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. — BC

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.

Let's speculate about how victimized women were in the past, so we can project more original sin on men in the present. The lord of strife cares not whence the resentment flows, as long as it does. — Tzeentch

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.

:up: Yes contrary to the popular picture.

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.

Men have been abusing women from the dawn of recorded history. I'm sure the abuse happend way before that. If you get a bunch of men and women together human nature is such that a non-trivial amount of men are going to violate the women. Tim wood thinks perhaps 100% of women can tell a story of sexual assault. I think he's right. All the women I know have horror stories about men.

Men have been abusing women from the dawn of recorded history. I'm sure the abuse happend way before that. If you get a bunch of men and women together human nature is such that a non-trivial amount of men are going to violate the women. Tim wood thinks perhaps 100% of women can tell a story of sexual assault. I think he's right. All the women I know have horror stories about men. — RogueAI

While yet upholding my previous views as pertain to the very distant prehistory of our human species, I can’t find anything to disagree with in what you’ve 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:

What’s 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:

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by paleoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[33][34][35][36]

Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.[37][38][39] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

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). — javra

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?

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? — RogueAI

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.

In my intense 30 minute exploration of this topic, it seems clear the prevailing theory is that ancient foraging societies were more egalitarian and protective of women than existed in societies with stratified power structures with kings and temples.

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.

But anywho, what is the philosophical import of this sociological discussion? — Hanover

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).

----------

Tim wood thinks perhaps 100% of women can tell a story of sexual assault. I think he's right. All the women I know have horror stories about men. — RogueAI

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. — Hanover

I see an incongruity in the propositional content of these two quotes.

All the women I know have horror stories about men. — RogueAI

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.

why do we think it matters if women fared better in prehistoric times than today? — 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.

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. — AmadeusD

It's a small percentage of men in first world countries.

Yes, a fair point. Embarrassingly ignorant of me (genuinely).

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. — AmadeusD

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.

Is this to say that devoid of some authoritarian oversight humans - and, in particular, men - are naturally abusive? — javra

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.

How then to account for the general egalitarianism of the hunter-gatherer tribes which are present in the current day? — 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.

Issues such as this then signifying that men will naturally rape as many women as they/we can — 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?

How then to account for the general egalitarianism of the hunter-gatherer tribes which are present in the current day? — 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. — AmadeusD

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).

But that subjection of women to their men, rife in pretty much every group on that list. — 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"?

I’m 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.)

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? — Hanover

Catharsis for people who have a chip on their shoulder, probably.

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? — javra

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.

ve previously given references to my affirmations — 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.

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? — javra

No, because I didn't claim this. — AmadeusD

Again, what you in fact claimed:

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. — AmadeusD

My knowledge of several of those groups is that they are decidedly not egalitarian, even in principle. — 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.

I sense some bristling in this response, so forgive me for being pretty lack luster in mine. I don't care for bristles — 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.

"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. — AmadeusD

As to examples like this one, no, I'm not seeing any problem whatsoever in terms of egalitarian governance of the tribe.

"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. — 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:

The Kets have a rich and varied culture, filled with an abundance of Siberian mythology, including shamanistic practices and oral traditions. Siberia, the area of Russia in which the Kets reside, has long been identified as the originating place of the Shaman or Shamanism. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people#Culture

-------

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. — 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.

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. — 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,.

Again, what you in fact claimed: — javra

So, totally not at all what you said I did. This is getting bizarre my guy.

Rationally then, your affirmations entail that in the absence of a non-egalitarian, hence authoritarian leadership which "oversees", societies will have ample "abuse" ingroup — 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.

Can you then, instead, reference tribes wherein abuse is rampant ingroup due to not having authoritarian leadersphip? — 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.

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. — javra

Or for fucks sake. Take care mate.