracile the homos come. First homos are called habalines then erectines, then sapients.

Man's taxonomic placement:

KINGDOM animal
PHYLUM vertebrate
CLASS mammal (sub class placental)
ORDER Primate
FAMILY Hominid (super family is pongoid--"ape")
SPECIES sapiens

Dates are-
14 bill = universe
11 bill = our galaxy (colloquially called "milky way")
5 bill = our solar system
4 bill =life
2 bill = animal (sexually reproducing predators)
500 mill (half a bill) = mollusks/arthrs/verts. Also DIM SEX DEVELOPS AT THIS TIME for upper animals.
350 mill = insects[runty crabs] follow plants on land
300 mill = fish follow insects, to amphibians.
250 = crocs
200 = mammals
150 = birds
60 mill = dinos gone, birds then mammals grow into niches.

8 mill = apes
4 mill = hominids
2.5 mill = homos (feather-boas came later)
1.5 ish = erectines
200 thousand years (2 tenths of a million) = sapients
35 modern sapients
15 - 10 000 = some agriculture and domestication of dogs and bovines.
6000 horse domesticated (mounted aristocracy culls europe)
5000 literacy = civilization
3200 iron and proto monotheism
1500 some euros literate
400 years scot and finns literate
Thursday = jerked-off to interwebs.

MY DATES (and all that above taxo) ARE APPROX --I seem to have forgotten. They change fast anyway; "pardigm shifts". Go read a book-- it won't kill you and jesus won't die. (FACT FINDER ALMANAC BOOKS OR ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE BEST.)

The only things left to know are
-the development of reproductive systems and dynamics. I have dealt with that extensively over and over.
-how nurture/environment shapes biochemistry along with genes (it aint just genes).
-quantum effect ideas of mine. (Atheists won't like them: they create excuses for an activist god again. He'd still be an asshole, but he would have active agency again too.)

If one is going to use bio arguments in their arguments get them right. Chimps are not monkeys! Pet peeve of mine and many other educated people I'm sure.

I'm not making fun of you or semantically trying to "deconstruct" your point. (1 I don't care about your point; and 2 I agree. I started off by saying "FINE" previously above.)

Technically speaking humans ARE "dumb primates with their 'ginas in the wind."


Bachofen [Matriarchy of Past author] has no evidence. It is all interpretation of gegawds. Change the generation looking at the stuff and the conclusion FUNDAMENTALLY changes.

Meanwhile _nobody_ understands (or includes in their models) that males hit females when they are sexually jealous (or just angry over her antagonistic behavior in general) and that that undermines any potential "matriarchy" before it even gets started.

It takes the caste structure of runts --IE variants from the litter of puppies that can only be kept alive inside the technology built en-closer --ie CIVILIZATION-- to grab the wrists of male sexual-jealously thus allowing female chicanery to get a snowball of leverage going.

You don't think barbarian males --of what ever race-- hit females?

Also this statement of your's exposes your approach...

That doesn’t necessarily imply that mankind evolved from matriarchy; only that during a particularly long, dark period in the ancient past that seemed to be the norm.

...Somebody [bachofen] --who knows nothing about biology --seeing gegawds -- through the relativist lens that has indoctrinated him-- as evidence of matriarchy in no way shape or form "implies that it seemed to be the norm."

Even if he found one, it would not mean it "seemed to be the norm."

Do you think I'm a child?

It doesn’t preclude the possibility that a more civilized human culture existed prior to the Paleolithic Age (and more recent archaeological evidence is suggesting that it did)

That is the most important thing you matriarchy types have said. Why? Because it exposes your mental glitch right there: You don't think that if men are in charge it can be called "uncivilized". Therefore every time you see men in charge some where you call it civilization.

Civilization means literacy. Nothing more. It stated in the near east 5500 years ago as a side effect of population density made possible by 1) that area being a bottle neck out of africa and 2) agriculture techno there (happenstance of location) increasing food supply and thus increasing the amount of surviving villagers.

The implication of literacy is... larger coalitions (since literacy is a poli glue like mutual grooming is for chimps only deluxe) --a slippery slope of bigger groups; then more technology and thus runaway population growth then more techno created and so on. That keeps most bits of flotsam and jetsam that worm out of the womb alive.

This flotsam and jetsam ascending is the thing that grabs the wrists of male violence thus emboldening female chicanery and thus starting that group of humans down a snowballing path of female hyper leverage. That path sees each generation of git males making more and more concessions to the pirouetting females. (Enter the praying mantis dynamic... And it's almost dinner time.)

It is very easy to understand quite frankly.

The central part of his theory is that only AFTER the matriarchy was overthrown and the Neolithic Age inaugurated, could civilization become possible.

Repeating the contention (which you must know I know) does not evidence it.

Where is this bachofen? Who is he? Tell him sean maccloud thinks he's is fraud. Tell him --and all his friends-- I'll be here all day.


I would hardly call [bachofen's] theories relativistic either;

You don’t know what scientific relativism means.

It means he saw what he wanted to see when he looked at “evidence”. It means a “skewed filter” for processing data. (There are various psych 102 reasons one skews like this: purposeful or accidental/conditioning. I explained this all already!)

(The term “moral relativism” more properly means the universe is unthinking and indifferent and therefor absolute OBJECTIVITY potential becomes possible when analyzing. I understand though that sophists --the ehem “marxists”-- use the fact of the universe’s indifference and our human attempt to be objective in unscrupulous ways to play “jedi mind tricks” with the dumb horde [that'd be you all].)

More recent evidence is showing that Neanderthal man, for example, was far more advanced than previously believed, possing a language (possibly written), were monogamous and had a religious system.

Not germane. (argument drift) And neanderthal were not civilized anyway. (Pre history humans used symbols to convey info. Ie proto literacy yes.)

It could well be that a matriarchial system arose on the collapse of that one—we simply don’t know at this point.

It could well be that after Neanderthal, Martians came and invented earth on a butterfly’s wing of dreams.

_You don’t know how evidence works either._

Ie you can’t just fill in the unseen gaps with what ever you want, denying the other shapes of the puzzle pieces we already have. (That’s what feminists did to invent this Matr o’Past myth you’re spreading now.) A puzzle piece we have is: MALES HIT FEMALES UNLESS SOME FORCE PREVENTS THEM! (Western culture/feminists / ”marxists”[ehem] censored that –when convenient for them to– and that has skewed your lens.)

That sexual jealousy and aggression is a very relevant piece that tells us what the unknown piece looks like.

(I imagine you don’t put boxed puzzles together well too.)

And if we “simply don’t know at this point”, why did you assert originally that we come from matriarchies? Again you must think me a child in your church, given your tactics.

You can’t deny that every extant matriarchy in the world today has never progressed much further than the Old Stone Age,

I’m not denying that _non_ Western culture is technologically and therefore socially stagnant (or that they lose battles to western colonial diaspora); but I deny that these other cultures are matriarchies. You have a circular trick you’re trying there. (It is very fatiguing and that is why you types think you win arguments: Others abandon the field because they can sense you are loopy as bat shit.)

I deny matriarchies of the bush were /are there at all.

I see another mental glitch you types have. “Progress” as synonym for “patriarchy”.

I assume strongly “victory” too is a synonym for “patriarchy” in your types’ heads; as in “victory over the dirty savage.” …So when our western female hyper-leverage hive of complexity beats up the the simpler tribes of male warriors –who en harem females young and hit them– that makes us the patriarchs and them the matriarchs in your heads. [eye roll]

When males control females that is when stagnation occurs, since techno growth –what you term “progress” –is the side effect of human males competing (in their human techno-antler way) to win females. The more unsure the male position regarding the female the more he keeps working so as to keep up with boopsy pirouetting before him just out of ‘true’ reach. Tribes have such slow progress specifically because the males are content _given their control over females._ My evidence would be of course: Islam, Mormons, Amish, any “non Romanized” tribe. Little progress and little* female leverage. Not a coincidence. (*females always have some leverage –they aint cardboard fuckboxes [darn!]–and _fem sex value_ is always the catalyst for the competition; but being the catalyst and being in control are not the same thing.)

(There are various reasons why this male control was maintained in tribes: lack of plentiful food (females dependent/ had to obey more); less crafty-political brains in the males thus slowing the cycle of AlphaBetaGamma coups. (ABG coup snowball ousts authority/masculinity/adulthood thus vectoring in female leverage.)

In civilization the fems have the hyper leverage they do (remaining ever one step ahead of propriety demand thus triggering more male competition), because a social dynamic of snowballing runt-male ascendancy made possible by technology growth eventually pulled males in total under the female “high water” mark. AS I EXPLAINED MANY MANY TIMES!

Technology is men’s antlers of competition piling up and thus creating a new environment. An “environment is a “selection pressure”. (I suspect strongly your ilk does NOT understand natural selection or incorporate it into your models as the base point. Natural selection means different baby variants form in a litter; Only some of those puppy variants live eat and breed, with the environment doing the selecting.) The new environment created by man’s hand selects for a new breed(of gracile-male types); that breed has hyper female leverage, thus morphing man from a male leverage species (where males fight directly over fem sex value[think bears]) into a female leverage species (where females pick the males and dismiss the unchosen who then 'try' harder thus creating the "growth" [think bowerbirds]).

[This is Not rocket science people. Well actually it is a little _more_ complicated than rocket science; indeed that is why 99.999 percent of people don't get it --even rocket scientists... Rocket scientist have simple hyper brains: they don't like when things get complexified to muddy and they hate people-thick equations for that reason. Can't say I blame them.]

There are no matriarchies… except for this one: western culture (and its biblical precursors [Babylon Sodom Gomorrah]) — note that matriarchy is synonymous WITH CIVILIZATION.

An interesting mental glitch you types have is you observe the female hyper-leverage-ways of an advanced mature civilization (like for example modern mature western culture) and then assert that it must be reverting to a matriarchy and that’s why it looks like it does. (?!) That’s a neat circular reasoning trick you got there.

And civilization means much more than mere literacy, it means organization and progress as well.

Civilization is as I explained previously. GO READ IT AGAIN. You are uneducated and too dumb to care.

Who defined civi for you? They were wrong. Have you ever actually read a history book? (Not a “joe’s opinion about some period/event in history” book; A history, history book.) Try the Hammond atlas of history or penguin atlases of history. While they don’t specifically deal with matriarchy patriarchy issues(good thing since they aren’t trying to) they do eloquently demonstrate that civ comes from the near east stored as literate record starting around 5500 years ago(eg Sumeria) and spreads up “littorals”(coast line lush spots) through cultural and genetic “diffusion”. There is a reason we have the word “prehistory”, you know (it means “non literate record of peoples”).

If organization and progress is the definition of civilization then Am Indians and Neanderthal were civilized too. Any tribe would be called civilized for they were all “organized”* and had progress.

(*organized here is nonsense term since everything in the universe is organized.)

(A lion pride is organized; and antlers “progress” every season.)

1) “Culture” means technological survival strategies(eg a pointed stick) _passed on by language._

2) “Civilization” means culture of diverse specialists in denser populations passed on by written narrative; Cities.

Civilization is as I explained previously. GO READ IT AGAIN.

There have been uncivilized male-dominated societies, yes, but civilization is never possible under female-dominated ones.

More circular contention on your part.

Civilization has always been similar to what we have now: males do the work top and bottom (in triangle shape caste) and the females exert profound influence. (As with most things “over the long haul” there are ebbs and flows as the pendulum swings.) Our modern Civi has hit a critical mass/straw on camel’s back recently (culmination of underlying snowball of slippery slope techno growth and AlphaBetaGamma coups) and now we have an intense/direct female controlled hive. In the past when this occurred, the civi imploded. But now the techno snowball is causing civi to hit a kind of auto pilot. Ie it –civ– doesn’t care whether the males en masse dislike it and ‘shrug’ or not now; it doesn’t need them anymore. [My first ever post to the 'net back in ca97 grappled with that techno-snowball-autopilot-ascending thing: "E=boybad girlgood squared". Wish I felt like finding that.]

Limit female control and males simply sit around and fuck their owned nieces –cum child brides– all day –like what happens in a tribe. (After the belly is full at any rate.)

As I said many times, I don’t like using that “matriarchy patriarchy” jazz, for it is all made up definitions that tautologically spin per the relativism of the speaker.

Bachofen was a crackpot. Citing a crackpot doesn’t make either of you less ridiculous. Academia loves the exercise of citation but it doesn’t make anything said more valid; especially in the “soft subjects” which are opinion based.

You have a very simple mind. Childlike in its pattern differentiation actually. And your mind is also tangled. “ENGLISHMUN.”

Do you know your IQ?

Have you ever seen fight club? That question is not as silly as it sounds. (Forget that it debateably has the 2nd best ending in motion picture history, after the first Planet of the Apes) It traces all of this without really saying any of it. Movies are good for the simple. And everyone else too.

If you were more intelligent, I would ask if you know what a bowerbird is.

Your major problem is definitions:

You have mis defined civilization and culture.

You have conflated the word progress (and victory) with the word patriarchy, undeservedly, circularly.

I suspect also your ilk believes a “civilization” comes from North West Europe.

You are very uneducated and too slow witted to care about that before you speak.

And I see you totally absolutely ignored my earlier statement(s) about male sexual jealousy and its violence. That ignoring –sometimes with extreme prejudice –is the key notorious trick of the matriarchy of the past crowd. (The runts civilization breeds for –be they called liberals or conservatives– simply can’t get there minds around the idea that men used to be able to start fights with wimmins and actually WIN them.)

Don’t bother responding to me unless you parry successfully my “male sexual VIOLENCE trumps incipient matriarchy” statement. You are in check[mate]. You and your entire belief –times an entire failed culture– can’t just whistle at the ceiling and pretend that aint so…



I just spent a week explaining this multiple times. You can't learn. That's why you did badly in childhood.

Male humans until very recently were killing each other off and the winners were then fucking the females. The vikings or shogun ates or indian brave or who evers were not simply displaying and then waiting for a nod from a female.

Again up until recently, the roosters were killing each other off. The winner claimed the hen house. The hen couldn't "choose" the dead one.


I find a lot of the gender science which male activists use to demonstrate their points is actually embraced feminist lies (canards) spread successfully by the feminist marxist (ie jew instigated) matriarchy.

Like the human 'matriarchy of the past' thing. It was a bullshit just so story created by liberals basically to empower females and now male rights types use that vocab to try and make their points. FYI we do not come from matriarchies --unless one considers harems of young girls boinked doggy style by jealous killing males, where getting caught at infidelity could be fatal and where there were strict divisions between male created tool kits to be matriarchy.


Hypergamy is overused.

Most evo psych is literally half assed but it is NOT wrong per se. It lacks big picture root cause objectivity (the stuff I do) and therefore its principles become just-so stories when challenged: they can only fit as-they are-explained when looked at from certain angles. But the scenario itself is usually valid. Eg females do cheat; and females do pit males into arenas through their troubling behavior.


More on hypergamy...

Up until recently human males were killing each other quite viciously, negating female choice; thus negating hypergamy as used by most activists. This male vs male culling is not that hard to understand, so I don't know why people --all over-- are ignoring it. (Actually I do: "Willful blindness about a paradigm crushing factoid.")

But the principle that all males don't breed specifically because of female value is valid. Say 40-60% of both genders don't make it through because of disease and food pressures (either getting or becoming) and another 60 percent of the left over males specifically don't breed or, once, just plain died outright.

[For species where the female picks (eg birds), there is something called the "handicap principle". It is too complicated for you all (being as many don't understand simple cause and effect and natural selection principles). So I'll wait on that.

For species where the males pick, there is male vs male direct combat over female value.

I explained all of that last month. Go to my recent blog entries.]

Note that lions are a male vs male combat over females type. But note that a female lion picks tan fur and brunette mane males when given a choice (by pesky anti-ginger human academics) more than other colors. Yet male lions are fighting to the brutal death thus negating female choice absolutely. What possibly, even probably, is happening there, is the female variants who got horny for would be winners (of those male vs male duals in that niche) have done better than female variants who got horny for the losers.

These prediction-making modules in the females can be called `gina tinglers.

The females who have picked right (ie got horny for the males that unknowingly-to-the-fem-gina-tingle would win) have some kind of edge over the female variants who picked wrong (even though those wrong-picking females wind up getting impregnated by the real winner males anyway). Since most females are descended from those who picked right, females generally get horny when they see a usually-the-winner brunette male --even though _females themselves are not choosing who the winner is going to be_.

So jump to the human west. Female humans have recently --over the last few centuries and now especially in the last few decades-- been given absolute pick and dismiss power; Humans have slipped into a bird like dynamic with the female as the chooser. (This happened because of the alpha beta gamma stuff between the males I keep explaining. [Do you see why competition is bad--especially if we don't eliminate the losers? You all better figure this out soon.])

Note that humans come from a situation where the males were fighting each other over the females with the females being boinked by the winners. (The male human competition was often direct combat but also inventiveness which culls attritionally in between the combat culls. Either way the females were not engaged in pick and dismiss since the males handled a lot of that male vs male cull themselves.) Just like with the lions, the females who predicted a winner got better placement in the wife and concubine pecking order --thus benefiting her kids and therefore passing on more successfully her pick-the-winner-correctly-genes which created her horny-for-the-predicted-winner desire.

(Again to be clear, human females over the long haul have been fucked by the winners of the _males vs males_ fighting. But the female variants that have modules(chemical chain reactions) which compel them to get horny for the male-type that coincidentally wins the male vs male fighting have done better themselves.)

So what we are seeing in the bar or high school or frat house etc is the female human getting horny for a certain male type/display on instinct (even though humans don't come from a species where the females were picking and dismissing like birds).

Females don't like the would-be losers, with the winner females (of the female battles over self esteem and worse now) laying dibs on would-be better males. That scene right there (at da club) is called "hypergamy".

Golly gee we are not equal after all.

Females did not necessarily "pick" Genghis Khan more often. He simply killed more men and therefore claimed more females.

BTW this is not a theory or up for debate.

It is only very recently that 'we' 'let' females pick and dismiss like many birds do.

Dueling between male humans was only outlawed in the 1800s.

The males who win the male vs male battles don't just go in the corner and sulk when a female variant picks a different male.


Male humans don't have broad shoulders or masculine forearms and etc 'cause female humans like those traits. The males who won the male-verse-male duels simply had those traits.

This is easy to understand stuff.

So why don't you all --the mens rights movt for decades-- understand it?...

I actually know the answer:

Number one you are dumb: meaning you lack memory speed and storage in childhood and therefore you have missed core vocabulary. Without this core your 'folder system' that sorts new incoming info is warped.

But two, more importantly, you are afraid... Nerds(which you are) are lacking in masculinity. Accepting that we come from a species [meaning humans] where masculinity was life and death relevant is a logic path you can't allow yourselves to start down, for its implications will depress you (being as you're runts).


Listen, you types who make the bio argument you are trying to make should say it this way:

"Female sexual value _unwittingly selected_ for males who [...then your point]."

Then you continue adding:

"Fem sex value can mean _'male vs male cull'_ through the the bottle neck of eternity (ie fem sex value) or _'female pick or ignore'_ as the way males get through the bottle neck of eternity. The "pick or ignore" dynamic can snowball into praying mantis/black widow dynamics."

I explained this all fairly well months ago. Those points made are entered as "More pearls."

Very good stuff there. People who do this gender politics stuff should learn what I say. (Posterity certainly will.) No shit.


Sean MacCloud wrote:

Female lions don’t pick the males. Male lions fight each other to the death and the winners fuck the females regardless of who boopsy liked.

Female bears don’t pick the males. Male bears fight each other to the death and the winners fuck the females regardless of who boopsy liked.

nicor wrote:

You should read some biology. You would learn that females in many primate species (including all apes) have evolved counterstrategies that allow them to choose the male they prefer in many circumstances. Female choice has always existed and has probably played a significant role in shaping humanity, including its most unsavory members like psychopaths.

It's an endless duel between males and females who each try to control reproduction. Today, human females - in western countries at least - clearly have the upper hand. We shouldn't be too surprised if the most violent types are favorably selected.


First, most ethologcial science conjured in the 20th century is political bullshit published by jews and created by feminists. (Anglo American/christian ignorance and belligerence has guaranteed that fact. Ie anglo american white males are some of the least informed people in the history of politics; they are certainly not enlightened. And because of that they fought and keep fighting for their enemies.)

The fems and jews publish what they do for self empowerment reasons and to brainwash. The trickle down side effect of that is the next wave of people who don't think they are feminists or marxists--even those who actively fight the fems and marxists-- still use the convoluted paradigms(published by fems/jews) as the basis for their ideas. Much evo psych and men's rights (eg Danial Amnaeus) stuff is an example of that.

Number two YES. I did not mean to say that there is not hella complexity in the give and take of it all. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON I NEVER SUBSCRIBE TO THAT MATRIARCHY PATRIARCHY STUFF; There is too much give and take between genders. I am very much aware of that intellectually.

But when someone says that Genghis khan did all the breeding he did because he was picked by the females it denotes such ignorance of reality (for what ever reason), that there is little reason, for the person trying to dispel such ignorance, to get into complex subtitles(that you brought up) on his first pass at educating.

Same with viking raiders now I see. THE MALES ARE KILLING EACH OTHER! (And enslaving each other.) FEMALE CHOICE IS NEGATED BY THAT. HOW BLIND CAN SOMEONE BE WHEN HE DOESN'T SEE THE AXE CLEAVING BIZERKER? (DUH!!!) The fact that there are complex bobbings and weavings between the genders --made even more complicated by human dynasty tendency [child inheritance of rank(`cause humans have that kind of memory capacity)]-- is not challenged by me. Your blindness is.

First principles need to be established first...

.Fem sexual value. (sperm to egg ratio.)

It manifests in two ways--

-males fight or

-fem pick ('fem pick' sometimes manifest into males-as-direct-food-for females.)

That is underpinned first by a pre requisite: dim sex is an emasculation battle between hermaphrodites. Mature stunting the immature. That leads to male and female vertebrates. (Though note that gender formed multiple times in different strains (eg plants) --just like eyes did and other traits. Note in one-celled asexual(cloning) pond scum, gender-specialist reproduction formed long before the asexual multicellular animals (from which verts come) did. This is called parallelism.)


So begin at the beginning...

[God stood and said "let their be energy conversion effected by entropy". He looked and said that it was good. ...And then went back to furiously masturbating to the internet.]

.Energy conversion/conservation

.Cause and effect (domino effect/ billiard ball bankshots forever rippling out, chain reaction after chain reaction forever...)

.Natural selection. (Natural selection model is for inorganic reality too. ["organic" is carbon and nitrogen whether in DNA strands or not.] Note that all energy conversion trends don't equally convert: some convert and some are absorbed as part of other energy paths. [...Almost at Consilience there {ignore that: over your heads}.])

.Life. (Specifically carbon and nitrogen cause and effect natural selection trends.)


-photosynth life.

-animals (Eats other life. Ie eats carbo and nitro already arranged by other trends into DNA specific chemicals.)

-predator animals (Eats other animals.)

-moving predators (Eg jelly fish and worms, mollusks, arthropods, vertebrates.)

(Note moving preds formed in one celled photosynthesizing pond scum. Then later moving predation formed again from non self-moving multi-cellular organisms. This is called parallelism {apparently the universe can only do a finite amount of things}.)


.A sexual (cloning and sometimes some recombining /repairing.)

.hermaphroditic (different members share reproductive material. Some can "fuck themselves" too--so some cloning along with the recombining.)

.dimorphic (Boy and girl. Dim sex is an emasculation battle between hermaphrodites. Mature stunting the immature; That led to male and female vertebrates.)

(Note that gender formed multiple times in different grand strains (eg plants) --just like eyes did and other traits. Note that in one-celled asexual(cloning) pond scum, gender-specialist reproduction formed. But then later in multi-cellular animals, hermaphroditic and then dimorphic sex formed again (from which vertebrates come). This is called parallelism.)

.Fem sexual value. (sperm to egg ratio.)

It manifests in two ways--

-males fight or

-fem pick ('fem pick' sometimes _manifest into males-as-direct-food-for females_.)


Adding complexity to that when _no one even gets the fundamentals_ in simple form would be sophistry. Why would I do that to myself?

Now what you have posted to me would come after my above-listed chronological-model as a note to be aware of complexity. Specifically say something about how females of group species[eg primates] sometimes conspire with some underling male cliques more than other ones, with the female-supported cliques sometimes winning their alpha beta gamma coups through her help; or how some females engage in more 'dangerous liaison' than other dames. (The stuff you tried to say would be generally good here.)

But then even that note further needs to be caveated by the 'epistemological warning' about the publishing 'conspiracies' that snowball under any given period's zeitgeist. (Eg this twisted feminist zeitgeist --which american conservatives fight arduously to maintain because they are that confused.)

But one doesn't start inside complexity --perched on his own little twig in the tree of existence--and work his way back through the tree. One tries to step outside of the whole twisted mess --ignoring the complexity and dismissing with prejudice the canards-- so as to see the roots of the tree, then the trunk of the tree, then the main branches and lastly his little twig in it all.

Done right, each new offshoot logically fits into the previous factoid.

When you guys focus on females as cosmic choosers you are ignoring, willfully, the male vs male murder sprees which destroy her choice. But yes it is still 'fem sexual value' as the 'cosmic' catalyst for the male redundancy.


Despite my long post "challenging" you, I agree with what you said above. I already understood it. But as for a root principle, can it really be used as the axiomatic paradigm through which new info is filtered and weighed?

And also I do think that it is a particular spin of ethology (animal/human behavior) that most have imbibed, created by feminists (all culture not just wimmins depts) which is a one sided heavy politicization of gender science, motivated by wishful thinking empowerment desire. (Libs/feminists make bio arguments such that males are passive outsiders of the narrative and females are active 1st person. Relativism is a common feature of science history.)

I have a tendency to dismiss it all out of hand without opening it, for I know from where it comes (and none of that place good, fair or honest.) I don't believe back in the "bad old days" of "patriarchal science" that males ignored female shenanigans in their ethological models. It is just now in these times --under the modern religious citadel of revisionist leftist (who chrisendumb fights for every inch of the way)-- that those fem shenanigans are hyped up and spun as positives for fem empowerment reasons and brainwash-the-males reasons. And it has worked.

Early pro fem would have denounced "patriarchal" scientists who witnessed female shenanigans in Nature; profem would have called them misogynists and denounced and dismissed their findings. But now that the left has taken over it spins the observed fem shenanigans into positives and trumpets them as empowerment (while ignoring masculine patterns in nature).

This is typical way of the left in most situations.

[Observe other examples of left revision taking over society...

Observe nature-nurture sophistry.

The determinists don't ignore environmental --"nuture"-- contingency as shaper of chemistry(ie behavior). But to hear the left revisionists that took over our society speak you would think that there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture. But that is purely a construct of the left for propaganda reasons. Liberals are far more in denial of "nature" than "patriarchal science" is in denial of "nurture".]

Civilization is not a patriarchy reacting to/controlling the natural matriarchy. No way.

I don't know where everyone got that matriarchy-of-the-past canard and why it stuck. But it's here in your heads and it is a pernicious fallacy, putting you --the embracers of that bizarre canard-- at cross purposes when it comes to finding a solution to this human matriarchy _which is peculiar TO civilization_.

Men become shamans (clever outsiders etc) because they failed at being other things. The human default is to be in the mainstream group and conform(mindlessly). If one CAN'T do that (unhealthy or bad luck etc, usu in childhood), one finds himself on the outside looking in; some of those outsiders become great thinkers and some become crackpots. (FYI, low culture tough guys of an underground are not actually outsiders.)

We don't come from matriarchies. Nr1 I do not believe the black or oceanic tribes that are used as examples of matriarchy are actually matriarchal. And 2 if they are they are local freaky variation culdesacs(sp)[court avenues] off the classic (pre civilized) sapient social sexual dynamic.

You just said yourself above there have been times when wimmins Were the controlled resources.

These times were in the early dark ages --which was a return to barbarism --ie not civilized.

(FYI to all: Female sexual value being the catalyst for competition is not the same as them controlling the competition or being the the direct pickers of the winners.)

We do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by Christianity.

(Dumb people should not be allowed to talk in the future, for the smart people do not have the energy to keep saying the same things over and over.)

Christianity --or the tech snowball in general-- is the snowballing weakness in men that allowed female "instinctual inherent greed etc, etc, etc" to ascend. It is not that men just all of sudden got weak. It is that christianity is dysgenic weakness accruing like interest/snowballing; Eventually it hit critical mass inevitably.

It is very very very fascinating that men don't get that.

I know the reason they don't. Weakness plus relativism. Weak men can't envision a world where strength once trumped.

You have a nonsense just-so spin of history.

We are supposed to believe that the runt monks got rid of the barbarians on behalf of men and this some how hurt wimmin. This despite the fact that the liberal feminist culture --the west-- is exclusively the the outgrowth of the christian culture.

Your underpinning argument whether you know it or not is cultural-blank slate OR "matriarchy of the past". To say that barbarians had a pro female culture while runt monks of civilization vectored a pro male culture is a bizarre misreading of reality.

"Matriarchy of the Past" is an especially egregious misreading by liberals when one factors in that liberals are the ones who purport to understand --and use all the time as part of their policy initiatives --psychobabble where in we are told that eg Gilligan's Maryanne is -- and similar characters are-- causing girls to be underachievers at NASA. But then we are suppose to ignore the psychobabble implications of primitive warrior culture --_where men kill each other with swords on mastered horses based on whose wimpy (feminine).

Why is one "cultural symbol package" affecting "girl power" but the other not?

Because it (Matriarchy of Past and its growth: LIBERALISM'S anti christendumb politic) is all just-so narrative used for (unwitting) indoctrination.

And you are the indoctrinated.*

Liberals try to get rid of christendum and capitalism the way a down syndrome renal-failure patient tries to un plug his dialysis. If he succeeds he is dead.

This is all made possible by democracy, which is the inevitable side effect of the way capitalism --and capitalism's techno too-- organizes male competition (ie non fatal).

How ever you'll do well. You have an added advantage over conservatives since your indoctrinated tropes have already long since taken hold of the Pavlovian horde.

*There are various reasons for why your ilk took to this indoctrination first. For one thing you are runt who needs profem in order to have a raison d tre as part of your tactic for getting rid of non runts who scare you and marginalize you reproductively. You are not aware of this though.

leads to envy/reactionary-ism
leads to attacking perceived betters (to take the piss out)
leads to sophistry and tautology arguments conjured
leads to being exposed as sophist
leads to counter attack coming as appeal to popularity [demagoguery](ie "my challenger's ideas are incorrect _because_ they are bad for you the people; so give me power and I will protect you from bad (though correct) ideas through simply replacing those correct ideas outright with lies")
leads to intellect retreating from popularity
leads to extinction of the neo cortex.

This has been snowballing since probably the cave painting shaman days (where perception spiked up) but it has really ramped up recently (part of alpha beta gamma principle).


I totally agree with arranged marriages and regulated females. BUT I wouldn’t call that western civilization as it has manifested in much of Western zones for over 1000 years and all western zones in the last say 300-500 years.


Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose; the bull because he has displayed the traits necessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.

Incorrect matriarchy silliness. The female bovines etc are going to go where the eats are. The males then are "ACTIVELY" fighting over those plots. If the female goes to a loser male she "likes" the stronger male will simply pursue her and bully that other male away, until she tires and he mounts her. (Also she stops being on the productive territory --where the eats are-- for her and her kid _thus dying out.)

You are making the male the passive one in the story line for an assortment of psychological reasons specific to modern western male humans.

It is called 'relativism'. Seeing what you have been conditioned to see when looking at new things. It is well known and explained.

The jews have long since created and published "studies" which "deconstructed" relativism when it was in their interests to do so. Ie they explained how society's pre conceived notions were coloring even high table --supposedly objective-- studies and conclusions about ...jewish political allies(and jews). But now that the "worm has turned" [ie feminism is the prejudice of the day], the jewish activist scientists and their studies demonstrating how indoctrination and relativism prejudices lenses are cricket quiet.

There are two kinds of relativism. Purposeful and accidental.

Steven Jay Gould [jew, hahrvihd] with his "male barnacles are just some reproductive cells immobile inside the female barnacle's reproductive tract". Very accurate but you can hear the "nyah nyah" in the statement (and study). Purposeful politically motivated relativism, a`la psychological warfare against the dumb suggestible goy... er um I mean sheep.

The other kind is your kind above. Pre conditioning as filter for interpreting new data.

[Not to mention your argument above in itself is tangled. Typical of tortured kaleidoscope arguments trying to hammer those square pegs into round holes. This is similar to political arguments where in we conform to Republican tent BULLSHIT saying in order to stop liberalism we have embrace more underpinnings of liberalism and attack conservative cultures elsewhere... Let the tortured peg hammering begin.]

The big take home part in herd studies is not the matriarchy cockeyed nonsense. But rather it's more insight into the universe's emergent-multi cellularism and 1st plane pressures trumping sexual plane -- 2nd plane-- pressures.

[Note that I don't use "imperatives" but rather I say "planes" of selection. "Imperatives" is "physician doing harm" talk. A) It implies robot action on the part of the creature being selected and B) implies that if some creatures don't live or breed then the whole natural selection model is wrong. It is confusing creationists and other dunces. I don't use "imperatives" for the same reason I don't use "convergence", preferring the more accurate "parallelism" when eg talking of 'sharks and dolphins' or 'termites and ants'.]


The herd is type of cell seen from the big picture, with the females and calves as the nucleus, the winner males as a layer right around that and then the beaten wounded males as the _skin_ around the breeding core. That limping skin will be the first thing picked by predators --a protective layer around the breeding core.


The 1st plane pressure for the herd is "lottery of death against the predators". In that life strategy, males have been selected to have modules that make them wound the vanquished rather than pursuing them and killing them outright. (As said, the wounded males will be 1st-choice food for the predators thus protecting the big winner(s). And that reality right there is the selection pressure itself selecting for the fight-to-the maim module.)

The second plane pressure is the standard reproduction.

Bovine sexual dynamic (ie "2nd plane" competition) is male vs male direct combat --"ACTIVE"-- over fem sex value. [The other sexual dynamic is the flying bird's "male vs male displayer" with female as trump card chooser.]

(The modern Human western culture high school hallway and niteclub' sexual dynamic is the birdlike "passive" male dis player with the female as trump card. This is recent human occurrence. This female-as-chooser/male-as-passive has been snowballing along --ups and downs but always a general trend-- for millenia but culminated recently. Note about a century and a half ago male vs male dueling was officially outlawed for Euros (a little later for other indocrinates). That _modern_ hallway and niteclub dynamic is probably the key thing that has prejudiced and conditioned you and created your relativism.)

Because of the merging between the BOVINES' specific 1st plane and 2nd plan selection, the modules that have gotten selected in herds for males are the "fight to the maim" ones. Note wild bull horns are fat and curved in, while female horns are thin pointy and curve forward and down. The female's were selected by predation, while the males were selected --as priority-- by male vs male combat; but combat in a "fight to the maim" breed where a lottery of numbers is the 1st plane pressure.

...It is "immoral" in the herd to kill... ("thou shall not kill.")

That gives insight into our own morals and from where they come. [Prerequisite: there is no such thing as freewill or any of that. You just think there is for some profound bio-efficient reason.]


"Patriarchy will return."

You are wrong unfortunately. Meaning if feminism is able to change male-ness itself biologically, patriarchy will not be able return because their will be no more patriarchy at the biochemical level remaining.

...The kennel will never experience a "return to the wolf", if by the time the dog's coup to over through authority occurs there are nothing but male chihuahua and female dobermans left.

This "return-to patriarchy-being-impossible-if-the-patri-bio-chemcials-are bred-away" thing is why I say we need real solutions NOW to stop these trends. All that capitalist democracy and 'freedom from government' NONSENSE is NOT stopping the anti patriarchy trend. IT IS THE TREND!

And we still haven't defined patriarchy in the west. Is it when little Timmy has a collection of penthouse mags under the bed, as feminist have said? Is it when Jewish liberals running Madison Avenue create soap commercials showing pretty girls washing their faces joyously/orgasmically, as feminism has said? Is it when a man has to pay a wimmins for sex, as feminists have said?

Do you understand _sean maccloud's_ "alpha beta gamma principle"? Not that "alpha beta omega at da club" stuff. But rather my original "caste [ie biological disposition/compulsion] coups over history" thing?

...Since we do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization, how did this matriarchy we live in now happen?...

Did the females change their chemistries? Through what mechanism did they? Did the males change theirs?

Ah... There's the fulcrum...

Alpha beta gamma [underling coup] snowball changing male chemistry, ultimately making the males the "weaker" gender in the "cuttlefish [hermaphrodite] aquarium experiment".

I believe nurture syndromes[diet etc and social "signals" rippling through the group] are changing our --boy and girl-- chemistries too through their _complicated_ processes. But that contingency (billiard ball collision entering the equation) was vectored in by the coups.

"Female children are not born with any sense of morality and must have it pounded into their heads from birth by the Patriarchy with religions used to reinforce morality. Otherwise, females will quickly revert to their primitive instincts and we destroy the civilisation created by men and return to the primitive matriarchy. We're seeing that today already."

females have instincts to be "game players" on the plane of reproduction. That is true. (This fact will be denied and then at other times applauded, for various reasons.)

That is bad for men.

And children will be indoctrinated with the prevailing morals of the day one way or another. That is true. (If not `these-a morals imposed by group A than `those-a morals imposed by group B.)


We don't come from 'matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization'. That is totally backwards.

We come from warrior dynamics where much of the female instinctual "reproductive game playing" was balanced out by the robust, primitive male aggression.

None of that is hard to understand. Why it isn't more readily understood... Only the Shadow knows...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.