Pretty good article about the disaster of feminism.

This part went off the rails though:

“Some scholars speculate that the first human societies were matriarchal or, at the very least, centered around women and their needs.”

___________

Is that speculating, or fantasizing?

Or feminist wishful thinking (or intentional denial of Genesis) (or both)?

.
.

“This is not only plausible but likely.”

____________

Nope.

Not likely.

Not even a little.

If the scholars insist on abandoning the Biblical account, then it was law of the jungle, which means the strongest ruled.

The strongest males had multiple concubines (whoever they chose, because who would stop them?) and the weakest males had whoever was left. This is reflected even today in that women are hypergamous and willing to share a ‘high value’ male, but the reverse is not true.

Kings have harems.

Queens don’t.

If there is an exception to that rule in the historical record, it would only prove the rule.

.
.

“The primordial world human beings first found themselves thrown into was a world of terror, violence, and death. Man, in this original state, knew neither philosophy nor science. He did not have writing or mathematics. Buffeted by indifferent natural forces—rains, forest fires, and storms—he began to worship such phenomena out of fear and superstition.

Survival—the preservation of mere life—was his first and overwhelming concern. The demands of survival and reproduction dominated these human communities.”

______________

Nope.

If you are talking about the ‘primordial world’ (and still rejecting the Biblical account) then the only survival that counted was one’s own life.

If they “knew neither philosophy nor science”, they didn’t know about reproduction either. Reproduction would have been a mysterious occasional result of intercourse.

And because only sometimes did it cause pregnancy, and many times it did not, the randomness, without “philosophy or science”, would make understanding ’cause and effect’ dubious at best. Who knows how long it took to understand that intercourse caused pregnancy.

The desire to have children is not what drove reproduction, it was the drive to have sex.

Reproduction is a byproduct of that drive.

And that drive is far stronger in males than in females.

.
.

“For society to endure, women’s needs had to be met.”

__________

Primordial people without “philosophy nor science” have no need or interest in society.

They need only the base layer of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.

.
.

“Some scholars estimate that in Greek antiquity, up to a third of women would die due to complications with childbirth. Children faced an even more uncertain world—until the 1900s, roughly half of all children died before reaching adulthood. 

It is easy to understand how such societies could become matriarchal.”

_____________

It’s easy to speculate and fantasize, if one has a feminist worldview.

Not so easy to understand.

Jungle Law is defined by strength and violence.

So unless the women tricked all the violent, horny men into subservience, that’s not happening in any sort of organic ‘natural order’, in the same way that modern feminism hasn’t happened as the result of any organic or ‘natural order’, either.

But don’t take my word for it.

Take a gaggle of hotties, and throw them in a men’s maximum security penitentiary, and see what happens. It’s a feminist’s wet dream to even PRETEND the results would be other than the obvious.

Make the number of women equal to the number of men, and the result is the same.

Make the number of women twice the number of men, and the result will be the same.

Make the number of women five times the number of men, and the result will be the same.

It’s a testament to the power of feminist fantasy that anyone might argue otherwise.

A strong man can physically defeat at least 5 ‘normal’ women at once. A strong, violent man — the kind of men in maximum security prisons, or in the primordial world — could physically defeat more than 5 women at once, easily. With a shank, it wouldn’t last more than 30 seconds.

There are skilled male fighters who can defeat 3 other skilled male fighters at once. He could sure as %$@# beat 5 or more regular women.

.

.
.

“Women of childbearing age were a precious resource. Their needs — the needs of bare life— dominated the consciousness of such communities.”

____________

Speculation on the consciousness of primordial communities which have neither ‘philosophy nor science’?

.

“In such circumstances, men were more expendable. Keeping them in line would have been relatively easy. Women and their allies — their male orbiters and drones — had plenty of incentives to curtail any rebellious or spirited behavior. Control over sexual access and reproduction is an effective way to keep a male population in line.”

_____

In the immortal words of Steven Tyler: “Dream On“.

It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of natural power dynamics, based on physical prowess, in an environment where might makes right.

Put as many females as you want in a men’s penitentiary, and see how long it takes for the men to become ‘orbiters and drones’ who say “how high” whenever Queen Hottie says ‘Jump!’

That script might work for a ‘B’ movie, but not in real life.

Go ahead, test that idea, see how that works out.

This is the kind of intellectual debilitation that results from 5+ decades of Western feminism.

The rest of the article seemed pretty good.