The prehistoric war that wiped out 95% of men.

Post Reply New Topic

“But our closest cousin is the peaceful matriarchal bonobos”

Really? Do some really still believe this prehistorical myth fantasy?

Wrong, both the chimps and bonobos are almost equally very genetically close to us; but socially? Humans are much more like the common chimps, rather than the bonobos. The only thing that humans and bonobos have more in common (compared to chimps) is the sex as enjoyment, but socially and historically everything else we are/were much more chimp -like.

The bonobos remained in a tiny area for eons and never expanded; while the chimps continuously expand territory through… war. Chimps are patriarchal male dominant and warring species, they form tribes, alliances, and alphas lead their guys to war; sometimes even within the same group in form of a civil war. The Gombe chimp civil war is a very well documented event.

Rings a bell?

[youtube]

^^^ Yeah I started a thread about the Yamnaya invasion of from the steppe pastures of Siberia which stretched from the deserts of western China to far in the west to the shores of Ireland and as far south as the Indian ocean island of Sri Lanka. Indo-european speakers vary in appearance







Original Yamnaya

Human societies have been organized in a variety of different ways, depending on circumstances and history. We aren't predestined to live in any one particular way, for all time.

this is true, but keep in mind rugged individualism, manifest destiny, survival of the fittest and in-group supremacy is a legacy from the steppe and remain core values in the modern west.

But the predominant structure is patriarchy.

Regarding the isolated tribal cultures, many confuse them as being matriarchal while they are in fact just matrilineal; but their warriors are still mostly male (ie the Moari).

Eventually it is the Patriarchal model that dominated the world.
Name me one ancient empire which was truly matriarchal (and no, it is not enough to just be ruled by a Queen who came from a lineage of Kings).


Also, the male violence in humans is more ancient than « the agriculture period ».
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro ... 720617.amp


The fact that the humans are everywhere means they had to use violence in many instances in order to expand, if humans weren’t violent they would have probably remained in a tiny area in Africa, like the bonobo, or at least just within Africa.
Maybe ancient female Homo Sapiens were violent too, there’s many findings of ancient female huntresses - but our sexual dimorphism does suggest a very long historical trend; bonobos seem to be less sexual dimorphic than us.

Whenever the Homo Sapiens made first contact with another Homo species, the latter disappeared shortly after - I don’t this it was just a coincidence.

^^^ Facts

Although not fully "matriarchal," at least some of these societies have been more than "just matrilineal." For example, among the Iroquois, chiefs were traditionally men, but elected by women, and there was also a separate female leadership role of "clan mother."


Yes, under conditions of frequent warfare with pre-modern weapons. Under those conditions, women warriors were naturally rare.

But women are quite capable of firing guns. There have even been some women (e.g. Lyudmila Pavlichenko) among the world's best snipers. As a result, many modern countries do have women soldiers.

Also, thanks to the advent of modern DNA testing, it is now much easier than in the past to know for sure who the father of a child is. This fact removes the main traditional reason (other than religious reasons) for restricting women's freedom of movement.

Thanks to both of the above historical developments, there are no longer any reasons for male supremacy to be seen as a material necessity. And, as a result of these historical developments plus organized feminist activism, many (though not all) modern societies have been moving away from patriarchy.

The latter would not happen if patriarchy per se were hard-wired into us.

There's no absolutes in evolution, the "male supremacy" was never a material necessity, it just "happened" - it just happened to be the more successful model for replication (for good and bad reasons) than others.



Yes, since other models existed (and still exist in some isolated tribes) then it's certainly not hard-wired.

Roman historians of course document female chieftains and a lot is made of viking shield maidens. Interestingly the only tribe who had female warriors were nomadic Scythians. early Yamnaya burials in Russia and Ukraine show females buried with weapons.

However DNA suggest it's the Y chromosome that laid waste in lands conquered by the Yamnaya.