What did ancient societies know about women that we don't?

That's absolutely incorrect.

Females are biologically designed to be selfish, and that selfish nature extends throughout their entire decision making process.

Look at western society today, as an example.

Females have absolutely no problem lowering the standards of police, military, and the civilian sector, just to accommodate females that don't meet the standards men created for men. Men created those standards to ensure they had quality people performing those duties to benefit society as a whole, and to save us cash. Men are willing to discriminate against themselves to benefit society.

Women, on the other hand, don't give a fuck about having inferior personnel doing the job, or that it's costing the tax payer more money to do the same job men did for less. All they care about is themselves, and their ego, and they'll gladly let society foot the bill and get inferior services just to accommodate the egomaniacal women that want to be "equal". Female participation in western society has made it WORSE, and is ultimately leading it to its demise through the destruction of family values, and an unwillingness to defend our culture.

Our ancestors knew all of this, but unlike the cowardly men of today, weren't willing to accommodate a bunch of nagging shrews.

The rest world isn't really like the west. People there don't live in gynocentric societies.

These are thoughts written hundreds of years before people stopped thinking bleeding was a cure for shit

While that doesn't mean they're wrong, the whole idea of "ancient wisdom" is kind of shit. There's no validity added to something just for being old or because it was once widespread. These societies thought all kinds of stupid bullshit we've since overturned.

That said, you would admitedly be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree that women are inherently inferior to men in the accomplishment of physical feats, I guess. They've proven themselves at least capable, if not equal, in many other areas. Even if those individuals are outliers, it has shown that there's nothing inherent in being female that puts a low limit on mental capabilities, and the comparatively small number of women who excell in these fields is more likely a cause of societal forces or the choices of individuals.

This is the only reasonable stance to take on gender: Women are not capable of equal physical feats to men, but have demonstrated competency in other areas, and should be seen as near equals as moral agents/patients. If an individual woman can be shown to be incompetent, there should be so special protection for her, and an argument could be made for the nessecity of her submission to another more competent individual, but restricting the gender as a whole is foolish.

>haha yeah these thousands of years of experience means nothing; it's the current year after all

That's seriously the point you're going to argue? Are you going to defend the use of good smellig shit to prevent infection next? Or perhaps argue for geocentricism? Pick another part of my statement to attack, m8, you don't want to die on this hill.

As horrible as all of that sounds (and it is horrible), if you can believe it, there were many societies in the ancient world where women and certain minorities were literally livestock.

For them, Islam constituted a sort of liberalization because people who once had no status in society now had some legal standing, even if that was half a man.

Of course, it also overthrew some relatively sophisticated societies, so on balance it's difficult to say it was overall beneficial.

Bro if my ancestors say drilling a hole in the skull removes evil head spirits and you're against that because it's 2017 you're a bigot.

Well ancient wisdom is interesting because it was produced in a very different time and 'climate'. So it's interesting to make comparisons regarding the sorts of ideas that are enduring in a relatively wide range of contexts.

this isn't an argument

Oh, yeah for sure. Don't misunderstand. Reading any widely held ideas and considering them in the cultural climate they were written in is a worthwhile pursuit. I don't want them wiped from history or anything of the sort.

People just have a bad habit of ascribing some sort of authority to shit just because it's old.

>using this argument to make a completely unrelated and rage-filled point about a social issue that bothers you
fuck off, cancer

Learn to argue or take your strawmen back to /pol/, nigger.

>says almost every culture
>cites a few lines from a religion
>defends neckbeard statement with "all I'm saying"

Probably not very much.

Conflating scientific progress with social progress is a really tired argument.

>wahhh the /pol/ boogeyman

Please explain to me how what I stated is invalid because of the type of knowledge.

Most of this post is actually reasonable, but the second I read something like

>this is the ONLY [emphasis mine] reasonable stance to take on gender

then my bullshit meter immediately starts pinging and I know I'm right to box you with the rest of the unthinking leftists who simply want to impose their own views on the world.

>Where there is neither love nor hatred in the game, woman's play is mediocre.

Not just the ancient's lad

It seems that most men who enjoy the idea of the subjugation of women feel powerless in their own lives.

The pool from which we draw the people who will further society should be as large as possible. We want varied perspectives and skills. To limit this pool to one gender would be too limit ourselves. But hey, I'm all for male secretaries, nurses, prostitutes, hair dressers, etc if you want that.

>It seems that most men who enjoy the idea of the subjugation of women feel powerless in their own lives
Hmm, really wonder why is that...

Give women freedom and only the most brutal and savage of men will become the majority of men in future generations. Human civilizations will end if controlled by women because of the simple fact they have no control over their polygamous animal instincts.

Equality != equity

Why do redditors post like they're making an image macro?

*hypergamus

Women don't fuck random dudes unless they have high tier genetics or loads of money

Lol, I know those Isis fundie types in India.
They just wanna get their dick wet - in this life or the next.

in the past most kids would die before the age of 5, women had to be constantly popping out babies and societies that kept them doing this were more likely to survive and prosper

No its polygamy women dont know what loyalty is they even cheat on sexy men.
>high tier genetics
Yh skinny string bean teenage boys are high tier genetics.

Look women are shit at picking mates in this civilized world, a woman would rather have an unhinged psychopath than a man who acts like he has any restraint over his instincts. Women are disgusting animals honestly and its this behavior of theres that is the real reason why they were shafted for all of history.

>inb4 your just mad because women wont fuck you.

No you stupid bitch, fucking women is easy its the simple fact THEY DONT CARE ABOUT YOU, men form relationships in their 20s to find soulmates to be their wives, but women see dating as nothing more than trying dicks over and over it is so funny a gender with this callous of an outlook towards human romance is considered the loving or empathetic gender.

Nope. Women don't want as many men as they can get. They want the best guy available. Hypergamy.

It's a relative thing, whichever guy in the room does the best job of simulating or actually having alpha traits is who she'll gravitate towards until someone even more alpha appears.

I see you're still trapped in the rage phase of learning about women, which is understandable. But you're also a fool.

Why are you pissed off that a creature who spent billions of years evolving to survive and breed in a world of savagery isn't behaving like 21st century first world movies say they should?

I meant it more as "the only conclusion I can make", but I really don't see any other reasonable path.

I would think my stated views differ significantly than your "leftists", but I'm not really into politics.

>best guy
Anyone who has game blows this theory out of the water, its all about how their vagina perceives you thats why women can cheat on wealthy womanizers with scum of the earth thugs who have no money.

I am pissed off because I have to treat these things like they are human beings and not just wild animals out to manipulate you for sex or just fuck with your head for sadistic pleasure then deny all of it while annoying you.

How comes?

You act like men, who include those thigs you mention, have somehow been elevated above the level of an animal driven to eat, kill and fuck.

>Woman are worth 1/2 of a man
>Men may marry up to 4 woman
Wait, wouldn't that mean that woman would have more veto power since 4 woman equals the worth of 2 men so they would have more power to refuse at that point in a committee format. Something here doesn't add up.

That's what I just said, ESL

To women the "best" man is the most alpha

Remember the quote from the Gaulish woman who got mad at a Roman lady who called Gaulish women cheating sluts?

"We openly fornicate with the BEST men while you go behind closed doors with the vilest"

Thats Not what cuck means you retard

Cuck means a guy who gets cheated on by his wife

It evolved on /r9k/ to mean any man who gets cheated on, and eventually through /pol/ to mean any man who is wimpy/effeminate/self hating/beta

In recent times people use it as a general purpose insult

No, cuckold is a fetish in which the guy likes to watch his wife being fucked, not just plain old cheating.

Valid point

But men have higher cognitive and analytical facilities on average

A man cheats because we are naturally polygamous and deep down all want a harem

Women are hypergamus and cheat when they're ready to leave a guy

cuck·old
ˈkəkəld,ˈkəkōld/
nounarchaic
1.
the husband of an adulteress, often regarded as an object of derision.
verb
1.
(of a man) make (another man) a cuckold by having a sexual relationship with his wife.

You're wrong

You're still wrong

is that way you fucking memelord

How? Using your logic a guy with a fetish for Asians should be called "Asian"

There's a difference between the word cuckold and someone with a cuckold fetish