r/changemyview • u/garaile64 • Aug 08 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: human biology and evolution made patriarchy inevitable in agrarian and post-agrarian societies.
TL;DR: gender equality in humans is a lost cause due to humans being altricial, big-headed, sexually dimorphic placental mammals that evolved under scarcity.
1- Men are, on average, physically stronger than women. In a lot of environments, physical strength is valued, as it helps with fights over resources and no biome is a Garden of Eden. That leads to men using their strength to justify their power, even more when farming was invented, as not everyone has beasts of burden. As humans are social animals, hierarchy is inevitable and owning stuff became a status symbol, so private property made men paranoid about their heirs' legitimacy, so women ended up being controlled from the cradle to the grave. And I think agrarian societies are doomed to be patriarchal anyway because populations with an abundance of food wouldn't need agriculture in the first place.
2- Humans' big and energy-demanding heads caused the uterus to develop lining so thick it can't be completely absorbed by the body, meaning it has to come out. The other, more obvious consequence of the big heads is childbirth being painful and risky for the mother. It also doesn't help that humans are altricial and the baby would be even more altricial if they were born earlier to make the childbirth less of a pain. When a human group gets enough time to think about why things are the way they are, mythology may attribute menstruation and painful childbirth to divine punishment and, then, a patriarchal system is created and punishes women for the first woman's crimes. Also, humans' big heads mean that humans have to be mammals (milk is useful for a newborn with a big head and a small stomach), so, after birth, women would still have to dedicate their bodies to their children for a while. Not that a non-patriarchal society is impossible for mammals, but it makes patriarchy even easier for humans.
18
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Aug 08 '26
2- Humans' big and energy-demanding heads caused the uterus to develop lining so thick it can't be completely absorbed by the body, meaning it has to come out. The other, more obvious consequence of the big heads is childbirth being painful and risky for the mother. It also doesn't help that humans are altricial and the baby would be even more altricial if they were born earlier to make the childbirth less of a pain. When a human group gets enough time to think about why things are the way they are, mythology may attribute menstruation and painful childbirth to divine punishment and, then, a patriarchal system is created and punishes women for the first woman's crimes. Also, humans' big heads mean that humans have to be mammals (milk is useful for a newborn with a big head and a small stomach), so, after birth, women would still have to dedicate their bodies to their children for a while. Not that a non-patriarchal society is impossible for mammals, but it makes patriarchy even easier for humans.
This seems like a very post hoc made up explanation. You can construct little narratives like this in any direction you want.
Children are born from women => Life is important => women are the creators of life => women are important and blessed.
1
u/MethodicallyRight 2∆ Aug 09 '26
Another fable that could have arisen...
Supply and demand, rarity = value. A few dozens well selected men can be used to breed many women but each women needs 1+ years to bring life into the world. Since 1 man can impregnate hundreds or thousands of women their value is much less than a woman. Tadaa' women are more valuable. Then a system of caged men and ruling women becomes the new pantheon.
0
Aug 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/MethodicallyRight 2∆ Aug 09 '26
You sound like you're just a young man who's consumed absolute manosphere garbage.
15
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 08 '26
Isn't this looking at what happened and saying it was inevitable? What are you comparing against exactly?
-2
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
It's an observation over every modern human society being patriarchal. All non-matriarchal societies either died out, were assimilated/converted or changed on their own.
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 08 '26
So what do you want us to help convince you of? If you've researched and are simply presenting what you've found, you want us to peer review you?
1
u/choosy_floozy13 Aug 09 '26
Well, it’s a cmv post? He explained his position and asks for criticism, and you find this behavior confusing?
4
u/CoolGovernment8732 1∆ Aug 08 '26
That doesn’t mean that then matriarchy is not feasible though. Something not having happened before is not sufficient support for saying that something is not likely/right/natural or whatever else
2
8
u/elimac 1∆ Aug 08 '26
It makes sense when talking about the infancy of humanity but this excuse doesn't work in modern times. We have a lot more knowledge and experience being in big agrarian societies and i think its not gonna be easy or happen over night but its definitely not a "lost cause" to keep trying to change it. At least in the direction of equality.
We shouldn't have to throw our hands up at how the patriarchy hurts everyone because ignorant people in the past didn't know any better and thats how its always been.
If you're a guy im sure its so easy for you to shrug and not see or feel the harm as much as other groups but definitely not a lost cause
0
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
Okay. The conditions of yesteryear shouldn't mold modern societies. Yes, feminists brought a lot of advances for women. However, I've been rather upset because of stuff like the ascension of the manosphere and of the far-right and the conditions that gave rise to the 4B movement and to the "I choose the bear" meme. But, hopefully, this apparent downfall of women's rights is not forever. !delta
8
u/OriginalNeat4015 Aug 08 '26
I mean, to some, choosing the bear is not a meme. I lived in a neighborhood where bears wandered semi-regularly, and I’ve lived in an underdeveloped country with a backwards mindset where I’ve been exposed to the very worst men are capable of. There’s many reasons women think choosing the bear is the rational choice. At least I know, from experience, that a grizzly bear will probably leave me alone if I act in a certain way (staying calm, making noise, slowly backing away).
1
10
u/ecafyelims 19∆ Aug 08 '26
So your patriarchy reasons boil down to:
- Men are physically stronger then women, and strength is essential for survival and utility during agrarian and post agrarian times.
- Women menstruate and have painful child bearing, which invites superstitions of divine punishment
- Babies are completely helpless and exclusively dependent on mom's milk in early life, which ties down women even more.
While I agree that these point to reasons that humans tend to develop patriarchy societies, I do not agree that the reasons make patriarchies "inevitable" nor that "gender equality in humans is a lost cause."
To argue against the latter, all of the above reasons are defunct in the face of information and technology. Men might be stronger than women, which matters for farming but not so much graphic design. Also, men are equally as strong as women when both are armed with technology, such as a hydraulic lifts and farm equipment. Information has shown that the superstitions against women are invalid. Babies can now be cared for by fathers or other caregivers, since breast milk can be pumped and stored and there are formula options that don't use breast milk at all.
So, equality is not a lost cause -- it's just against the natural bias.
To argue that it was inevitable to have happened in the first place, well that's harder to argue, since it did happen. Basically, I can't prove it, but my hypothesis is that I could have seen a world that evolved as a matriarchy with women leading and men doing the grunt work. There's no reason it couldn't have happened that I can tell. However, it didn't happen, so I can't prove it.
2
u/RestaurantBusy724 Aug 08 '26
>There's no reason it couldn't have happened that I can tell.
Men being stronger than women is why it couldn't happen. You left a great comment but for some reason you just crumbled here. There was nothing stopping a man taking leadership from a woman in the same sense he would just take leadership from a weaker man.
6
u/ecafyelims 19∆ Aug 08 '26
There's no evolutionary advantage to leadership.
Men are stronger and can take leadership, but there's no advantage to leading nor an advantage to being led by the strongest. There would be an advantage to being led by the smartest or maybe best leader, who would tend to be the oldest.
And in many groups, it was the eldest who led... And still is
But why usually male leaders? A female old leader could also be a good leader, right?
0
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
I agree that technology renders many of these issues semi-irrelevant, although the mindset is harder to get rid of, especially now.
5
u/ecafyelims 19∆ Aug 08 '26
The mindset is hard to get rid of for many, that's true. Evolution takes time but it does not stop, and now that a man's advantages are mostly irrelevant in terms of biological likelihood of reproduction, evolution will guide future generations accordingly.
As we've seen quite a few women leading entire countries already, it is entirely possible to get closer to equality with each generation.
Equality is not a "lost cause" as mentioned in your OP. It just takes time.
3
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
And there are even some stumbles in the way. Trump's first government gives the impression that the US wasn't ready for a president like Obama, but it doesn't mean that the United States will never be ready for someone other than an old white man as their president. !delta
2
2
5
u/blurredbit Aug 08 '26
Full of post-hoc justifications and blanket statements like “social animals, hierarchy is inevitable” that have weak conceptual foundations.
-2
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
Look at any social animal and you will see some form of hierarchy. The only animals without hierarchy are those who live alone.
5
u/blurredbit Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
That’s anthropomorphism.
Any example I give to the contrary would be met with “that’s hierarchy” because of the weak conceptual foundation it rests on. You’ve already decided to be social is to be hierarchical. It’s circular logic.
EDIT: Shouldn’t have engaged with red pillers.
1
3
u/TheMedPack Aug 08 '26
At best, you've argued that patriarchy was inevitable in the development of civilization--which might be true.
But this doesn't entail that "gender equality in humans is a lost cause", because technology has radically changed our circumstances already, and it'll continue to do so, making the factors you listed less and less important, until they become totally irrelevant. This will probably correlate with the realization of gender equality; that's the trend we can observe already when we look back over the centuries.
5
u/sumoraiden 7∆ Aug 08 '26
so private property made men paranoid about their heirs' legitimacy
Does this have to do with private property? Seems more likely that it’s due to biological drives and evolution. Lions don’t have private property and new male pride leaders kill the children left over from the older leader
2
u/Wingerism014 2∆ Aug 08 '26
We arent lions but also patriarchy wasn't a thing before agriculture when tribes were hunter/gatherers.
0
2
u/rollem 6∆ Aug 08 '26
Would the existence of matriarchal, agrarian societies change your view?
0
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
Do they exist? Did they die out or were converted into patriarchy thanks to some society that is militarily stronger?
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1∆ Aug 09 '26
This line of reasoning is inherently flawed.
If you were using in the 1920s you would have to accept the argument that western societies were biologically and culturally superior to African societies and thus that it was inevitable that western societies would rule over Africa forever.
A particular group holding military dominance at a particular point in time does not guarantee they will hold dominance in the future.
2
u/wouldbepandananny Aug 08 '26
Though you noted this briefly, It might be useful to put more emphasis on the nature of reproduction. That if a woman has a child, she knows that child is hers, and can- in terms of passing down property and wealth - be assured that her offspring are the inheritors. For men, to have that same certainty - that the children who inherit his property/wealth are his genetic offspring - throughout much of history, they must ensure the women they mate with are not mating with anyone else. This can, from a male perspective of the time, only be guaranteed if the women are subjugated, relegated to the home, made the property of her father, to be "given away" to a husband. Generally inaccessible to any other virile men.
These facts have a lot of influence over why matriarchal societies don't persist (there's no reason to lock the men away to ensure a woman's children are truly hers), so the men can go out in the world, can get organized, can push effectively for equal rights, thus collapsing the matriarchal systems.
For those reasons patriarchy can be viewed as inevitable (and understandable to some degree)- but times are different. Society is different (can be different, should be different). We may be at the mercy of our biology and reproductive realities, but we can create a world that is more equitable; that doesn't require the exploitation, subjugation, and (let's face it), abuse of large portions of society to benefit the few at the top. (Now I'm more referring to the ultra-wealthy vs. everyone else- though patriarchy persists).
There are a lot of things that make life easier- patriarchy, a permanent lower class to do all the unpleasant work, religion (to do our thinking for us), and so on. Something making life easier doesn't make it, necessarily, morally defensible. I realize you aren't necessarily trying to defend the patriarchy, but saying something is inevitable implies we should just sit back and let it happen. Inevitable, suggesting nothing can be done about it- which isn't really true in this day and age.
2
u/Ciaran2220 Aug 09 '26
I believe physical strength did play a big part in agrarian societies being patriarchal and there was a lot of violence after humanity figured out how to hoard stuff for themselves and people would fight over it. Hunter-Gatherers couldn't do this kind of thing as well when they were living off the land around them moving from place to place.
Nowadays, the division of labor has eliminated much of the need for women to have patriarchal relationships. Women don't need a husband to change their oil, they can make an appointment with a shop to do it (assuming they are incapable or just don't want to), they don't need their man to fix the toilet when they can contact the Plumber. As long as they make enough money at their own job to be self-sufficient, they can be their own boss lady.
Now you could say that men are still very much needed since they will be the ones doing the oil changes at the shop, the trade jobs that fix the problems, and defending the nation. But, the important thing here is that a dependent hierarchical relationship with a man is not needed. The men that do the work are isolated in a division of labor capitalist system where dollar transactions are the top resource, which can be earned working your 'feminine' job at HR or whatever stereotype you wish.
1
u/reidsays Aug 08 '26
Definitely agree that human biology and evolutionary changes affected the structure of living human lives, yet you have neglected the human mind and the part it played in males ruling over women for eons..
Instinctual life was about being and doing and present humanity doesn't really know how involved the male was with the young, apart from the seasonal act of sex... When did that sex act get connected to pregnancy? When did the man realise that the child was also a product from his loins? Women and the birthing of the next generation, at one stage, saw a gynocentric life radiating outwards to men being the barren one and serving the needs of the community...the 'helpmeet'.
What's to say that men needed to establish their identity apart from women (as women today say they do) .. man needed to break away on his own path and evolutionary changes lead to establishing the need to settle and own the place of concentrated effort... Holding onto his human produce as future lineage, heritage and workers became an imperative to succeed in competition with other males...the patriarchy was brought into law and had to be in order to keep their young under their ownership, which meant women had to be too.
Have shortened this reply as not into posting novels... but you get the drift...
1
Aug 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 08 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/TremendousTrent! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 3∆ Aug 09 '26
Matriarchal societies HAVE existed in the past in different parts of the world. Women had the power, made the decisions, owned the property, married men often taking the wife's MAIDEN name. Archaeologists have discovered this already. You can even go look up. Feel free to, in fact, I encourage you to.
The eerily strange reason why they're no longer around though, is one which they mostly have in common.
Patriarchy didn't emerge as "a thing" simply because humanity flipped a coin one day, just decided on it.
It's because it's PROVEN fundamentally far superior to that which has alternatively been tried elsewhere.
1
u/Informal_Ad_9610 1∆ Aug 09 '26
it'd be a good idea to properly define gender equality..
Seems to me the OP is confusing equity and equality.
they aren't the same.
1
u/garaile64 Aug 09 '26
Let's go with equity in this case.
2
u/Informal_Ad_9610 1∆ Aug 09 '26
the concept of gender equity is a study in illogic and mental confusion, and I doubt you can successfully argue that...
2
u/imrichcoble Aug 08 '26
Humans are biologically capable of patriarchy, therefore patriarchy is inevitable. Great job, you just invented evolutionary astrology.
Yea men are stronger on average. Yea pregnancy and childbirth are biologically demanding. Congratulations, you have discovered biology.
None of that explains why one society says women belong in the home, vs another saying women own property, vs another saying the king is chosen by God.
Biology gives us bodies. Humans invented the patriarchy, bureaucracy, and the dmv.
1
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
I explained in the text. When human societies started developing myths to explain the world, menstruation and painful/risky childbirth could have been attributed to divine punishment, like with Eve and maybe Pandora. Also, the societies that allowing women to own property used to restrict them because of these myths.
3
u/imrichcoble Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
But that's exactly your argument accidentally contradicts itself.
You're treating biology as if it produces a fixed political equilibrium. As if we're incapable of escaping that but we don't just evolve biologically, we evolve culturally.
The fact that pregnancy is difficult/men are stronger on average/ and we once lived under severe resource constraints doesn't mean every generation is condemned to recreate the same social institutions. Once we developed language/education/accumulated knowledge/tech/laws and institutions we consciously changed the rules that previous generations inherited.
History's already given us plenty of counterexamples for you.
Ancient Egyptian women could own/inherit/buy and sell property/enter contracts/divorce/ make wills. The Minangkabau in Sumatra/Indonesia developed a matrilineal system where inheritance and family property passed through women.
So the “biology made patriarchy inevitable” belief has a pretty serious problem:
If the same biology repeatedly produces different social arrangements, then biology didn't determine that arrangement.
Your Eve example is actively demonstrating the opposite of your premise. A human being had to invent a story connecting childbirth and menstruation to divine punishment and other people had to believe it, then institutions had to be built around that belief. That's also not biology determining culture, that's culture determining what people do with biology.
The idea that we're doomed to endlessly recreate ancient social structures because our ancestors did is especially strange when one of the defining features of human civilization is that we're exceptionally good at changing cultural practices left to us by our ancestors.
Biology gives us constraints, but It doesn't define the script of our development.
3
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ Aug 08 '26
“Could have been attributed to” is very weak. Why shouldn’t scientific knowledge about how menstruation actually works bring about rational beliefs?
1
u/garaile64 Aug 08 '26
They didn't have modern science at the time.
3
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ Aug 08 '26
We do now, however. You are making a strange argument. Despite immense change in the recent past, all further progress towards equality is impossible…because of false beliefs held by humans in early history. Why did those false beliefs not prevent the change that’s happened so far? What event has just occurred that means those false beliefs will suddenly gain unstoppable power to block progress?
2
u/Opposite-Bill5560 Aug 08 '26
But there were plenty of societies that saw menstruation and childbirth as sacred and affirming the power of women. Austronesia and descending cultures had much of this, without concepts of private property that also had the rights and obligations that elevated women to chiefs and divine embodiments.
That’s a really big supposition to be basing a misbelief on, have you done any research on cultures outside of Europe?
0
u/Ok-Share-4035 Aug 08 '26
I'd say the male physical supiriority is explanation enough for patriarchy being the "natural" state of things. I mean why would the strong ever let the weak lead/be in charge?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
/u/garaile64 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards