The demographic with the least contact with women happens to be the one with the unique knowledge of how terrible they...

Cherrypicking. You can find ample examples of both positive and negative regard for women. Unless you're actually able to come up with some way of compiling a sufficient amount of them and seeing what they average out to, yours strikes me as a fairly pointless approach to discussion. It's a common approach among people who argue for fringe opinions - you find an example of something, and consider it to be definitive in a universal scope.

You could just as easily say that the negative treatment of women has more to do with the advent of agriculture (something on which all of civilization is founded), as the physically demanding nature of it diminished the contribution of women and led to social structures that would be at their expense. But there isn't much reason to believe that this was the case with early humans. We evolved as hunter gatherers, and hunter gatherers are generally egalitarian and do not share this attitude towards women. As eccentric as tribes can be, if you find an example to the contrary bear in mind that this does not suffice as a rebuttal on its own. The general conclusion, as indicated by more extensive research, remains.

Hunter gatherers were even more violent, though. Monogamy, which is an invention of the agricultural revolution had a positive impact on sexual relations. Before that, we had social structures similar to chimps, with women holding no real social power.

>Hunter gatherers were even more violent, though
Sorry, what? Clarify the argument you're making here. We're discussing your point that "men have always hated women", as something supposedly evidenced by the fact that human society has always subjugated women. I'm showing you that this was a false claim, and now you're running in a completely different direction.

Are you trying to suggest that hunter gatherer societies are an invalid example because they're violent? What's the connection between these points?

Moreover, that's not even a real rule. Hunter gatherers don't have the population to sustain any significant level of violence. Warfare typically takes the form of light skirmishes where fatal injuries are rare. If you mean domestic violence, I'd like to point you back to your earlier argument about the domestic violence towards women in civilization being evidence for the history-long hatred of women. Are you suggesting that there's a significant disparity in the level of domestic violence seen in hunter gatherer vs civilized societies? And if it's supposed to be evidence for the hatred of women, why is that not the case with hunter gatherers?

>Monogamy, which is an invention of the agricultural revolution had a positive impact on sexual relations
lol what
That's not true at all, like there isn't even room for an argument to be had. Monogamy absolutely predates agriculture. Ironically, it's polygamy that people like to theorize as being an invention of agriculture - the argument essentially being that in the agricultural setting, humans can actually afford that shit. I don't have much of an opinion on that though.

>Before that, we had social structures similar to chimps, with women holding no real social power.
Strange comparison, but again, it doesn't really contain much of a point. As for social power... That's what I've been trying to tell you. Hunter gatherers tended towards egalitarian structures, as in, women held the same social power.

Please provide evidence that violence rates were lower during pre-agricultural times and that people were monogamous and egalitarian.

Just don't think about it too much.

how come you get to make claims without evidence and I don't

you are the one making the claim, the counterclaim does not need to be supported by evidence until you offer evidence.

I cringe almost every time I hear or read anyone use the word "hate" as a noun because it's often followed with the dumbest sanctimonious shit.

are you not or that's a pretty stupid thing to have hate for

All I said is that society used to look down on women a lot more in the past, as evidenced by women's lack of rights and normalized abuse.
Then you came in and said that pre-agricultural communities were egalitarian and now I'd like to see some proof.

I'm assuming you're not a uni student or anything with free academic article access, but this can get you started history.com/topics/pre-history/hunter-gatherers

What a terrible source. Even the articles it links provide no real data.
quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

What the fuck lol
So if I link a source you're going to pout and say it sucks, as if that's anything close to a respectable response? Like first you're going to abandon every other thread of the argument and not address my points, and then you're going to do that?

And what the fuck is the point of your source supposed to be? It says there's evidence for hunter gatherers being egalitarian, at the very least moreso than agricultural societies. However there remained some economic skew due to favoritism within families, and the tendency to reward accomplishment. Someone who contributes more to the tribe, or someone close to them, will have more wealth.
But we were talking about sex egalitarianism.
On that note:
science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796

I know you already disproved yourself by linking an article you didn't read, but I like to be thorough

Attached: 10101010101111.png (615x637, 633K)

That was a good read, an original one too.

Reminder that niggers are mother's but not niggers at the same time due to the virtue of being a black yet also white at the same time nigger, because at the end of the day they are white but actually they are black but not white so they are nigger black yet also white.

is that a tweaker

I can't read the full article, but it doesn't look as though this one proves anything. They're just proposing a theory aren't they? I think their premise seems flawed but I'd have to read the whole thing.

The first one you posted is pretty much completely irrelevant. Other dude posted a really good article backed up by scientific data. You've got nothing of the sort.

Well you see jimbo, there are actually radioactive glowing niggers who dot the landscape of the European which is actually American of the European variety super continent of the super variety in which 50 million nigger poop dicks in hot dense states of gluon capacitation try to cannabilize 60 other niggers trying to rimjob a nigger who is white but actually is black but not white yet is white but black.

Right, it is a good source with scientific data -
suggesting that hunter gatherers were egalitarian

He didn't know what it was linking, but it contradicts his argument. Not sure where you're at

And that's how it goes with scientific or academic articles, you know - you need a way to get access. Otherwise you're stuck with articles referring to these articles

Read further, you fucking idiot. It even shows you a graph of crime rate comparisons.

Well you see guys, scientific data is actually super reliable because of niggers. This is because niggers are niggers yet aren't due to being white yet not really because of the simultaneous existence of the white black and black white. Because of this the radiation found in the nigger known as king Kong, tries to escape as a means of facilitating the kaiju battles between the FBI and CIA who try to eat Slovenian lizard people and smoke weed that hypnotizes niggers that are white but aren't due to being black and produces dmt lsd aggregate composites. These wars are for the drug staches that the DEA watches for the CIA and FBI who use the drug staches to get high.

"It even shows you a graph of crime rate comparisons" LOL you're a samefag I just realized

It also shows crime rate comparisons. But it shows the egalitarian theory being supported. Did you want it to be about the crime rate comparisons? That's all you had to say. I just got distracted by the part that was more relevant to the discussion. Are we going to ignore that too?

I love this racist schizo bot that started posting here

It says it's not egalitarian, though.
They had gender norms, hierarchies based on alpha males that fucked most human, most men died virgins and they had on average homicide rates higher than the most violent countries of today.

So are you retracting your statement or what?

fucked most women*

>It says it's not egalitarian, though.
You're lying

>They had gender norms, hierarchies based on alpha males that fucked most human, most men died virgins and they had on average homicide rates higher than the most violent countries of today.

None of that is supported in the article or anywhere else that I know of, you're just spontaneously rambling now. Not even sure what the point of talking to you is, you ignore most the argument, make shit up, and samefag to hype yourself. But you can't make it past linking an article and not realizing it discredited your argument

You've now resorted to outright lying. Pathetic.
Anyone can access that article and see that you're talking shit.

Listen dumbshit, there was no samefagging going on I also posted in agreement with the guy you're replying to. You are just a stupid fuck who can't accept they are wrong.