Why did most human societies were patriarchal? What can historically explain how the males ruled instead of women?

women spent most of their useful lives pregnant since you had to spit out 150 babies on average to get one that survived longer than 10 minutes

Males are stronger and the strong tend to boss others around.

People like you make me livid.
While many men were peasants, you can damn well bet they were still drafted.

>few actually were sent to fight in a war.
And what percentage of the women was sent to die in wars?

Yeah sure, and during the middle ages peasant were sent to fight too right ?

Of course not. There was never ever any component of any crusader army made up of peasants

t. female lindybeige

Autist
Smart boy

Yeah peasants were never conscripted.
Fuck off roastie. Sorry to say but those """"""patriarchal"""""" societies sheltered your gender from the horrors of war while millions of men in history were forced to endure mutilation, trauma and death so you wouldn't have to.

>Sorry to say but those """"""patriarchal"""""" societies sheltered your gender from the horrors of war while millions of men in history were forced to endure mutilation, trauma and death so you wouldn't have to.
You seem to have no argument at all. All men didn't fight in war because conscription didn't exist most of the time. You can't claim seriously women were privileged when they had no control over their bodies, their work, no political rights.

Yeah those rights really paid off when you end up decapitated hundreds of miles from your home.
>>>/tumblr/

Again, that's not the case in the middle ages when male peasants weren't required to fight wars. So you can't really use the argument of males being required to fight because it's not true most of the time and it doesn't explain how patriarchal society came to be.

>male peasants weren't required to fight wars

I'm sorry, but you seem to be suggesting that only knights fought and nobody else. That's wrong. Very wrong.

>what are levies
>what is militia
>what are peasants rebellions
wew check out this tard

>that's not the case in the middle ages when male peasants weren't required to fight wars.
peasants from where, the middle ages isnt a place and its a long period? you claim all people across centuries and geography, how is that not an exhaggerration to prove your self right?

>All men didn't fight in war
Why exactly does it have to be all men?
Even if only a fraction ended up being treated as meat for the grinder it's still enough.

So few Matriarchal societies have existed because wherever they exist they inevitably get destroyed and replaced by superior Patriarchal societies.

The majority of most armies in Europe between the Marian Reforms in Rome and the High Middle Ages were made of non land-owning folks, which could be considered peasants by any stretch of the word. Conscription was a thing. Knights were mostly cavalry augmenting whatever peasant levy was the main force.

TL;DR 2/10 bait, made me reply

the contract peasants had with the lord of their manor usually required them to provide young men to fight in times of conflict

>>men get sent to die in wars while women sit with their thumbs up their asses at home
So when the men were off fighting someone else war, raping and killing, somebody had to be taking care of civilization at home correct? Presumably that had to be women which doesn't seem to be exactly "sitting with their thumbs up their asses".

Also nobody in this thread seems to remember that much of the time women did tag along or military campaigns in army caravans keeping the camp up and running and taking care of soldiers. They very much did risk life and limb going into war especially if they wound up loosing. For that matter does everyone forget that women were constantly on the shit end of every army that happened to pass by?

>They very much did risk life and limb going into war especially if they wound up loosing.

Holy shit keep moving those goalposts

>For that matter does everyone forget that women were constantly on the shit end of every army that happened to pass by?

that's why lack of loyalty is a trait most women have

>Holy shit keep moving those goalposts

How is it moving goalposts when its my first post? Also the main argument was that women should be ok with patriarchy since men go off to war; I responded that women also went off to war a major portion of the time. Or do you just like throwing buzzwords until one of them sticks?

>that's why lack of loyalty is a trait most women have

Because a bunch of armed foreign men who have been trained to kill get set loose on villages of women and children? No really following here.

Women went off to war a majority of the time? That pretty much sets off every historical red flag that I've ever been taught. Can you give me a couple examples? As a follow up to the second part, I think he means that in a self preservation sense. Women lack loyalty, because it is not beneficial for them to be loyal. It is more beneficial to be with the strongest alpha male, and if that happens to be the men raiding and slaughtering the village, then submitting to them increases your chance of survival.

>Women went off to war a majority of the time? That pretty much sets off every historical red flag that I've ever been taught. Can you give me a couple examples?

Honestly, I mostly just know this kind of stuff from Veeky Forums posts so I'm not the most qualified person about this. Mostly stuff about Roman and Medieval wars and how women would tag along as part of the supply train. People tend to think of armies as a column of marching robots, but every one of them needed laundry, meals and such since you are essentially trying to function as an entire town on the move, previously not self-sufficient men don't suddenly become self-sufficient when they get a pike. Though a lot of them came simply because "why spend a year away from your family at war when you could just drag them with you". In these cases women still took a major risk. Admittedly it was probably not that many women, and I don't know why or when it dropped off, I don't recall if it was a thing in my area of study (colonial).

Really its a moot point since most women and men probably stayed home as you cant leave your farm when you live on subsistence agriculture so making statements like "All men went to sacrifice themselves in the glory of war, while women sat at home doing fuck-all" or even "all women tagged along in war" is probably wrong.

>Women lack loyalty, because it is not beneficial for them to be loyal. It is more beneficial to be with the strongest alpha male, and if that happens to be the men raiding and slaughtering the village, then submitting to them increases your chance of survival.

The vast majority of the time war isn't happening or is in some distant part of the land never to reach the town or village, loyalty is a much more beneficial trait.

Also how come there is always talk of female disloyalty in getting raped(or fucked doesn't matter) by an invading army but nobody ever calls men disloyal for cheating on their wives by fucking foreign women while on campaign?

I feel like that is a false equivalency though. Women walking the supply train and doing laundry does not mean they watch their childhood friend get his leg lopped off and then bleed to death. To be fair I didn't follow the comment chain all the way up, but I do acknowledge that women went to war *as support roles. The asterisk is what makes our society patriarchal, which is the original question. I do agree that throwing a blanket statement such as "all men went to war, all women are lazy good for nothings" is of course /pol/ tier ignorance and should be ignored as such.
For the second part of your question, taking women has always been seen as a spoil of war. You're not only destroying your enemy, but if you remove their means of production and produce offspring of your own, then you are doing more than winning the war. You are conquering their lands. Again, this goes back to the patriarchy thing. Males are naturally bigger and stronger (on average) in almost every species. Early caste systems required our early ancestors to kill each other to decide the alpha of the pack. That means the biggest and strongest get what they want. This type of society didn't just all of the sudden stop. Women are weaker and in a world where strength is power, they have less power.

>I feel like that is a false equivalency though. Women walking the supply train and doing laundry does not mean they watch their childhood friend get his leg lopped off and then bleed to death.

Depends on if the enemy feels like attacking the supply chain then it doesn't matter if you were a knight or the soup lady, but that is more of an outlier. I will admit that men saw the brunt of the violence of war. My only real problem is people using it as a reason to claim women had it easy and shouldn't complain about patriarchy especially since women had their own set of issues to deal with that men didn't as well as the aforementioned /pol/ ignorance.

The issues women dealt with were not equal to the issues men had to deal with and the proof is in the genetics lineage of every human alive.

Now, since your entire point is wrapped around identity politics and how "patriarchy" is bad (despite laying the foundations for modern society which is comfortable enough to even aspire for "equality" and form conditions that are comfortable enough so that women can compete on somewhat equal footing), you can't concede that point so you are forced to make false equivalences to justify 'equal' rights for women despite lacking 'equal' obligations.

But the patriarchy is bad. It may be true that women didn't hold the same obligations as men, but society is shifting now. For most common practice in today's society men and women are pretty much capable of performing the same job, to the same degree. Of course there will always be outliers due to our genetic differences, but differences aren't a bad thing.

>The issues women dealt with were not equal to the issues men had to deal with and the proof is in the genetics lineage of every human alive.
>Now, since your entire point is wrapped around identity politics
Nobody is talking identity politics but you. We are referring to patriarchy as a societal structure not whatever those mean old feminists are talking about. And were you not paying attention when I said that men saw the brunt of the violence of war? Or are you just dense?

>"patriarchy" is bad (despite laying the foundations for modern society which is comfortable enough to even aspire for "equality" and form conditions that are comfortable enough so that women can compete on somewhat equal footing)
>you can't concede that point
How can I refuse to concede that point if this is the first time in the thread that "laying the foundations for modern society" has come up?

>justify 'equal' rights for women despite lacking 'equal' obligations.
If it really matters that much to you if we play the "obligation" and "usefulness" game then we can talk about how women had to deal with with the obligation of childbearing and an abysmal childbirth mortality rate which would easily dwarf the deaths of men in pre-industrial wars and is much more useful to society. So they should rule everything or some shit since they sacrifice more?

That's cool, we'll finally have gender parity for dustmen.

>But the patriarchy is bad
Why is it bad?

>For most common practice in today's society men and women are pretty much capable of performing the same job
They're not, you, like most feminists, only speak of jobs that are comfortable and detached enough from manual or 'dirty' labor enough for you to be comfortable speaking about them. That being said, I happily concede you the fact that a lot, if not majority of jobs, can, at least in theory, be done by both women and men to a somewhat equal degree however that does not change the biological reality of sex which most feminists either deny or ignore.

When talking about equality, they reference the good kind of equality, not all kinds of equality, and worse yet, they'l demand society as a whole to pay in order to subsidize equality- You'll compare earnings but not work. You'll compare household work, but not physical labor. You'll compare demographics in certain positions, but not others. You'll compare taxes paid, but not on what taxes are expended.

To put it in the stereotypical manner. Equal number of coal miners, equal sentencing for crimes? Who gives a shit. Equal number of CEO's or politicians? Yes please, trough quotas if necessary. Mind you, I'm all for equality, as in equal opportunity (to a rational degree-and I can expand on that), but I'm against what most feminists seem to lobby for which is equality of outcome.

>Nobody is talking identity politics
>We are referring to patriarchy
pick one

>How can I refuse to concede that point if this is the first time in the thread that "laying the foundations for modern society" has come up?
So you do concede it?

>abysmal childbirth mortality rate which would easily dwarf the deaths of men in pre-industrial war
Is that why 17 women reproduced for every man? Funnily enough you only acknowledge death from war, as if men were not the primary source of labor.

it's an Anglo world, you're just living in it

Women in general don't have the physical presence and personality traits to assert leadership.

I think it can be explained on a spiritual level. You can interpret my reasoning in anyway you want.

Men have (mostly) male energy, which is the energy that comands, thrusts itself into people's space and makes itself known. Female energy is one that receives other energies and makes it their own to make something new.

This in the mind and eyes of people from the past could easily have been misinterpreted as "natural dominance".

Males are stronger on average than female and as we all know the only law that never changes is the law of the strongest.

This illustrates my point perfectly.

>tfw peasant levies were a thing since 8th century ad
it only went out of fashion some three hundred years ago.

>physical strength
>mental strength
>competitive
>aggressive

fuck just think about it for ten seconds

I did. Thanks for being a good example too.
Read

Fuck off /x/

Men are stronger and threat of violence is one basis for social order.

This is a social construct. Women can be as strong as men, but men were always better nourished compared to women, thus creating sexual dimorphism

men can organize for work and war

>as if men were not the primary source of labor
Everybody worked the farm in every pre-industrial society. There was no people doing more work because everybody was working to their limit.

Physical strength is not an important part of being an effective administrator.

No

In the primate species males are almost always bigger and dominant

In fact this goes for most mammals

For same motives that happened to monkeys too.

camp followers was usually a euphemistic term for prostitutes, probably willing to "follow" the other army if they won

Men are emotionally stronger too. More rational as well.

Women get pregnant, women nurse children. Women are more invested in the raising of children than men.

Men can sire far more children from different partners than women can so therefore men needed to compete for breeding and resources more than women did. Women could be selective for more powerful and providing men.

because males are domminant and agressive, they thing in technical and practical terms and get shit done

>More rational
That's debatable. Define "rational" men are more generally more reckless and risk taking. Men are generally more prone to violence.