a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by lifestyled

I'd say physical force and also being, historically, the majority owners of property. I don't know how much the latter dynamic has shifted in modern times, but I think that likely played a role in keeping women out of power.





War  ·  3261 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Don't you think that physical force led to men's ability to own a majority of property?

lifestyled  ·  3261 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Oh certainly. I'm just saying that, with that property, they didn't have to rely on physical force as much to discriminate because they could use laws, courts, and the realm of business in their favor instead.

That's not to say physical force wouldn't still be used. I'd just figure that, at the higher echelons of wealth and society, those men would be more likely to use their soft power.

War  ·  3261 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I just think that all that followed physical force really. I think the use of force jump started men's lead so to speak. It is actually a bit funny that we would build technology, societal institutions, government, etc. to establish our power, but in turn naturally be leveling the playing field by pushing farther and farther from men's only real significant advantage which was physical superiority.

artis  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't think "technology, societal institutions, government, etc." have anything to do with securing power for men as a class. Individiual power (or at least social standing), sure, but that motivation is not gender dependent.

War  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, weren't women locked out of government the very institution that would bound them to their homes, and children? I mean they weren't allowed to speak on matters of substances for a really long time. Women being involved in the sciences was almost unheard of throughout large portions of history. Although the purpose of all those things was not gender, they all played strong roles in the further subjugation of women?

artis  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Further? I don't see it. The existing inequality was just perpetuated in new forms from what I can tell.

Then again I don't subscribe to the idea that it is a fundamentally hierarchical problem...

War  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I guess I just meant that government, social institutions, technology were all used to strip women of their ability to rise from inequity. Take away their ability to participate in law making, education, and technology. In a way they become reliant or subservient to men out of need to survive/thrive in those environments.

artis  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That still implies that women weren't subservient before, e.g., technology. There might be instances where women were worse off after some innovation or another but overall I think it's fair to say that technology has been neutral on the issue and, more recently, very liberating. There is no way to seriously argue that the washing machine is a patriarchal tool of oppression, yet it's not a design for social change either, it's just technology being technology.

War  ·  3260 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You are definite right about that, and I guess the rest of it too. If we just assume women were treated as objects from the beginning then all the education, structure, and politics would simply be used to perpetuate an ideal that was already believed before these things were created.

lifestyled  ·  3261 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's actually what gave rise to the original men's rights movements in austria; they did not approve of women entering the workforce and felt it was a threat to societal and legal institutions.