Judging from the Bible, women were property falling under the protection of their owner, although by no means necessarily protected from him. From Herodotus stories of places where women were more independent. And of course the Amazons. Ancient American history suggests that women were not well-treated in ancient American civilizations. And the modern record is atrocious, with estimates of one quarter to one half of all women having been subject to some sexual assault. My own opinion is that figure is closer to 100%.

do you think this was something that during prehistoric or ancient times was also commonplace among our ancestors? — Shawn

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.

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. — javra

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.

Really? I mean. Okay. Based on what information? Were you there or something? :lol: — Outlander

The first paragraph in the subsection "Social and economic structure":

Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[26][27] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America and the Calusa in Florida) are an exception to this rule.[28][29][30] For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.[31] Karl Marx defined this socio-economic system as primitive communism.[32] — 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.

Perhaps you simply forgot and omitted the oh-so-forgettable "I imagine" preface in front of your ideal description of the world. — Outlander

Any particular reason you hold to presume things were any different prior to written history commencing? To be clear, this in hunter-gatherer tribes.

Any particular reason you hold to presume things were any different prior to written history commencing? — javra

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?

One could assume — Outlander

Can you explicate a little the difference between 'assume' and 'imagine'?

Life used to be a lot harsher, and neither men nor women had it very good.

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.

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)? — Shawn

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.

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? — Outlander

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?

I’m running on the presumption that we are strictly addressing Homo Sapiens. Wouldn’t 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:

Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 200,000 years ago by Homo sapiens. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers lived in groups that consisted of several families resulting in a size of a few dozen people.[10] It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution. — 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.

Can you explicate a little the difference between 'assume' and 'imagine'? — unenlightened

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.

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. — 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.

But, I would still question your assumption that — Outlander

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?

I'd like to reiterate the stance taken in this thread, being that, if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, then what were preventing these tendencies in the past (prehistoric times) if there were no police, law enforcement, or laws protecting their livelihoods?

That would only be the imaginary part?

I do think it's pretty likely that violence in general, and sexual violence against women in particular, was more common the further back from "societies" we go.

then what were preventing these tendencies in the past (prehistoric times) if there were no police, law enforcement, or laws protecting their livelihoods? — Shawn

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.

I do think it's pretty likely that violence in general, and sexual violence against women in particular, was more common the further back from "societies" we go. — flannel jesus

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.

no direct evidence, but I don't think there's direct counter evidence either so I think about what seems more likely

if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, — Shawn

Men aren't "still so predatory" at all. Violent sex offenders are a miniscule fraction of the population.

There is 100% inarguably an over-assumption of the intent of men to rape women, and the actual number of people who do this (or, sexually assault them in any way that speaks to intent - this is, in my experience and knowledge, equal between the sexes, but for some reason if both are drunk he's the bad guy.. go figure).
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.).

no direct evidence — flannel jesus

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?

nope

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. — javra

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.

I'm not claiming that abuse of women was in those days non-existent. But then neither am I claiming that abuse of men also did not on occasion happen. Tribal societies only began changing with the advent of animal domestication and their herding. Till then, there of course were occasions of inter-tribal warfare, in which one can well presume the "abuse" of others from different tribes. Still, overall, there is no indication pointing to hunter-gatherer tribes not being of a largely egalitarian ethos.

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. — Outlander

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 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. — Jamal

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.

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. — Christoffer

:halo: