Just one thing: your teachers at school didn't teach you how to write resumes?

Huh? A resume is the summary of one's job history. Did you mean a précis or abstract?

That's a long wall of text there. Almost as if you're really really pushing to not have people question your view.

Huh? again. If I didn't want people to question my view, why would I take the time to explain it at length? Seems you've decreed a word or character limit on this sub that I am not aware of.

"Long wall of text" - is that supposed to be an insult? So you think Homer, Chaucer, Spencer, James Joyce, George Eliot, Dickens, Pynchon, David Foster Wallace and a zillion other writers should be ignored coz in your opinion they used too many words?

BTW, casting aspersions on a poster for making a "long wall of text" seems a pretty obvious way of saying you can't - or aren't willing to - engage/refute the specific points/arguments in that "wall of text."

What else can I say - you offend women by claiming that the moment humanity learnt to write and build, society stopped being feminist. As if the moment we got smarter as a species the first thing we did was drop women as leaders. Yeah, thank you, what a nice theory to have.

I never claimed any such thing! I simply disagreed with your explanation for the origins of patriarchy, which you blamed on all males being "aggressive and strong" and all females having "fragile pregnancies."

I instead gave a more complex explanation for the biological reasons that caused patriarchy to come to be. I said males chose to take advantage of their physical strength over females to be able to access/control/own female bodies in order to obtain their own male sexual pleasure, and to make sure they were the fathers of the the offspring born to "their" women.

I never denied that patriarchy has long been the norm, nor did I deny that it has its root in biology. I only expanded on the biological reasons you proposed.

Oh, speaking of tits and ass in ancient times, I HOPE you AT LEAST know the Venus of Willendorf.

Of course I know about VofW, and many other ancient fertility symbols/fetishes. But religious symbols and totems aren't depictions of real life. Also, the VofW represents a time when women were revered for our ability to bring new life into the world. It was also a time of food scarcity when corpulence was seen as a sign of caloric wealth and high status. Whereas in your pornified view, the VofW means women have always been viewed in all human societies from the dawn of time as nothing but "tits and ass" - and body fat was regarded in the same shaming, disdainful way it is in today's world.

But what on earth does the VofW have to do with this? In my post, I was responding to your exhortation to

have a look at ancient art: you see pantings of strong men hunting, and of women having huge tits and ass.

And I gave links to a wide variety of prehistoric/ancient paintings which do not fit your simplistic, sexist view. (Also, for the record, I kindly did not point out that "panting of strong men hunting, and of women having huge tits and ass" are not necessarily the same as "paintings" of such.)

My theory (or rather, my scientifical fact) that society never was feminist to begin with because of our biology, and our society is patriarchal just like an ant's society is matriarchal, is far, far less offensive to women.

I never said society was feminist to begin with, LOL. That's a preposterous claim. I simply disagreed with your black-and-white depiction of the two sexes' physical capabilities that biology has endowed us with.

You see all men in prehistoric, ancient and modern times as super-muscular giants capable of wrestling and defeating all sorts of ferocious beasts and as a result were/are natural "guardians" and "protectors" of females, whom in your view were/are all fragile, passive weaklings incapable of ever doing anything physical other than nurturing offspring and "catering." On the scale of human strength and physical capability, you see all males as rating 100 and all females as rating 0 (zero). You think women are physically utterly weak and useless, especially when pregnant and during and after giving birth.

You totally disregard the enormous hardiness and amazing strength that carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, breastfeeding requires - and you also foster the myth that once women become pregnant and give birth, we become forever incapable of doing anything other than nurturing and "catering."

I'll keep being a feminist who knows that to make things better for us women, I first need to be objective in knowing WHY women have been oppressed for 98% of human history. I'd rather say it's a biological reason that can change as our species (and our society)

It's not the simple fact of biology that has caused women to be oppressed for nearly all of human history, it's the conscious decision of males to take advantage of the biologically-determined physical strength/power differentials between the two sexes to dominate females and exert "ownership" over us - and to punish, shame and sideline females for menstruating, pregnancy, childbearing and breastfeeding. A male decision that some females have gone along with and even supported.

you're not really helping the image of women

No, it's you who are not helping the image of women by your misogynistic view that all females are weak, fragile, incapable and in all physical ways utterly useless - and that the female ability to gestate, birth and nourish new life is a liability and weakness rather than a capability and a strength.

I'll keep being a feminist who knows that to make things better for us women

You might think you know how make things better for women, but I doubt you've actually done anything to make things better. You sound exactly like the kind of "feminist" who back in the 70s and 80s vehemently opposed providing workplace protections and provisions for pregnant and breastfeeding women, and who today resents childcare credits and allowances for family leave for either sex. You probably think the sex pay gap in paid employment is coz women due to their inferior biology and "fragile pregnancies" are weak and unambitious, not coz for various reasons - familial, social, biological, economic - it's women who have to take time out from paid work coz of maternity and child and elder care.