[bell-cot]

Yes, yes - it looks like the Giant Evil Patriarchy is yet again telling lies about women's abilities and participation in higher-status, male-dominated activities.

OTOH - notice the longer-term advantages, for most historical agrarian societies, of pushing a "heroic male hunter" stereotype. If warfare is all-too-common, losing wars is generally disasterous, and you can convince your males (especially the younger and more aggressive ones, who tend to cause a lot of trouble at home) to zealously fight for your society - that may be your best-case use of human resources. The wiser heads know that, if push comes to shove, the women can and will do whatever is needed. So if ~~30% of the society's males get killed off in some big war every few decades, that's actually quite survivable. Vs. a similar fraction of the females getting killed off would be a real disaster.

[dang]

Can you please make your substantive points without resorting to the flamewar style or ideological battle? Those things are not what HN is for, and destroy what it is for. We want curious conversation here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[rawgabbit]

I often wonder about this. Large scale wars I believe only occurred with the development of agrarian based societies. Nomadic societies would usually not risk all in a do or be enslaved war. Nomadic tribes frequently raided each other but could retreat and make do if necessary.

Farms had to be defended. It would take years to restore a destroyed farm and what would you eat if the enemy stole your harvest and all your animals.

My guess is such a winner take all scenario, they were not merciful to the women and children either. They killed those who resisted and enslaved the rest.