tl;dr: fuck off if you don't want to read. High IQcels only...
An interesting statement from feminists and normies in general regarding women goes something like, "women couldn't work." This is usually brought up to add a point on the scoreboard of the silly oppression Olympic games people like to play. Rarely though do I hear a rebuttal from the opposing side going into the actual reasons why female agency was restricted especially in pre industrial societies. It's understandable as to why. When these internet conversions go into full debate bro mode neither side wants to concede any point. It's especially tough for the anti feminist crowd because explaining why female agency had to be restricted is far more involved and nuanced than simply saying wOmEn weRe oPpReSsEd. I invite anyone here to meditate on this subject with me further.
First of all it's important to note that human society is no different in essence than an ant colony or a bee hive. What I mean by that is if you take a single human, it can be difficult to predict their behavior since we are irrational creatures. However when you zoom out and view the actions of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of individuals then their collective decisions make more rational sense. In a fascinating way the collective efforts of these millions of humans, ants, whatever tend to add up to more than the sum of their parts. The more relevant question is why do these large societies act in certain ways? Also why is it that some societies make different decisions than others?
In regards to the ant colony one thing of note is crucial. Ant colonies do not randomly pop up out of nowhere. They tend to congregate in areas best suited to support as many individuals as possible. Certain species of ants have establish a mutual relationship with various fungi. The fungi contain rich nutrients capable of feeding the colony and in exchange the ants will provide food (typically leaves hence the name leaf cutter ant) to the fungi as well. Fungi tend to grow near the base of trees and as such most ant colonies tend to congregate there as well. However the fungi cannot grow indefinitely and typically the population of the ant colony tends to out pace production of food thus creating a scarcity. Place another nearby ant colony and you have yourself a good ole ant war!
How does this tie into human civilization? Well similarly humans don't pop up randomly as well. We also tend to congregate in areas best suited towards supporting as many humans as possible. This tends to be land with naturally rich soil capable of greater agricultural output. The cradle of civilization as it's been called is the area of the fertile crescent in modern day Iraq and Syria. Around 10,000 years ago this areas spawned the birth of civilization as large number of humans were able to form cooperative societies built around farming. The similar relationship arose as humans facilitated the growth of this plant life in exchange for the nutrients required to survive and pass on their genes in greater abundance. However, similarly to the ant colony there is only so much farmland capable of producing healthy food. Once different populations collide into narrow strips of land brought about by the scarcity of these goods you have war for these life sustaining farmlands.
Now I think part of feminists problems with understanding this origin of human life is because it is so far removed from our everyday existence. This is partly due to advancements in agricultual engineering specifically in the production of fertilizer. Today we can turn what was once barren wasteland into farmable oases due to the miracle of the Haber process. In the past however people were limited simply to what the earth gave them. Like our ant friends this means more scarcity and in the battle for survive this means war. This process was so crucial that there was really only two professions for most of history: soldier and farmer with a great degree of overlap between the two. The process of war was very similar for both humans and ants.
In ant colonies war typically is decided by one factor. Which side has more soldiers. The side with greater numbers tends to win the majority of the time. In pre industrial societies this was also the case especially before the advent of gunpowder. In our modern society war is not driven by soldier numbers but more so by technological advancement and it's pretty easy to see why. One look at the destructive capability of a nukes for example is all you need. However for most of human history the weapons of war were swords, shields and lances. Greater technology in this context might mean you have a more durable shield? Maybe a sharper sword? This is all well and good but if you come across and army twice your size your fancy sword is not going to save you. In older societies troop numbers was the most important factor in warfare. But this begs the question of why women were confined to the home and not allowed the profession of soldier? Even given the physical inferiority of women one would expect that if you throw enough of them on a battlefield the sheer number would make up for their lack of fighting capability. Well this brings us to the unique human quirk that changes things.
In order to create more soldiers you need to make more people and this can only be done through childbirth. Ideally you would want to maintain a replacement level birthrate of 2 children per woman. This ensure two new people to match the mother and father. In practice the actual number is higher due to disease, accidents etc. In modern first world nations the replacement level birthrate is about 2.1 children per woman. However in the past this number was much higher for a number of reasons. One reason being that women suck at giving birth lol. Among mammals human females tend to struggle in childbirth to the point where in many cases it can be fatal. This is pretty rare among mammals as childbirth is typically just a minor inconvenience. For human females past maternal mortality rates range anywhere from 5 per 1000 births to 25 per 1000 births. Compared to today in the U.S it is typically around 30 per 100,000 and this doesn't even account for the complications which may cause infertility in those that do survive. Further women tend to only give birth to one child at a time where other mammals can spawn litters of up to a half dozen in some cases.
Nature on top of that is not very forgiving towards new infants. Disease is a motherfucker and is the major cause of death in humans, especially in infants who tend to have weaker immune systems. By some account the infant mortality rate in pre industrial societies may have been as high as 460 per 1000. That's over 46 percent of births not making it past their first couple years. In this regard replacement level birth rates for past societies was not 2.1 as it is today but probably more in the ballpark of 6 or 7. That's around 6-7 births needed per woman to maintain your current population. Any less that this would mean the population decline of your society and as mentioned above with the greater necessity of soldiers for war maintaining this birthrate was crucial for the health of a society. We now add a few more details to stress the seriousness of why women were confined to this motherly role.
Female fertility declines after giving birth due to the difficult process of pushing a a football out your vagina and 6 months to a year of breast feeding. Typically women have to wait another 2 years to have children again. In our modern society this is no big deal. Women typically go through 8 years of highschool/college and with the aid of modern medical advances and the lower required replacement level birth rate they can have their first child in their late 20s even early 30s. Even as a woman's fertility declines into her late 20s/early 30s. The lower infant mortality insures they can easily have 2 or more children in these later years. Women in the past however couldn't maintain fertility in older ages due to inferior medicine and nutrition. This combined with the greater birth rate needed to maintain population means these women had a much tighter window of time to contend with. That's why as soon as women in the past were capable of giving childbirth (typically noted at the point of the first menstrual period) they were conditioned to do so. They simply didn't have time to get educated and be a whore like modern women do.
The average age of a women's first menstruation cycle is at about 12. In our modern world a women has really from age 22 to about 35 to have only 2 children for replacement level birthrate. That's only about 18 months of pregnancy plus 2 years of recovery in a 13 year window. That's around 25% of their fertile years dedicated to child rearing. Women in the past had from probably about 12 to 30 due to the increased strain of pregnancy and lack of medicine to increase the fertility time frame. That's about 54-63 months of pregnancy and 12 years of recovery in between during an 18 year window. That's around 90% of their fertile years required for child rearing to maintain population levels. As you can see women in the past didn't have the time to mess around like women today have the luxury to.
A interesting question to now ask is when did all this change? And why did it change so? The easy answer is the industrial revolution and more importantly the sexual revolution. As hinted before current human civilization is mostly built around economic growth and technological development. The easiest way to grow your economy is to put women into the workforce. The analogy for war given before was why not throw women on the battlefield and increase your numbers? Well as mentioned the increased strain of childbirth relegated women to this role and it was necessary for almost all their life. At some point in the industrial revolution however a critical threshold was crossed. Medicine and technology improved to the point where you could now delay women's child bearing years to a point where you can now capitalize on their economic output while still maintaining a replacement level birthrate. That is why it now makes sense for women to work from an empire building standpoint whereas in the past it did not.
All of this adds up to the general conclusion: It made sense for women to not work in the past because it was healthy for society given the restriction people had to deal with. Why are feminists not capable of understanding all this? Why do they assume the difficult position women in the past had to deal with was just arbitrary? It's as if they wanted men to just magically poof the miracle technology we have today into existence.
An interesting statement from feminists and normies in general regarding women goes something like, "women couldn't work." This is usually brought up to add a point on the scoreboard of the silly oppression Olympic games people like to play. Rarely though do I hear a rebuttal from the opposing side going into the actual reasons why female agency was restricted especially in pre industrial societies. It's understandable as to why. When these internet conversions go into full debate bro mode neither side wants to concede any point. It's especially tough for the anti feminist crowd because explaining why female agency had to be restricted is far more involved and nuanced than simply saying wOmEn weRe oPpReSsEd. I invite anyone here to meditate on this subject with me further.
First of all it's important to note that human society is no different in essence than an ant colony or a bee hive. What I mean by that is if you take a single human, it can be difficult to predict their behavior since we are irrational creatures. However when you zoom out and view the actions of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of individuals then their collective decisions make more rational sense. In a fascinating way the collective efforts of these millions of humans, ants, whatever tend to add up to more than the sum of their parts. The more relevant question is why do these large societies act in certain ways? Also why is it that some societies make different decisions than others?
In regards to the ant colony one thing of note is crucial. Ant colonies do not randomly pop up out of nowhere. They tend to congregate in areas best suited to support as many individuals as possible. Certain species of ants have establish a mutual relationship with various fungi. The fungi contain rich nutrients capable of feeding the colony and in exchange the ants will provide food (typically leaves hence the name leaf cutter ant) to the fungi as well. Fungi tend to grow near the base of trees and as such most ant colonies tend to congregate there as well. However the fungi cannot grow indefinitely and typically the population of the ant colony tends to out pace production of food thus creating a scarcity. Place another nearby ant colony and you have yourself a good ole ant war!
How does this tie into human civilization? Well similarly humans don't pop up randomly as well. We also tend to congregate in areas best suited towards supporting as many humans as possible. This tends to be land with naturally rich soil capable of greater agricultural output. The cradle of civilization as it's been called is the area of the fertile crescent in modern day Iraq and Syria. Around 10,000 years ago this areas spawned the birth of civilization as large number of humans were able to form cooperative societies built around farming. The similar relationship arose as humans facilitated the growth of this plant life in exchange for the nutrients required to survive and pass on their genes in greater abundance. However, similarly to the ant colony there is only so much farmland capable of producing healthy food. Once different populations collide into narrow strips of land brought about by the scarcity of these goods you have war for these life sustaining farmlands.
Now I think part of feminists problems with understanding this origin of human life is because it is so far removed from our everyday existence. This is partly due to advancements in agricultual engineering specifically in the production of fertilizer. Today we can turn what was once barren wasteland into farmable oases due to the miracle of the Haber process. In the past however people were limited simply to what the earth gave them. Like our ant friends this means more scarcity and in the battle for survive this means war. This process was so crucial that there was really only two professions for most of history: soldier and farmer with a great degree of overlap between the two. The process of war was very similar for both humans and ants.
In ant colonies war typically is decided by one factor. Which side has more soldiers. The side with greater numbers tends to win the majority of the time. In pre industrial societies this was also the case especially before the advent of gunpowder. In our modern society war is not driven by soldier numbers but more so by technological advancement and it's pretty easy to see why. One look at the destructive capability of a nukes for example is all you need. However for most of human history the weapons of war were swords, shields and lances. Greater technology in this context might mean you have a more durable shield? Maybe a sharper sword? This is all well and good but if you come across and army twice your size your fancy sword is not going to save you. In older societies troop numbers was the most important factor in warfare. But this begs the question of why women were confined to the home and not allowed the profession of soldier? Even given the physical inferiority of women one would expect that if you throw enough of them on a battlefield the sheer number would make up for their lack of fighting capability. Well this brings us to the unique human quirk that changes things.
In order to create more soldiers you need to make more people and this can only be done through childbirth. Ideally you would want to maintain a replacement level birthrate of 2 children per woman. This ensure two new people to match the mother and father. In practice the actual number is higher due to disease, accidents etc. In modern first world nations the replacement level birthrate is about 2.1 children per woman. However in the past this number was much higher for a number of reasons. One reason being that women suck at giving birth lol. Among mammals human females tend to struggle in childbirth to the point where in many cases it can be fatal. This is pretty rare among mammals as childbirth is typically just a minor inconvenience. For human females past maternal mortality rates range anywhere from 5 per 1000 births to 25 per 1000 births. Compared to today in the U.S it is typically around 30 per 100,000 and this doesn't even account for the complications which may cause infertility in those that do survive. Further women tend to only give birth to one child at a time where other mammals can spawn litters of up to a half dozen in some cases.
Nature on top of that is not very forgiving towards new infants. Disease is a motherfucker and is the major cause of death in humans, especially in infants who tend to have weaker immune systems. By some account the infant mortality rate in pre industrial societies may have been as high as 460 per 1000. That's over 46 percent of births not making it past their first couple years. In this regard replacement level birth rates for past societies was not 2.1 as it is today but probably more in the ballpark of 6 or 7. That's around 6-7 births needed per woman to maintain your current population. Any less that this would mean the population decline of your society and as mentioned above with the greater necessity of soldiers for war maintaining this birthrate was crucial for the health of a society. We now add a few more details to stress the seriousness of why women were confined to this motherly role.
Female fertility declines after giving birth due to the difficult process of pushing a a football out your vagina and 6 months to a year of breast feeding. Typically women have to wait another 2 years to have children again. In our modern society this is no big deal. Women typically go through 8 years of highschool/college and with the aid of modern medical advances and the lower required replacement level birth rate they can have their first child in their late 20s even early 30s. Even as a woman's fertility declines into her late 20s/early 30s. The lower infant mortality insures they can easily have 2 or more children in these later years. Women in the past however couldn't maintain fertility in older ages due to inferior medicine and nutrition. This combined with the greater birth rate needed to maintain population means these women had a much tighter window of time to contend with. That's why as soon as women in the past were capable of giving childbirth (typically noted at the point of the first menstrual period) they were conditioned to do so. They simply didn't have time to get educated and be a whore like modern women do.
The average age of a women's first menstruation cycle is at about 12. In our modern world a women has really from age 22 to about 35 to have only 2 children for replacement level birthrate. That's only about 18 months of pregnancy plus 2 years of recovery in a 13 year window. That's around 25% of their fertile years dedicated to child rearing. Women in the past had from probably about 12 to 30 due to the increased strain of pregnancy and lack of medicine to increase the fertility time frame. That's about 54-63 months of pregnancy and 12 years of recovery in between during an 18 year window. That's around 90% of their fertile years required for child rearing to maintain population levels. As you can see women in the past didn't have the time to mess around like women today have the luxury to.
A interesting question to now ask is when did all this change? And why did it change so? The easy answer is the industrial revolution and more importantly the sexual revolution. As hinted before current human civilization is mostly built around economic growth and technological development. The easiest way to grow your economy is to put women into the workforce. The analogy for war given before was why not throw women on the battlefield and increase your numbers? Well as mentioned the increased strain of childbirth relegated women to this role and it was necessary for almost all their life. At some point in the industrial revolution however a critical threshold was crossed. Medicine and technology improved to the point where you could now delay women's child bearing years to a point where you can now capitalize on their economic output while still maintaining a replacement level birthrate. That is why it now makes sense for women to work from an empire building standpoint whereas in the past it did not.
All of this adds up to the general conclusion: It made sense for women to not work in the past because it was healthy for society given the restriction people had to deal with. Why are feminists not capable of understanding all this? Why do they assume the difficult position women in the past had to deal with was just arbitrary? It's as if they wanted men to just magically poof the miracle technology we have today into existence.
Last edited:
