Were women hurt in the distant past?
I have this despairing thought that given how many criminal minded men commit rape and molestation of women, even the cases that don't get caught for, then do you think this was something that during prehistoric or ancient times was also commonplace among our ancestors? I mean, back then the laws professed towards women were much less favorable towards women, and how did they (men) get punished, if at all, once committing such crimes (rape/molestation of women)?
Comments (49)
If by "the distant past" you're willing to go all the way back to when everyone was of a hunter and gatherer tribe, all indications seem to suggest otherwise. As far as I know regarding what is known at large, not barring exceptions to the rule, these tribes tended to be (and tend to be) very democratic in their leadership by our modern standards.
The caveman with club in hand knocking over the dame on the head so as to take her back to his cave ... its one of those stories that is more a reflection of the tellers than it is of what actually occurred in prehistoric times.
Really? I mean. Okay. Based on what information? Were you there or something? :lol:
I like your posts but this one is just off the rails, mate. I get we like to imagine the world, past included, as some "better place" crafted in our own benevolent image, but, yeah, where are you getting this information from? Perhaps you simply forgot and omitted the oh-so-forgettable "I imagine" preface in front of your ideal description of the world.
The first paragraph in the subsection "Social and economic structure":
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
There's a lot more to read to the same effect, with most of it being well-enough referenced.
Any particular reason you hold to presume things were any different prior to written history commencing? To be clear, this in hunter-gatherer tribes.
Well, for starters. nature itself as can be witnessed today is a pretty brutal if not outright savage environment. One could assume, if we slowly became set apart from this environment, and were once immersed in it knowing nothing but the sort, for how could our lesser evolved predecessors possibly have, things were quite, as they say, savage. Makes sense, no?
Can you explicate a little the difference between 'assume' and 'imagine'?
I think this 'historical victimhood' yarn is a modern political thing, meant to grab people by their emotions by getting them to identify with a historical narrative, making them feel insecure about themselves and resentful for the other in the present day - usually based on questionable and one-sided interpretations of history that categorically paint "themselves" as the moral victim, and the "other" as the immoral abuser based on superficial characteristics.
The same is visible among groups like BLM, MGTOW, etc.
Note how grievance crowds create new grievance crowds.
It's how you play people.
In Sweden the first legislation protecting women was given by king Magnus Ladulås in 1280. In Finnish, the term use is naisrauha, direct translation is women peace, legislation was given to protect women from harassment, including sexual harassment. Basically it forbid to have any sex without being married and stated adultery also be illegal (which was naturally already there). Thanks to the legislation, a women didn't have to have a witness to a rape. Hence these legal attitudes go a long way. And punishment? You could get the death penalty, as typically for Medieval times you could get for many things.
Yet I think that we should notice that even today in societies where women don't have rights and don't participate in the workforce, they are protected. At least in the eyes of the societies themselves. Every woman or girl is someone's daughter. And when the women marries, then there is her husband and his family.
Seems to me that, in order for this to make any kind of sense whatsoever, one would need to presume that the hunter-gatherers who live in nature itself as it is witnessed today are significantly unlike the prehistoric hunter-gatherers who lived in nature itself as it was in prehistoric times.
What evidence, rational or empirical, do you have for this?
Im running on the presumption that we are strictly addressing Homo Sapiens. Wouldnt make much sense to call a female chimp or a female bonobo a "woman, for example. Still, for the record, all current indications point to hunter-gatherer societies being around for far longer:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Archaeological_evidence
emphasis mine
------
Your former kumbaya-like sarcasm aside, I so far don't find any reason to affirm that my initial assertion was not, generally speaking, spot on. Again, this from what I know regarding what is known at large.
Meant to imply a more 'context'-based reasoning and process of conclusion for a claim as opposed to just a "well I just always imagined it being like that" sort of assessment of a period in time we were absent in that is hundreds of thousands of years senior to our own, is all. I see it really did not however. Thanks. Good catch.
Quoting javra
All of this is fine, I just want to make sure we're arguing for or against the same simple claim. That claim (of mine?) being:
Human rights violations (rape, theft, murder, etc.) occurred much more frequently and were of increased severity in earlier times before widespread civilization and modern society, typically affecting the most vulnerable persons or groups of people (in this case, women being part of that category -- whether or not this "vulnerability" is intrinsic and biological or simply a result of the society and its social norms at the time notwithstanding).
--
I'm fairly certain that's correct and the sentiment of "oh it probably wasn't really that bad" just kind of sticks out as non-factual to me. It doesn't to you? Not even a little?
I get what your saying, civility, social cohesion, and "social norms" are not brand spanking new things exclusive to the modern era, per se. But, I would still question your assumption that -- just as even today domestic abuse is rampant, results in serious injury, and even murder, despite us living in a society and world those before us could never even imagine with essentially 90% of the hardships those before us faced now being effectively non-existent -- it wasn't much worse back then and more prevalent (if that is what you imply, which to me seems to be so).
I mean, it's 2025 and in some places in the world, women are having their sexual organs and breasts mutilated/flattened/etc. right now as you read this (by their own families per social custom, not criminals for torture/dehumaniztion/etc.). So that points out even today there's a (presumably lowered/negative) social stigma toward women, so imagine back then. Plus there's always some news article about a gang rape or something if you pay attention to global/int'l news long enough. And that's today. I just don't see how one can rationally assume it wasn't much worse back then, particularly way back then in societies that didn't have law enforcement, standardized education, or basically any sort of social service or humane form of justice let alone any intricate, codified system of laws.
Man, I offered you two links which, I so far find, directly evidence my affirmation. Do you question the verity of the references linked to? On what grounds if so? (each has references of its own to academic articles and the like)
Otherwise, again - other than what you yourself "imagine to have once been" - what rational or empirical evidence do you have to support that the hunter-gatherers of today - which tend to be egalitarian in their ethos - are any different from the hunter-gatherers of prehistoric times?
That would only be the imaginary part?
The egalitarianism-oriented social cohesion of the tribal societies, this in regard to hunter-gatherer tribes of the past - just as much as it pertains to, and based on what we know of, the hunter-gatherer tribes of today.
Hunter-gatherer tribes are "societies". Otherwise you are by no means alone in this perspective, but where is the actual evidence for this perspective when it comes to the hunter-gatherer societies of the past? Other than what @Outlander has addressed as being pure imaginings.
Men aren't "still so predatory" at all. Violent sex offenders are a miniscule fraction of the population.
This isn't to ignore the facts. Which is ironic, considering the thread.
To answer OP, I think it is folly to assume they were not. But I would defer to takes like Mill's, which points out that most women were, at least to some degree, willing participants due to centuries of indoctrination and then in each individual female, their lot was given to them via education and the wisdom of their parents - furthering that participation by coercion.
This all to say, we wouldn't have much evidence, despite javra's references, that consistent and constant sexual assault occurred, as it has everywhere we have ever documented it (though, it shouldn't really be needed, but around here it tends to be: This does not speak against my opening point. It speaks to the well-known fact that extremes of violence and rights-interference is almost solely the domain of a specific, small group men.).
I take it by this that you weren't there yourself. OK. Neither was I or any other living person. But then the same applies to all history a century old or longer.
Can you then reference any academic paper as "indirect" evidence for what you've affirmed?
Yes, I agree that the social cohesion of tribes or hunter-gatherer societies of the past would have broken apart had men taken advantage of women in the past. However, I am not sure if this was commonplace. Obviously the ambiguity of this situation should not warrant doubt, yet, one does wonder. I would even hypothesize that the more evolved groups did better or assimilated other hunter-gatherer societies more successfully than the ones that were less evolved in terms of group behavior towards women.
You appear to think the existence of a codified system of laws speaks for itself, as something that should benefit women, when in reality, legal codes have existed for most of history to restrict women's rights to autonomy, property, and freedom of movement (and not only in the past, of course).
I thought it was widely known that civilization, meaning a sedentary society built on intensive agriculture and characterized by social stratification and state institutions, has usually resulted in an oppression of women much worse than they experienced in hunter-gatherer societies. It happens that way for various reasons, including property and inheritance, which requires the control of reproduction. Even if men were dominant in many cases in earlier societies, in civilized society this was intensified and institutionalized.
I mean, this seems to be the most common view among anthropologists and in associated disciplines, so assertions to the contrary probably need some kind of support, rather than just intuition.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that because of the nature of reproduction, men has always been powerless in their will to produce offspring since women could gatekeep this ability with the complexity of caring a child for 9 months. So men institutionalize suppression of women's rights, manipulate culture towards ideals that favor men in order to allow them psychological control over women in order to control their own lineage.
I would imagine that cultures which focused heavily on portraying mothers as something divine, in opposition, produced cultures of matriarchal power or influence and less violence against women.
Large societal culture and sociological behavior forms out of small beginnings, and I would argue that the emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped early societies formed certain cultural behaviors that evolved into larger cultures. The male-oriented authoritarian figure stems from their dominant presence and violence of warfare and suppressing women also had to do with controlling the women in places men won wars in order to dominate a conquered land into lineages of power through offspring. A powerful woman could reject this.
Most of how modern culture, or rather outdated modern views in both men and women, echoes these past behaviors. But the whole reason why we hear so much about it today is because we've put a spotlight on the problems with men trying to control women.
This is why feminism philosophy tend to rile up emotions in immature people, because it is a radical thinking that questions a programmed behavior that's been around for thousands of years, always perpetuated by emotional reactions and immature ideas of biological factors.
It's about the sense of powerlessness expressed in men through violent outburst. The existential dread of being spawning a need to control everything around; especially women since they hold the keys to continued existence through granting men children.
The violence stems from the evolutionary drive to reproduce and the lack of control an individual has over their own destiny. This is the source of men's violence against women and only though understanding how immature and childish such ideas are can society heal from this tension between evolution and self-awareness of continued existence.
What we see today is an awakening to these facts, but most of society is still stuck in these old narratives and ideas. There's no wonder that violence against women is more common in large cultures and societies that are intellectually underdeveloped or in which knowledge is suppressed by authoritarian leaders or religious rulers.
Violence against women was the norm of the old world, it was more common and generally accepted or ignored compared to today. Waking up to the reasons of this is part of the same movement of enlightenment that began in the enlightenment era; breaking down old concepts, re-examine them and forming new and more rational understanding of it all.
What we see today with the tension between men and women is what's normally happens when an ingrained culture is discovered to be outdated and bad; it's not easy to change, especially when much of society is structurally built around the ideas of the past.
Violence against women today is not a new phenomena, and it's actually less common than before; but it's talked about more. The very existence of this forum thread in a male dominated space of discourse is in itself proof of the intellectual awakening in this topic.
:halo:
A century ago or longer? Hell, it could be an hour ago, and witnesses might not be at all sure, or in agreement, about what happened.
Quoting javra
Quoting Outlander
Old as I am, I wasn't there either. However, I have objections to some of the claims about hunter gatherers:
a) Sometimes the remaining hunter-gatherer groups are taken as examples of what existed 100,000 years ago. It seems unlikely that over 100,000 years, there would be no change in the way hunter gatherer people conducted their affairs.
b) I very much doubt if there is a shred of archeological evidence demonstrating that a people who lived 90,000 years ago, or 40,000 or 25,000 were democratically organized. If stones were in a circle, would that be proof?
c) there is some tendency to project current ideals upon the long-gone people of the past--100,000 years ago or 100 years ago--just as long as they are all dead.
d) there is some evidence that ancient people (hunter gatherers, 100,000 years ago) were capable of, and performed violence. A survey of a substantial number of museum skulls found that quite a few of them had been bashed in.
e) vulnerable women: How vulnerable were hunter gatherer women for whom survival likely depended on a fairly robust level of strength?
Homo sapiens hunter gatherers weren't just like us -- because much of what we are depends on when, where, how, and by whom we are bred and raised. That idea should be at least somewhat acceptable to essentialists and constructionists alike.
It's difficult to talk about how often women were raped in the distant past when at this present time, it is possible to be convicted of raping ones wife, which presumably is not the same thing as a young man engaging in an urgent fuck with a young woman digging up roots and picking berries on the savannas.
It's a mistake to believe that before modern police and law enforcement or written laws there was just total anarchy without any laws. The benefits of having rules is evident in any society, be it family, a tribe or a larger entity of people. Protecting your property and your family members or members of your pack is obvious, actually even with animals.
(A lion pride is very effective both in hunting and in protecting the cubs... assuming there's plenty of food to feed everyone.)
With humans, this develops very quickly to much more than a mother protecting her offspring from predators or a pack taking care of it's members. If you went to steal cattle or a wife from some village, likely the villagers would form a group to take back the stolen property or people. This develops quickly to organized responses, which we would call warfare.
Coming back to the subject, just look at the history of "the police" and how it has evolved through time. Modern police evolved basically in the 18th and 19th Centuries, even if Sheriffs and similar offices had been around for far longer. It was Michel Foucault who wrote that the contemporary concept of police as a paid and funded functionary of the state was developed by German and French legal scholars and practitioners in public administration in the 17th and early 18th centuries. You do have earlier nightwatches etc. and hence there is no radical transformation from earlier times.
And what is totally normal behavior universally is that if the police lose their authority, lose the ability to keep the peace, then vigilante groups take their role quite quickly fill in the void. This can be seen from many examples when countries have fallen into civil war. This fact just shows that a society without a functioning police will quickly form something to fill this void. At worst, the vigilantes can easily turn into criminal gangs simply from the fact that the members have to be paid for their service. Taxes become a protection racket. Or then organized crime takes over.
I would say that historically the institutions and the control over people was far more weaker than today, which then is shown just how strict the laws were back then. Notice how in the legal systems hundreds of years ago, you could get from many offenses the capital punishment.
No shit. Culture plays a role in who we are? Go figure.
Last I heard though, a species of lifeform is defined as such by its genotype, not its culture.
Now, I'm certain that some learned peers here abouts will have doubts about this "claim" as well, the only science that means anything being that addressing the physicality of quanta and the pi which makes this scientific study possible. The conclusion of these doubts then being? That males have always been misogynists as a cohort at large in the human species because so being is genetically hardwired into being a "true man"?
This would then rely on the biological science of genetics, though, via which we as a species of animal get defined biologically.
But, hey, debates will go on.
That does seem to be the case.
Even if people--males and females both--don't live in accordance with the rules of a Quaker Sunday school, people do behave reasonably well towards each other in most places most of the time, now and in the past. Civilization, let alone survival, requires too much cooperation for anything else to be the norm.
Then there is the fact that we are animals and part of nature, which offends some peoples' sensitivities.
Judging from modern anthropological studies of existing forager societies it would seem likely that much of the violence towards both women and men would have involved members of other tribes and clans.
It seems that most social animals treat members of their own group well enough but can be savage towards rival groups.
While yet upholding my previous views as pertain to the very distant prehistory of our human species, I cant find anything to disagree with in what youve written (humanity hasn't been purely hunter-gatherer long before recorded, or at least written, history began). To me it all pivots on the occurrence, else issue, of the inequity of power and the respect for other, or else the lack of these (in no particular order or correspondence). With these two aspects of value being, for better or worse, a mostly cultural aspect of our human species (hence, of its many races and individual ethnicities).
-------
:up: Agreed. But to emphasize this:
Whats striking about the Homo sapiens species of animal is that - unlike, for example, the often authoritarian hierarchies of chimpanzee tribe-cultures (they too pass on cohort-relative knowledge from generation to generation, with tool use and specific variations in facial expression as two examples of such cultural transmission) - Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be of a largely egalitarian ethos (such that the general tendency is for every adult individual having a voice of roughly equal value as pertains to the governance of the tribe in total). With this quick reference speaking much to this effect:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
Suppose there's a parallel universe where everything else is the same, but men are weaker than women. Would we see the same rates of rape and abuse?
I'm here presuming you mean to say "men are weaker than women" in this parallel world physically and politically, rather than psychologically. It's been my experience (in the military) that most men are anxious if not fearful of injections, whereas most women are not - to not bring in the psychological strength required for human childbirth.
Granting similar inequity of physical and political power and a similar general want of respect for the other - this in an "us vs. them" state of mind as regards the sexes (e.g., what man likes being called "a pussy", as just one common enough example in the world we inhabit) - I can easily fathom the same general rates of abuse of the weaker sex (here, men) by the stronger (here, women). But not the same general rates of rape: this because a) men are the ones biologically endowed with penises by definition (right?) and b) - either via forms of love (minimally, consensuality, even if it occurs via S&M in which physical pain might be wanted and given) or, else, via willful cruelties (unconsensual almost by definition: this being "the willful causing of suffering in another") - it is only men who thereby gain sexual, physical pleasure via use of their penises to penetrate others (here taking into account homosexuality as well).
That said, I don't find women any more "innately benevolent" than I do men. It's just that (when addressed as a whole) each sex has its own biological and hence physical equipment and, maybe, its own general talents and other psychical abilities (though how much of the latter is strictly genetic vs. cultural I don't presume to know) - which, in either sex, could be used either constructively to promote harmony or not.
I doubt that I can provide references to this (other than the biological aspects of being a man :smile: ), but it is what I generally uphold.
As societies progressed in that regard, things were more dangerous for women. These conclusions are not based upon direct evidence, but upon extrapolations from modern hunter gatherer societies, primates, human neurobiology, and various observations of human behavior.
Direct evidence in the form of YouTube shorts (an excellent documentation of base human behavior) is missing, so assumptions must be made. Ancient literature is not supportive of the ancient egalitarian thesis, although it might be rejected as being written post-power stratification. It is true that recorded history is not supportive of the ancient egalitarian thesis, so we must draw a distinction (whatever that might be) between those ancient societies and the prehistoric ones.
But anywho, what is the philosophical import of this sociological discussion? I can see it being used as a Marxist basis to question the morality of a competitive society that elevates the power of the strong over the weak (quite literally men over women), and so we ought (morally that is) rethink our investment in overly competitive structures if equal protection of all citizens is our objective.
The above commentary though might be considered a simplistic strawman that no one really submits, but I offer it just to ask the question of why do we think it matters if women fared better in prehistoric times than today? As in, the evolution of human societies takes a path, and along the route women fare better and worse depending upon the moment. From my vantage point today, it does seem at this moment substantial efforts at female protection and enforcing equality are being made.
If most of the human species 200,000-year or so existence has been of a largely egalitarian nature at least within ingroups, this might illustrate that human males are not genetically hardwired to be misogynists as far as the human species (as it's biologically defined to this day) goes. It might also support the credence that men being innately superior relative to women - i.e. male chauvinism - is not supportable in strictly biological terms (but gains its support strictly form culture, e.g. God said so, therefore so it is; Edit: else via cultural understandings of 'evolution via natural selection" as conceptualized by those who do not know and don't give a hoot about what evolutionists of biological science actually say - the history of our human species being just one such example).
----------
Quoting RogueAI
Quoting Hanover
I see an incongruity in the propositional content of these two quotes.
Not at the women I know, so he is definitely wrong. That's not to bring down the importance of the issue, but it is actually pretty important to note, even if the 100% were even a reasonable take, that it is a small proportion of men. Not noting, and genuinely taking this into account, leads to endless cycles of gendered bias, in both directions, as reaction to prevailing wisdom. I suppose it could be said that at least women have a legitimate claim to care about this, but I think that misses the point. Not listening got us there. And it will again.
Quoting Hanover
If there is a way to avoid teh above (whther you read my words as impugning conversations around harm to women, or conversations around men) we want it.
If there were societies in the past that were truly egalitarian (i content there are none), then surely we want, for policy reasons, to understand how and why (and, how and why it changed), no?
I think it would also be extremely interesting, if we had a way to know what went on back then, to add to our pool of data about human behaviour under different circumstances and more specifically, gender relations.
I think the idea that a pre-historic society was egalitarian is pretty much a DOA. Nothing to it. The less oversight society has, more abuse happens.
It's a small percentage of men in first world countries.
Is this to say that devoid of some authoritarian oversight humans - and, in particular, men - are naturally abusive?
Issues such as this then signifying that men will naturally rape as many women as they/we can were it not for such oversight (this not being an ethical characteristic by the standards of most) aside:
How then to account for the general egalitarianism of the hunter-gatherer tribes which are present in the current day? There's more than a handful of these.
Hard to use the word abusive, but in modern parlance, yeah, sure, i'll take that. But I don't think calling a natural proclivity "abusive" helps the discussion, though. It's currently abusive behaviour because of hte fact that male power has been checked, and its an abuse of power.
Anyhow, I think without oversight, survival success is the overarching metric, and people will do all sorts of what we call abusive stuff when they can particularly when communication is less nuanced. Moreover, I think the impetus to fuck anything that moves is one that we never, and will never, shake and men have the entire advantage there. Degrees, obviously, but the Jason Momoa-looking among us would, I take it, always understand their power and the lack of oversight/retribution for same. I cannot see why they would refrain from raping ad infinitum in that world.
Quoting javra
Easy: The rest of the world are no longer in those situations. My knowledge of several of those groups is that they are decidedly not egalitarian, even in principle. "traditional" gender roles are traditional because they are naturally enacted when required. We, in the modern world, don't require them. But that subjection of women to their men, rife in pretty much every group on that list. Is that not abusive? In many, the (implicit) rape and marrying off of children (girls) is rife.
Quoting javra
Not quite, but most of the way down that line, yes, i think so. The fact that this has never actually stopped, seems an obvious clue. There are plenty of societies in which raping women is accepted, and sometimes protected by law. Do you think this might be a reflection of a type of nature?
You offer a lot of opinions and thoughts in your post, but I am interested in the potential facts of the matter.
To begin with, can you provide references evidencing that modern hunter-gather societies - or at least some such - are of an authoritarian leadership which so 'oversees' all others in the tribe so as to preserve social cohesion? (this rather than being societies of generally egalitarian governance).
Quoting AmadeusD
Next, can you provide references to how "the subjection of women to their men is rife in pretty much every group on that list"?
Im assuming these references will be easy for you to provide, given the knowledge you say you have regarding these matters. (I've previously given references to my affirmations. It'd be odd for you not to do likewise.)
Catharsis for people who have a chip on their shoulder, probably.
No, because I didn't claim this. I sense some bristling in this response, so forgive me for being pretty lack luster in mine. I don't care for bristles. I talked about hte subjection of women. So, yeah, i'll be answering to that. I've also noted how self-defeating many of your bristles are. Not looking good for future exchanges, I have to say.
Quoting javra
You gave me a Wikipedia list? No facts involved, my man.
It was also one which you can just click on each of those pages, and check their social organisation: in almost all cases, men hunt and build and marriage/sex is patriarchal - even in the cases where this is, supposedly, not the case, the article contradicts itself, The very first one:
"In the Aka community, despite a sexual division of labor where women primarily serve as caregivers, male and female roles are highly flexible and interchangeable. Women hunt while men care for children, and vice versa, without stigma or loss of status. Women are not only as likely as men to hunt but can even be more proficient hunters."
If you're not seeing a problem, I can't say I care to explain it. Next, we get:
"leadership roles such as kombeti (leader), tuma (elephant hunter), and nganga (top healer) are consistently held by men in a community studied by anthropologist Barry Hewlett.[7]"
And, as I suspected in my earlier post/s, the article also very vaguely points out that colonialism changed their behaviours. No mention of the social changes, though you could simply go looking:
"Resulting changes in Aka social organization are difficult if not impossible to reconstruct for this early period. "
Given that other groups lost their strict women-subjecting culture upon colonisation (an example below) this isn't a stretch to say "I think someone's avoiding something"
Another random click:
the Moriori, in their attempts to get rid of gendered violence institutionalized it
"...because men get angry and during such anger feel the will to strike, that so they may, but only with a rod the thickness of a thumb, and one stretch of the arms length, and thrash away, but that on an abrasion of the hide, or first sign of blood, all should consider honour satisfied.
?Oral tradition[30]"
Another:
"The Ket was incorporated into the Russian state in the 17th century. Their efforts to resist were unsuccessful as the Russians deported them to different places in an attempt to break up their resistance. This broke up their strictly organized patriarchal social system and their way of life disintegrated."
And one more:
"The Bambuti tend to follow a patrilineal descent system, and their residences after marriage are patrilocal..... The only type of group seen amongst the Bambuti is the nuclear family."
"Sister exchange is the common form of marriage. Based on reciprocal exchange, men from other bands exchange sisters or other females to whom they have ties.[9]"
Clearly not egalitarian, despite the claim (not referenced) in the following paragraph, that they are.
I also spent about eight years looking in to and speaking with members of Amazonian tribes (for different reasons) and it was patently obvious all of those groups (Jivaro, Shipibo, Ashaninka etc..) are patriarchal through endless books, conversations and papers - I can't pull out some specific reference without carrying out some actual research, which this thread doesn't call for.
Further, this concept of hte 'noble savage" or some weird idea that indigenous societies were more just than ours needs to stop. They were mostly brutal and unforgiving.
Again, what you in fact claimed:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Rationally then, your affirmations entail that in the absence of a non-egalitarian, hence authoritarian leadership which "oversees", societies will have ample "abuse" ingroup.
I personally don't know of tribes which have ample abuse ingroup. So I assumed that you knew of tribes with authoritarian leadership.
Can you then, instead, reference tribes wherein abuse is rampant ingroup due to not having authoritarian leadersphip?
If not, your claims above are unjustified and, thereby, rather hollow.
Quoting AmadeusD
Might as well be calling me a porcupine. Name-calling, while it might have its political advantages amongst some, is not something that validates affirmations, though.
Quoting AmadeusD
As to examples like this one, no, I'm not seeing any problem whatsoever in terms of egalitarian governance of the tribe.
Quoting AmadeusD
Because a patrilineal society cannot be egalitarian, or because the "exchange" of women cannot be consensual?
-------
You offered just one reference to one patriarchal society, the Ket. Which does not a generality make.
Furthermore, if the Ket were patriarchal, this is because we know via their oral tradition that these tribes were led by shaman (it's from these peoples that the term "shaman" gained its repute) which were men. This as is clearly stated in the article:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people#Culture
-------
Quoting AmadeusD
Given your empirical expertise, you might then want to rewrite the Wikipedia page on hunter-gatherers, which directly contradicts your claims. Again, this as pertains to hunter-gatherers at large as they are known to be in various scientific fields. I say this quite earnestly, for truth is truth and facts matter.
Till then, I'll trust what the referenced scientists say.
Quoting AmadeusD
First off, I made no such mention of a "noble savage" - and only claimed they were/are largely egalitarian, which in no way precludes their ability to be brutally violent for reasons such as that of self defense or warfare.
Secondly, the boldfaced affirmation seems to directly speak to the very same inference based on your previous posts made at the beginning of this one post: namely, that of there being a good sum of ingroup abuse.
To which, again, references are as of yet lacking to show how hunter-gatherer tribes are "mostly brutal and unforgiving" or else "abusive" when it comes to ingroup members. This even as pertains to the very few human-cannibalism-practicing tribes among them,.
So, totally not at all what you said I did. This is getting bizarre my guy.
Quoting javra
That is not rational. That is you making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Forgive me for skimming the rest of this. You're clearly not here to engage in anything but a pissing match.
Quoting javra
No idea what you're talking about anymore. You're contradicting your claim, reversing hte question you've posed to me, and in any case i've given ample reason to dismiss these quibbles.
Quoting javra
Or for fucks sake. Take care mate.