Why, in traditional societies, have women usually been the ones passed over in inheriting property?

Really though

And still you cant get pussy

Women died in childbirth. If you gave the family farm to your daughter instead of your son and she died giving birth the farm goes to her husband. A son can cycle through several wives without dying and without losing the family farm.

Generally speaking as well land owners were usually expected to fight for their leaders in war, a task which is difficult for women.

But I could very easily just drag a woman into the bushes and have my way with her. Does that not count as "getting pussy"? Or do you mean that to "get pussy", you need to play by the (inferior) woman's rules?

That makes sense

It has to do with the property in question, which in this case tends to be land.

A patriarchal society tends to define the male head of a household, however granular or inclusive a household is defined, as the arbiter of all law for his household.

Now, imagine your daughter is expected to inherit 50% of your property. That means 50% of your farmland. Now imagine she marries someone from outside your household, someone who is or is under another patriarch. Your daughter becomes a member of that person's household, and thus she is no longer under your legal control. That includes her share of her inheritance.

If you die, your lands are not only split between your children, half of it may very well fall under another family's dominion altogether. Your successor, the next head of the household, will be substantially weaker, and the family that took your daughter and her lands that much stronger.

This, by the way, is why cousin marriage is endemic in the Islamic world. Islamic law, coming from a semi-nomadic tradition, offers women some manner of inheritance while the lands that adopted it outside of Arabia were agricultural and patriarchal. So, in order to prevent family lands slipping away but not technically break Islamic rules on female inheritance, marriages with branch family cousins became the norm in modern times.

Why risk having your family's property get inherited by whoever she married?

This guy says my point way more eloquently

If you rape a woman you will get jail time, so sadly you have to play by their rules

Not necessarily, since one could always target some secluded individuals, murder them and not leave any traces behind. It doesn't take a genius to pull it off.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_serial_killers

You're right, a lot of it comes down to that legal principle (I forgot its name) wherein a woman's property was owned and controlled by her husband, and she lost her legal personhood.
But why did we have that system? We have to avoid going in circles.

That's a bit beyond my limited reading, but if I was speculating I'd say it has to do with how urbanized agriculture came about in the first place. A military leader pays or supports landholders in return for legal privileges over their own lands and people, and marriage happened to be one of those grey areas where someone of one household is transferred to another, resembling something like immigration between states. Legal personhood in this case would resemble a citizen of a country today declaring themselves their own sovereign nation.

Good post.

Vikings actually did this, but it was most commonly a widower inheriting the property of her late husband.
This was usually followed by her marrying another family member, most typically a brother, uncle or cousin of her husband.

exactly

Women like that are far happier than modern women, it's a tragedy that they will never realize it.

Are there any studies that show this?
I have heard that *American women* report themselves as less happy than a few decades ago but I don't know if you can make any sweeping generalisations from that

This. While modern feminism can look way to radical at times, it's often quite close to the truth.

In Greece women were basically farming equipment. Well except Sparta but Spartans were cuckolds.

That's an extremely broad statement. But often it's not just women, the inheritance goes to only the eldest son. This is because wealth is often stored in land, which is less valuable when it is divided then when it is in one large plot.

Broad statements can be correct you fucking faggot

>that legal principle (I forgot its name)
Jus uxoris

>pass on property to woman
>she marries
>property is no longer in the family

doesn't it seem like women's roles in society come from woman's importance in child bearing. For instance men own land because they fight to defend it. A society that would allow it's women to fight would be at a severe disadvantage from loss of females. thus women not owning land gives you're society an advantage.

Makes sense if men really have to fight to defend it but I dunno how widespread that is in practice