Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[thucythucy]

25. I'm not sure I understand these distinctions you seem to be making.

For instance, what's the difference between a "pre-industrial" society vs. a post industrial society in terms of "protecting" women presumably so they can propagate and continue the species? (Which I take it is your explanation for why women had to be "protected&quot . Women are no longer necessary to have children? Seems to me that the basic mechanics of procreation haven't been altered all that much by industrialization. So wherein lies the distinction?

In any case, what precisely were women being protected from? Other men? Certainly not from slavery, rape, death in childbirth, malnutrition, etc.

My guess is your response might be that they were being "protected" from death in warfare, which is a somewhat valid point, if you ignore the fact that women have always been casualties in war (especially those on the losing side). My thought is that women not being used as cannon fodder (aside from certain exceptions, such as for instance the Soviet Union in WWII) has always had more to do with the fact that war prior to the 20th century generally involved brute force against brute force, that is, physical muscle mass strength, and women generally speaking have less physical strength all else being equal than men. Besides which, someone had to mind the kiddies, plant and harvest the crops, herd the livestock, do all the work involved in actually maintaining a society, while the men were out killing each other, so it made sense for it to be the women.

Not to mention that this "protection" hardly applied or was of much benefit to most women in most societies. Even during relatively violent eras, for instance in France of the Middle Ages, only a tiny fraction of people were involved in warfare: most people it seems to me led lives of stultifying tedium, digging in the dirt, managing their flocks. What good was patriarchal "protection" to women and girls in an environment like that? And could it possibly have been worth the cost in terms of a relatively diminished quality of life? By "relatively" I mean I take your point in another post that the overwhelming majority of people, men and women, have throughout history lived lives of oppression, poverty, and ignorance. But, if it sucked being a French peasant in 1325, it most likely sucked even worse being that French peasant's wife or daughter.

And I don't know about the "hypocrisy" of asking for suffrage "to send men to die." I mean yeah, the whole "white feather" thing was disgusting. There's no doubt that shaming men into the military is pretty sleazy, and certainly not one of history's finer moments. As I recall from my reading, it wasn't only or even predominantly women who were free and easy with the charge of cowardice if a young man felt reluctant to join the slaughter. I seem to recall, for instance, a scene in "All Quiet on the Western Front" where it was (male) school masters who were among the most avid cheerleaders for carnage.As I said, not one of the specie's best moments.

I think our definitions of terms such as "patriarchy" and certainly "protection" are rather different. As I said in an earlier post, I see it as less "protection" and more "control." Women's reproductive abilities (and their manual labor of course) have in patriarchies always been under the strict control of men. Women and girls who tried to elude this control were dealt with harshly.

This remains the case in much of the world today, and there are many in the US who would love for us to revert to using all the instruments of state power and physical force to keep women "in their place."

This has less to do, I think, with "protection" and "survival" than with domination, control, power and privilege.

Best wishes