An article regarding how manly and patriarchal tended to be meat-eating folk.

[noi_avorrit]

Good thread buddy. Have some good info on it. 

Thank you very much bud, at least you and @RuudVanNistelrooy appreaciate the thread

Here are some points i have to comment:

-why did you don't include the scandinavian vikings norsemens? They have mostly a meat based diet. However despite being so agressive and dominant masculine society, it was quite an sex-egalitarian society were women would choose man freely,the female figure were strong somewhat. There was also evidence that in vikings society females were quite hypergamous and polygamy were the norm among higher castes. 

Yeah, I could have included them, although as I was taking a lot of time and I wanted to keep it as simple as possible I decided to mean with "Corded Ware" not only that but also the Germanic cultures, here I clarify it:

I'm sorry if what I wrote is too long, or if I forgot to state important folk such as the Germanic and Celtic tribes (which are included in the Corded Ware), the Maasai, Inuit or important leaders such as Attila and others.However, my main points are that mostly meat eating tribes have a tendency to be manly, conservative and patriarchal (putting women in their place), as well as warlike. On the other hand, grain-eating folk are often more lax, more open to matriarchy and in the case of the modern west utterly anti-male.

-we can also include amerindian People, specially the northen ones (apalache, sioux, dakota) since they physically resembles to the old european cromagnon and probably also the ancient north eurasian phenotype. And they of course never develope agriculture, so they were in a fully primitive diet. 

Yeah, indeed we can, we could include any culture that kept the primitive diet, although as I said I wanted to simply the article as much as possible.

-the People from the andronovo culture were in origin physically mostly mongoloid-looking with a few Caucasian facial traits (similar to bashkir, some turkic People from central asia and finno-ugric people's.) 

May I ask you, @Torbik , where do you get this from? I think that the Andronovo culture was the continuation of the Sintashta culture, which was itself just an eastern expansion of Corded Ware. According to Wikipedia (although not wholly a reliable source, as lots of their articles have clear leftist bias):

Most researchers associate the Andronovo horizon with early Indo-Iranian languages, though it may have overlapped the early Uralic-speaking area at its northern fringe.[6] Allentoft et al. (2015) concluded from their genetic studies that the Andronovo culture and the preceding Sintashta culture should be partially derived from the Corded Ware culture, given the higher proportion of ancestry matching the earlier farmers of Europe, similar to the admixture found in the genomes of the Corded Ware population

It seems like Sintashta, Andronovo and pure Scythians were from 70% to 80% Western Steppe Herder while the rest Early European Farmer.

-I have the theory that some proto turkic peoples or proto altaic People domesticated the horse first and then proto-indoeuropean people learn it from they. 

-mongols were more taller and robust-build than the gracilized chinese in comparision. 

Interesting point here. It could have been that way though, altaic folk domesticating the horse first and then Indo Europeans adapting to it. However the most common explanation that I've read is that it was Indo Europeans specially Scythians that taught them horse riding and horse archery.

As for the chinese being more gracilized than the mongols, I considered it that obvious, and given that you already stated it on the other thread that I just skipped it.

-genetically speaking, central italians resembles most to ancient romans tbh. Altough ancient romans or latin tribes have mainly continental celtic DNA similar to northen italian tribes, celtiberian tribes, and gauls from modern france, they also have near eastern(anatolia), Greek, north african and old european DNA as well.

Yeah, it could be that way though. I read on The Apricity forum that the early romans were genetically similar to modern Central and Northern Italians, then during the Principate and Imperial era they became mostly West Asian owing to immigration, and after the barbarian invasions they became european again. However, @Torbik , an user called Token on that forum states that original romans were west asian influenced and that northern italian and other dna was foreign. However I think he said that to justify post barbarian invasion longobard dna intromission.