That's an interesting analysis. Gerda Lerner's history of patriarchy noted that it began well before monotheism, though reached its ultimate heights there, and what you define as the Age of Aries might have been the rough starting point; I don't remember.
If it were not for fossil fuel, most women would still be working on home farmsteads, but so would most men. At the beginning of the 20th century, a quarter of the U.S. population farmed. But prior societies without fossil fuels allowed some people to specialize in arts, sciences, the professions, etc., and I presume future societies will as well. When "people" in that context means males only, the system has been so structured as to deprive women of the chance to exercise their talents. That is bad for those women, of course, but it is also bad for society; the more talented people are cut off from training by their sex, race, class, religion, or whatever, the less productivity there will be. It can't be true that only unpaid labor or only low-status paid labor (e.g., nurse vs. doctor, teacher vs. prof, prostitute vs. senator) is compatible with motherhood - and, of course, not all women will or can be mothers.
Certainly in the future the idea that "everyone should go to college" is going to sink like the Titanic. I will be satisfied if we do not fall back into the idea that even mediocre males merit education and leisure time to utilize it, while female geniuses exist to produce smart male babies.
As for the definition of "feminism", my husband certainly didn't intend his usage as a "gimmick." Neither of us spent any time reading the authors you name, so he wouldn't have been able to say which, if any, named category of theoretical, academic feminist thought he approved of. He simply believed that men should treat women as equals. He loved me for my intelligence and was glad to see me making use of it. That's all. I too do not want to make any more philosophical assertions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2022-07-18 10:21 pm (UTC)If it were not for fossil fuel, most women would still be working on home farmsteads, but so would most men. At the beginning of the 20th century, a quarter of the U.S. population farmed. But prior societies without fossil fuels allowed some people to specialize in arts, sciences, the professions, etc., and I presume future societies will as well. When "people" in that context means males only, the system has been so structured as to deprive women of the chance to exercise their talents. That is bad for those women, of course, but it is also bad for society; the more talented people are cut off from training by their sex, race, class, religion, or whatever, the less productivity there will be. It can't be true that only unpaid labor or only low-status paid labor (e.g., nurse vs. doctor, teacher vs. prof, prostitute vs. senator) is compatible with motherhood - and, of course, not all women will or can be mothers.
Certainly in the future the idea that "everyone should go to college" is going to sink like the Titanic. I will be satisfied if we do not fall back into the idea that even mediocre males merit education and leisure time to utilize it, while female geniuses exist to produce smart male babies.
As for the definition of "feminism", my husband certainly didn't intend his usage as a "gimmick." Neither of us spent any time reading the authors you name, so he wouldn't have been able to say which, if any, named category of theoretical, academic feminist thought he approved of. He simply believed that men should treat women as equals. He loved me for my intelligence and was glad to see me making use of it. That's all. I too do not want to make any more philosophical assertions.