this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
13 points (84.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47655 readers
1185 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

No idea. I mean my exposure to it is with the bible and christiantity but asia seemed to have a lot of it to. Pagan europe felt a bit less so especially as you head north. Native peoples im not sure but did not seem to be so stark. I honestly never understood why inheritance and property did not flow down the maternal line. That would have at least equaled things out a bit and makes much more sense. I mean you know a womens kid is her kid mostly.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh hey, anthropology questions on a primarily western instance filled with Americans and Europeans, this will end well.

Simple answer: It heavily depends on the region and time period, there were periods of equality and periods of great inequality in every area of the -- it was Greece. and the Germanic tribes that eventually formed Rome. That is the reason why it is prevalent in western culture as a meme, as well as anywhere western culture colonized.

Complex Answer:

Women have historically been equal to men or held in higher positions of power than men for most of human history. In early human societies (and intact uncontacted societies today, from observation) there was no clear sexual hierarchy, so we can conclude it didn't really start there. From western development we see women in equal roles in pre-dynastic Egypt and across multiple middle eastern areas. While some greek tribes (and for that matter some germanic tribes) did have women in spiritual or leadership roles, this was incredibly uncommon and as 'European' culture became the 'civilized' culture, women took on a much more subservient, lesser role in society; as they saw the male form as more capable.

As one culture and viewpoint started to dominate, it started to leak in and infect practically every aspect of society. Early Catholicism and christianity, for instance, had women as equals, though the church lost that idea by the 9th century. By the 19th century when we see modern women's liberation movements, a fully patriarchal society had developed which was incredibly domineering and widespread. Thanks to colonization by western European powers.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 hours ago

There does seem to have been a pretty widespread shift around 5000-3000 BCE (7000-5000 years ago) where a number of different populations across Europe, Asia, and North and East Africa all shifted in a relatively small time window to a patriarchal (literally "father-lead" for people who aren't familiar with what the term actually means) social structure. Interestingly this also coincides with a rapid loss of genetic diversity in the y-chromosome suggesting it was highly hazardous to the health of most men when this shift happened. Some have speculated that this is the point at which we went from minor territorial disputes and some mild raiding to the emergence of organized "warfare", though the evidence is circumstantial. While cultures still often went back and forth between being more egalitarian and more patriarchal, that seems to be a major historical turning point. In the (roughly) 300,000 year history of Homo sapiens, and the several million year history of the Homo genus, that's a relatively recent.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

My understanding, and it is completely casual, layman level understanding, is that patriarchy started around the birth of property and inheritance.

There's plenty of evidence (that someone already linked to a layman's level article) showing that our earliest societies didn't have gendered hierarchy at all, and that it wasn't all patriarchal when it started.

But for the most part, the control of women was only a useful thing once the need to have control over inheritance became important. If you don't have land or wealth to pass on, then there's really no point to one sex/gender being dominant to another. There isn't a point to it in that regard in my opinion, since I don't view biological offspring to be more worthy of inheritance than otherwise, but some people did care, especially when leadership came with a great deal of ownership as well.

Afaik, that's when patriarchy became something that was etched into laws and religion. When the leadership, and thus ownership, was passed down, and the passing went from father to son. When that's in place, controlling reproduction becomes paramount, and to control reproduction, you have to control women since while you couldn't prove who someone's father was way back then, it was hella hard to fake who gave birth.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

Pretty much from the dawn of societies. Generational wealth and progeny is extremely important, and women must be controlled so that provenance of her children may be assured.

In the Bible you constantly see themes that don't make sense until you understand how important that stuff was. Abraham was asked to sacrifice the thing most precious to him: his son. God killed the first-born of Egypt. Lot's daughters had sex with their dad because that was the only way to ensure that their 'pure' line continued. Calling back to Abraham, God himself sacrificed what? His son.

Pre-agriculture societies were probably pretty egalitarian. And the idea that hunting and gathering was segregated by sex doesn't have much evidence besides "common sense" and vibes.

[–] lemonhead2@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

women are physically weaker on average. there was a time when physical strength was hugely important

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

women are physically weaker on average. there was a time when physical strength was hugely important

That's only a small part of the equation, and is by no means the main reason for "subserviance," altho I think @yesman@lemmy.world answers it pretty nicely, here.

In reality, the "subserviant" thing is probably an extremely recent development out of the ~300Kyrs of modern human history and ~2.4Myrs of genus Homo history. It's certainly not universal across the history we do know, but AFAIK is indeed heavily tied to concepts of agriculture, property, and the accumulation of lucre.

For example, if you look at the other Great Apes, you won't see anything resembling what humans have spiraled in to in terms of such control. Nor across most (or all) of the other observable animals.

So the idea that this "subserviance" idea is traditional for humans is technically true across a very short time period, and near-complete nonsense on the whole. It's mainly the controllers and elitists who have always always been trying to push that idea, from what I can tell.

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It still is in a lot of places in the world. Not everyone lives in a developed high skilled economy. In fact, only about 20% of the world population does.

[–] bmpvy@piefed.social 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

the word you're looking for is patriarchy 🥰

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It never began, it just always was. Likely due to biological differences between men and women and their social roles.

The concept that men and women are equal is fairly short lived, kind of started in the Enlightenment really, as it's a derivative of the theory that 'all men are equal'. The concept of 'gender identity' is even newer, it's really a post WW2 thing.

For some reason, however, a lot of people now want to read modern gender identity theory and roles and all that onto history. This revisionist type of historicism has always been around though, often in the case that the author wants to 'claim' suprerority or legitimate for their 'people' by saying they were teh OG people.

I'm reading a book on Indo European and it talks about historically a lot of scholars try to argue that their native language is the OG language of Babel, and all the other languages are 'poseurs', so to speak. People tend to do shit like that.