What allowed men to be more successful/dominating than females? Is it because of their reproductive organs? Would things be different if men had vaginas and women had penises? Or is it some other biological factor like strength and intelligence?
>>1245857
They are bigger and stronger.
This is pretty important.
Even between men, the tallest, gruffest voiced one tends to take leadership roles. It's just something we are wired to do, maybe.
>reproductive system requires substantial resources to work
>gender that doesn't have to commit all of those resources tends to pick up the slack in terms of work and combat
>>1245857
>I'm superior because reasons
You probably think white people are superior to other skin colored people too.
This concept may seem foreign to XYs but pregnancy is pretty fucking hard. Women of old times had a high mortality rate.
>>1246041
>successful/dominant
Is true even if it hurts your feelings, also OP didn't said they were superior.
>>1246144
This, pregnancy made women to get stuck in the task of the home (important but not recognized), while men were in charge of provide food and shelter, due to his lack of natural skills the men were forced to find out creative way to get done those tasks, this was what made technology possible
>>1245857
Humans are altricial and need rearing to develop and grow until we're adults. This is an extremely important process, and women tend to do it because they're more nurturing and good with it. Men have greater upper body strength and height, so we tend to focus on leading/building infrastructure which is another important thing, which women don't tend to participate in because of the aforementioned rearing.
>>1246144
So when the infant mortality rate is high, and your economy isn't developed past manpower; it's in everyone's mutual best interest for you to be pregnant, often.
Women have to carry a child and must remain resting for months at a time. In hunter gatherer times, this meant they usually stayed back at the camp while the men hunted. Hunting requires cunning and strength, so over time these traits were encouraged in men. Meanwhile caring and providing, organization and inventiveness were encouraged in females. In pre-civilized times it's been suggested that many societies had women leaders and were matriarchal.
The shape of the sexual organ doesn't matter, in evolutionary terms it only really matters who carries and births the child. In some species, such as seahorses, this is the male.
Men didn't have to get pregnant, and men are much stronger, and strength is very important in old warfare and labor.
>>1246227
Good point, now take your stupid trip of faggot.
then what's with the /pol/ meme that children who had fathers that partake with child rearing have better lives.
>>1246266
WHOO TAKE IT OFF
>>1245857
>What allowed men to be more successful/dominating than females?
Mainly the fact that they were unable to bear children, thus risking them in hunting and warfare did not carry as great an opportunity cost. In a primitive society, even if a male and female had equal physical ability, it would be preferable to make the man a warrior or hunter, since his sexual role requires less involvement (once he impregnates a woman, if he dies then it won't kill the child, and reproduction doesn't leave him unable to work for the better part of a year).
>Would things be different if men had vaginas and women had penises?
This question cannot be meaningfully answered, since you can't just swap reproductive organs. You'd have to make significant changes to the rest of the body as well, at which point they'd just be a normal woman/man. For example, strength differences are largely influenced by sex hormones, but without the right sex hormones it's doubtful that the reproductive organs would function properly. So if you gave a man a vagina, he would have to have female hormone levels (and female-range strength), or else be infertile.
>>1245874
>They are bigger and stronger.
That may have not originally been true. It's possible that very early on, they were equal in strength, but because the male role was more dependent on strength it resulted in males evolving to be stronger.
>>1245857
This is a stupid and loaded question because it assumes that men were in fact more successful than women.
You can easily argue that dying by the millions in wars while their wives stay at home having a good time is the exact opposite of a success story.
MRAs and feminists are literally arguing today about who is more oppressed. Now how exactly are men more successful in objective terms? The men:women ratio is still 50:50.
Men's names show up more in history books and that is all there is to it, because a few men manage to reign over all women and the rest of men. But if you take "men" as a whole you cannot objectively claim they are more successful than women when they are not even actively competing against each other on a higher social scale.
>>1245857
They weren't. They just fulfilled a different role.
>>1245857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
>>1246469
>That may have not originally been true. It's possible that very early on, they were equal in strength, but because the male role was more dependent on strength it resulted in males evolving to be stronger.
Does evolution work that way? I don't know anything about biology, but female lions are the ones hunting and yet male lions are stronger. Shouldn't female lions have evolved to be the stronger ones, if this was how evolution works?
>>1246164
What is a 'natural skill'
Sounds like bullshit.
>>1245857
Right makes might.
It's the curse of humanity, and the price we pay for our intelligence, that humans have to force a massive head through a tiny birth canal. It's testament to just how incredibly valuable the positive characteristics of humanity are that they are able to overcome the crippling evolutionary disadvantages caused by this development. Because childbirth is so dangerous for women, human babies have to be born very early, leaving them helpless and needing more attention for longer than almost any other animal. In short, humans are really fucking bad at reproducing, and so women have picked up a lot of adaptations which try to make up for this and which gives them big disadvantages in almost every other area.
If women no longer have to carry children as often as back then, could it lead to them evolving to be on men's level of physique?
>>1247030
No testosterone, pal
Men are willing to take risks.
>>1247030
considering the opposite is occuring and that men who don't make an active effort to avoid it are becoming feminized, I'd say no.
>>1246144
>pregnancy is pretty fucking hard
No it isn't
It's pretty straightforward anon:
1. Women will be in Capacitated for long periods of time if they wish to reproduce.
Therefore it makes no sense evolutionarily for women to the main hunter/fighter. Men will therefore be tasked with thsee jobs, and selection will cause men to evolve to be better adapted than women for these jobs.
2. Since males do not give birth, sexual selection acts almost exclusively on males of any species.
Therefore males of most species tend to be bigger and stronger so that they can out compete other males.
Conclusion: because men are bigger/stronger, and better evolved to hunt/fight, men will be the dominant sex.
>>1246223
This desu
>>1246878
>Does evolution work that way?
No. His theory is pretty whackjob and doesn't really have any academic precedence. Sexual dimoprhism isn't something humans evolved to, humans have most likely been always so.
>>1246878
Female lions aren't weak, they're efficient. They're only as big as they need to be for hunting. Now, since the male lions are few and do jack shit all day they can afford to be huge, and being huge is advantageous when your job is only to fight other male lions.
>>1245857
Honestly, what do you think? It's not that hard to figure out...
>women get pregnant, men don't
>women deal with menstruation monthly, men don't
>men on average are taller than women
>men on average are wider than women, have more upper body strength
>testosterone vs. estrogen
>the biological imperative of the penis is to search and thrust into, the biological imperative of the vagina is to become moist and gripping (not necessarily a direct influence on our psychology, but something we are genetically disposed to nonetheless)
>the masculine desires the feminine and vice versa; the more masculine one is, the more one desires something feminine, soft, caring, etc. and vice versa
All the signs say: men have been more "successful/dominating" because they have been more proactive, and women have had to be fairly reactive, for many different reasons.
>>1246223
>In pre-civilized times it's been suggested that many societies had women leaders and were matriarchal.
You mean like 2-4?
>>1245857
All I know is that I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I have "male privilege" because I don't give birth or get periods. That is simply biology.
Men evolved over time to be the protectors and conquerors, while women did the nurturing, childbirth, and other domestic things. It's no coincidence that western society still allows women to benefit from chivalry while also benefiting from feminism at the same time. This places an extra burden on men that we have never experienced before, thus diluting gender roles.
>>1246878
That's because my friend, evolution is a fairy-tale.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
>>1246925
Sure mozart didnt have any natural skills
>>1248499
What does it mean in the context you used it?
This is how our species is biologically designed. Men are the leaders, thinkers; they have to be in order to protect and provide for the women and children. Its purely evolutionary, something liberals cant get their heads around
Men fuck, women get fucked. A man chooses the women he wants to fuck, a woman is chosen. If a woman wants to fuck a man but the man doesn't want, then there won't be any sex. If a man wants to fuck a woman but the woman doesn't want, then there will be sex because he will physically force here. A woman can't physically force a man to sex (a healthy man. and disregarding drugging of the man etc.). Basically men monopolize sex. This is why women make themselves look pretty, their survival strategy is to try and get chosen for mating by the best man. The mans survival strategy is to try and mate with as many women as possible.
Men invented patriarchy and women just aren't that cruel to humanity and other people. Basically, lack of empathy is an answer. The same reason why most serial killers are men.
>>1245857
Reproductive organs, strength, height, different type of intelligence -mostly emotional and social for women. However, women are more likely to resist pain, both emotional and physical. That makes them dangerous in a way.
>>1249319
>biological determinism
There is this meme again.
Men are of the Heavens, Women are of the earth. And as heaven rules earth, men must rule women.
>>1245857
Basically men don't have to carry a baby for nine months so they can fuck whoever and however many they want. Women can't. So one man can essentially impregnate a whole tribe if he likes. This is evolutionarily more effective than monogamy.
Statistically, there are as many men born as there are women, so if a man wants to take advantage of polygamy, he has to prevent another man from fucking his girl. The simplest way to do this is to kick his ass. Thus, the men best at kicking ass had more children, while women had no such pressure. Since men were bigger than women, it was now possible for them to increase their control on their behavior.
>>1245857
Woman is the weaker vessel.
>>1247925
The cause of sexual dimorphism is almost universally intermale violence and competition. We can observe this in many modern societies, as rival men are by and large the perpetrators and the victims of murder and hierarchical violence.
Testosterone
Size
No pregnancies, no menstruation
Wider bell curve
If hyenas had evolvd sentience we would all have been dominatd by women with pseudo penises
Evolution baby
Being disposable, ironically.
Women, being in such high demand and having to put forth most of their energy in child rearing meant the fitness standards for their survival paled in comparison to the males. Translate this over several hundred thousands of years and you have women being weak but mostly reproductively successful and men being stronger but not as many reproduce.
>>1246332
Shut up you goddamn tranny you bring shame upon our faith
