>>96435195
>e.g. here's a 1975 (picked because you'd complain something more recent is "woke") study on the subject:
One tribe of bushmen, wow! Published as part of ANTHROPOLOGY OF WOMEN by Patricia Draper, a woman whose entire scholarship revolves around A: the !Kung and related bushmen tribes and B: gender dynamics and "patrilateral bias". Who do you think you're fooling with such obvious tripe? Aside from the blatant motivation on the part of the author, extrapolating one band of bushmen to all of Africa, let alone all of human history, is retarded and demonstrates a lack of actually credible sources on your part.

>Ah, yes, the "mass entry of women into the workforce".
Are we just going to pretend that women didn't enter the broader workforce en masse between the 40s and 60s? Are we hoping that quotation marks will let us deny reality? Women were 20% of the labor force in 1920 and are now at or above 50% of the labor force. This is, in fact, a substantive difference.
>When men were [...] their thumbs?
Doing work. At home. There's actually quite a lot of work that goes into maintaining a household, particularly before the conveniences of the modern era. Plenty had hobbies and many may even have done work on the side. The point of the matter is, the division of labor between the sexes was much more pronounced before the modern era, and its breakdown was not some sort of natural happenstance.

>Totally "apolitical" anon whose perspective isn't corrupted by "personal politics," btw.
Oh no, I'm not apolitical. God forbid. You were the one who started a shitfit at someone saying men are different from women, and ever since have been whining "Just ignore it!!! It's fantasy!!!"
>Being so caught up in your own politics/beliefs you can't enjoy make believe is actually really souless and sad.
Comments like this make me think you are, yourself, a woman. Pathos-driven passive-aggressiveness.