Can any /his/torians refute or poke holes in this? I found it on /pol/.>Imagine our ancestors 100,000 years ago for a moment. Imagine you are in a hunting party in the ancient jungles of Africa and you come across another tribe. The leader of the hunting party sends the fastest male back to the village to gather up any other fighting age men and return back. In the meantime, your hunting party gets slaughtered by the rival tribe and you are secretly followed back to your village. The rival tribe arrives and kills all of the elderly and the children. They then begin mass raping the women and take them as prizes/slaves. Whatever women were willing to fight back and try to kill the enemy, are executed on the spot. So what kind of woman would survive in a world like this? What kind of psychological profile would she need? She'd need to be able to get over/put aside the fact that she just witnessed her children and elderly father get slaughtered in front of her. She'd need to be able to adapt to the nuances of the new tribes languages and customs. Now repeat this same type of situation for the next 100,000 years until the first civilizations begin forming. This is why women are the way they are. Their psychological profile is built from the submissive, almost cowardly, women that were able to adapt to their conquerors long enough to reproduce again. When you look at women through this lens, it explains why they vote and make the political decisions that they do. This also explains the obsession with MeToo and abortions. Their subconscious is trying to reclaim power over their womb that has been forcefully taken from them throughout human history.
>armchair evolutionary psychologyWorthless drivrl
>>18765905>I found it on /pol/There's your answer.
Wow I had no idea no male was ever taken into slavery ever at any point. Slavery has consisted solely of women since the Stone Age, amazing.
>>18765927Wouldn't that have happened more after the agricultural revolution? Cause it became more sustainable to have a dedicated slave population?
>>18765929That's true for either sex. Slavery is something that hunter gatherer societies simply don't engage in at appreciable scale. Only Agricultural and Pastoralist societies had a use for slavery as an institution, in which case they were very happy to take males and females in equal measure. OP's incel cuckoldry fantasy simply doesn't reflect reality.
Why are so called "chud" worldviews so obsessed with cuckoldry? It's like a metaphysical spectre that haunts all their politics, as if their entire existence depends on a primal insecurity over their very vivid fantasies of a different skin colored man fucking their mom/wife/daughter. It's a fascinating phenomenon.
>>18765977Because their ancestors did just that during the colonial period. What they're afraid of is really karma.
>>18765905You don’t need to be a historian to refute this “argument” even because historians don’t usually study prehistory, that’s covered by archeologists and anthropologists instead. Anyway, the main flaw is the assumption that genetic traits are gendered as in only woman inherit the submissive trait. In reality a woman passes 50% of her DNA to her sons and a man passes 50% of his DNA to his daughters. If a woman possessed a high genetic predisposition for submission then it would be passed down to her sons as well, not just daughters. Every descendant of the conquering tribe would eventually become submissive and a result, the dominant trait would be erased from our gene pool yet it didn’t happen. Since this is /his/ and not /sci/, we could also refute it from a historian perspective. The retard also assumes tribes would constantly run into each other which must have been actually rare because human population was very sparse. Even if they met, it’s not guaranteed they would fight to the death because the risk wasn’t worth it. If even a couple hunter gatherers became injuried, which was often fatal, it could doom the rest of the tribe which depended on them for food.
>>18765905>psychological profileAnd you think that is heritable?
>>18766671Genes that contribute to certain ways of thinking must exist.
>>18766679Then their sons inherit those genes, too.
>>18766683That would explain males that are psychologically built for slavery.
>>18766694Is this hypothetical submission gene recessive or dominant? It creates problems for the hypothesis either way.The actual answer is that women are socialised to behave submissively and in patriarchal societies their comparatively weaker biology makes defiance of that socialising dangerous and unlikely. No /pol/fags terrible understanding of biology required.
>>18765977>>18766245The recurring common factor with chuds online is lack of sexual success, i.e being angst filled virgins.They didn't score in High School and now they're losing their fucking marbles over this hangup, it explains all their obsession with:>"BBC" (probably resented seeing some black athlete in school being socially popular compared to them) >Women's virginities (most girls lose theirs in the HS/College years, where Chudanons failed, so they seethe about that "lost opportunity". This is paired with insecurities about emasculation at the idea of a woman being more experienced than them)>Cuckoldry: as mentioned above, they especially resent the idea that a girl might be more experienced than them in sex and therefore "she'll be thinking about other men instead of me!!!" when they're in bed- it terrifies them to think they'll be lackluster performers in bed and essentially still get humiliated by Chad even when they do manage to score
>>18766604>>18766683> What is sexual dimorphism?
>>18766730Not a set of personality traits.
