The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner | Book Discourse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2017
- The age old belief that men are the more naturally dominant/aggressive sex while women are the more naturally submissive/subordinate sex is a social construct which began at antiquity and institutionalized within the time span of millennia for the purpose of managing socioeconomic power. Let's discuss the philosophical implications of this.
Feel free to follow me:
Blog: theblackponderer.wordpress.com
Twitter: @blackponderer
Background Music from Chillhop: / chillhopdotcom
Joseph Jacobs - Tune In: / joejacobs
I'm reading this book and the journey is mind-blowing. I'm an historian and teacher, this book debunked almost everything I learned in my career. It was depressing in some way. However, refreshing at the same time. I'm really glad this book reached my hands. Great video and review by the way 🎉
I like the part where she says that the Need for men's aggression (way back) to protect the tribe or family is now not necessary, and that Men's aggression could now lead to our END. 20:20 intersectionality. Thanks for talking about this book.
Ooh, I would challenge the assumption that male aggression was necessary to protect the clan - the implication is that females are passive and don't/didn't protect their clan or children.
@@edelgyn2699agreed. Actually more evidence is coming up that many women were warriors! Etc. I think masculine and feminine is more metaphysical... Though I also think there is correlation to the material body... As an example mothers likely aren't going to be warriors as they are mothering. Although I know some mothers that would be intense warriors😂
Plus, weapons helped to even the playing field in egalitarian societies. Aggression, anger, frustration, can all be used appropriately. Patriarchy uses those emotions to terrible consequences 😔
you really do have the ability to break down complex theories & to put them into your own words, so that they're easier to understand for others. Perfect qualities that you need in order to bring some truth behind the construction of social reality & truly inspiring.
as a (social-scientific)diversity studies student, I cant stress enough how glad I am that I came across your channel! Thank you so much for discussing such important topics/theories
Hey that's what I was gonna say 😂
I'm currently rewatching this video while taking some notes for my open book online exam (on important studies/theories that influenced reflexive diversity studies) next week, sippin on some tea & having a hot water bottle next to me, while there's a snow storm going on outside - can't imagine a better Sunday activity for myself during this pandemic! xx
I discovered your channel yesterday and have been working through your older videos. I like that you hold a tuning fork to the ideas you encounter and try to get to the truth of the matter.
In my opinion, philosophy is all about the search for truth, or lack there of.
By the way, I really like the passages you choose to highlight. This is an excellent way of bringing focus to a complex topic and giving us your insight into that concept. That's a very cool way to share these books and your insights.
one of my favourite youtube channels, for real!! never stop!!!
"Can't stop, won't stop..."
Great video! I am looking forward to watching you more.
Excellent video my friend, very informative! I learned a lot. Peace!
I’m so excited to read this book! ❤
Your explanation of what she's saying really helps me to understand it better. Thank you.
great review. some people prefer being comfortable over being free
so true
I'm glad I found your channel.
New sub!! 🙂👍🏾
Well done, thank you so much for the explanation. Will defiantly give it a read!!
Love this channel.
Thank you!!!!!!!! So much for this important information so informative and freeing for the uneducated person keep sharing this everywhere THANK YOU AGAIN 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
I read all the comments so far and the Black Ponderer is right. Ppl have opinions on patriarchy based on emotion/custom. If you look back in time you will see exactly where and why things tilted to patriarchy. I do not agree that men naturally dominate over women. Today's society is forgetting that we equally need each other. We are different but equal.
When land, chattel, irrigation for farming and other physical duties became opportunities for capital, Bam! Things started to change. But just like TBP says, throughout time cultures still found the "different but equal" balance among genders.
As for suppression/discrimination, I believe one can and will get away with it until greater forces prevail.
I like the Black Ponderer and I always took an interest in Feminist history. The major weakness in the argument is psychology. When we look at the Big Five, the basic parameters of what people are like, It's obvious from repeated experiment that women score much more highly on the Agreeableness than men, who are demonstrably more challenging and competitive. And he's right - there are indeed lots of exceptions to the rule. There are indeed some very fiery women out there and some very peaceful men. Me too. But statistical evidence wont let anybody away with that reasoning. When you look at the objective indicators of women's capacity for violence compared to men, just look at the arrest records. How many women got arrested for street brawling on the weekend?
I mean if nothing else, it's a frequent assumption of feminists that men ARE more violent than women.
This corresponds with what we know of ancient history and prehistory too - Men did most of the fighting. If you find a body which died by a violent death, it will probably be a male body. There weren't many countries who enlisted women as warriors. There were exceptions. But they were the exception, not the rule. As a broad rule, they generally weren't up to three day marches in grim weather before they were engaged in prolonged and ruthless hand-to-hand fighting. So the exception=to-the-rule logic is contradicted by almost all the evidence we have.
What remains to decide is whether this is socially constructed or biologically innate. Now whether this was nature or nurture is a little harder to say, but the supporting evidence that it might well be nature is also very tangible : the naturally high levels of testosterone in men's blood. This is a very measurable physical fact and if it could be 'socially constructed, I can guarantee there wouldn''t be a single athlete who wasn't busy trying to socially construct as much as they possibly could.
Psychology is a male dominate field, created by men. But please. Do go on.
Psychology is a science, and science is not something created by whim or invention. If psychology would be a 'female dominant field', then does that mean that gold would be more frequent than hydrogen in the universe?
@@MegadethBetterThanMetallicope Psychology is not a hard science. It's not physics. The field is trying really hard to be a science - mostly for reasons of status and legitimacy - but in many ways, it's really not. And it is very culturally bound. I say this as someone in a related field (psychotherapy) and the daughter of a psychologist.
@@dominicberry5577 When we look at the Big Five, the basic parameters of what people are like, It's obvious from repeated experiment that women score much more highly on the Agreeableness than men, who are demonstrably more challenging and competitive. And he's right - there are indeed lots of exceptions to the rule. There are indeed some very fiery women out there and some very peaceful men.
That doesn't mean that these traits are innate and not a product of socialisation.
Also, women's agreeableness varies by culture and environment. The research you're referring to is mostly based on white middle-class westerners. (Mostly college students, which is not exactly representative of the US population, let alone the global population.) For example, my family are Basque (among other things) and come from Bizkaia - women there aren't exactly known for being agreeable. (Neither are the men.) Likewise, I have many East/Southeast Asian friends and, generally speaking, the men are quite high in agreeableness. (So are the women.)
In middle-class Anglo culture (especially upper-middle-class), a woman can pay a very heavy social price for not being agreeable. She might even be subjected to violence as "punishment". She will certainly be subject to shaming, gossip, and social exclusion. I speak from direct personal experience - I now very much avoid WASPy circles and this is one of the primary reasons. This also applies to other cultural groups but WASPy circles are where I've seen and experienced the worst of it.
Hello "Black Ponderer"--this site and the work you are doing on it is spectacular! I must admit to being surprised that my search for an "interview with Gerda Lerner" offered your excellent educational offering. As a historian of women's history (primarily focused on American women's history) one of the main areas of investigation and evidence-gathering I've been involved with has been the very question (as you have raised): how did women become subordinate to allow the patriarchal system to flourish and dominate all aspects of life in the Western (and Eastern, for that matter) world? I've relied strongly on Gerda Lerner's explanations through her research which has resulted in "The Creation of Patriarchy". One of the main ideas that I've been working on is the role of VALUES--I believe that males have created the patriarchal structure because they have convinced most people (within the earliest times of history) in society that anything known as "male" should be VALUED highly, and that females are not to be as well valued because women are unlike males--therefore: lesser, even inferior. Thus, it is males who, being more valued, have taken the authority for themselves to arrange the majority of societal structures, traditions, and attitudes found in human history up to the present time. Of course, what I've written here doesn't go into the needed detail about how VALUES sway people toward one way of thinking or another, a subject that could use much more investigation! By the way, I want to say how exciting and pleasing it is for me as a former college history instructor to see your interest in history (and anthropology, too); I can see by watching this video that you seem to enjoy using your mind, and obviously wish to share the art of thought with as many people as you can reach. I'm most impressed with your thought processes as evident throughout this video--I'm glad that I found your important work here!
Thank you kindly for your words and viewership. I think, when it's all said and done, when we try to make sense of this question of why certain social groups are subordinate and others dominant, it all boils down to "greed." The fact is all human beings have an insatiable drive for power. It's human nature. It's bigger in some people than in others but it's there in everybody. Some people can keep this drive in check and some cannot. Those that cannot come together to build and maintain systems, such as capitalism or patriarchy, which feed that insatiable drive for power. These systems are designed to exploit this drive within all of us, specifically those who are adept at keeping the drive in check, so that all people more or less abide by the systems. This is where voluntary subordination comes from.
Nice to learn from the video and comment section.❤
I love your channel
Very interesting and informative. I suspect this video was recommended to me because I've been watching so many anthropology videos lately. One channel in particular - "What is Politics" - definitely caught my attention. These conversations I've stumbled upon explain a lot, but I still philosophically slant in the patriarchal direction. There's still certain tangible realities that I don't think will go anywhere anytime soon. We still exist in a world of limited resources. As such, people will still sub-divide into competing tribes. Subsequently, there will still be the threat of war. It may not be physical military combat, but there will be economic warfare or wars of influence. In as much as those are the realities on the ground, there will still be a unique value for men, and as such - patriarchy. Maybe when we're all under the governance of AI, a truly egalitarian world will become possible, but I don't expect that to happen in the near future.
Those tangible realities ain't gonna change with that kind of attitude. People said the same stuff about chattel slavery. "Yeah, it'll be nice if slavery didn't exist but whose gonna do the labor, I mean, it's just not practical to not have slaves." People said the same thing about Jim Crow. "Yeah, it would be nice if we're all equal, but certain people just ain't the same as others and we gotta have a social system that acknowledges that." People said the same thing about trains, even. "Yeah, it'll be nice if we could go places faster, but that's just to dang fast, people will go into shock looking out the window seeing how fast things are moving." And so forth, and so on. Human advancement happens when we free our minds from the limits we put on our own imaginations. We are prisoners of our own device, but we can free ourselves by identifying those restrictive devices we create and deconstruct them.
Just ran across your channel. Good stuff here! Would LOVE to hear your take on Dr. James DeMeo’s book Saharasia the origins of sexual repression, child abuse and violence.
I’ll check out that book.
Hey, just started listening to a little bit of this, I'll listen to more later. I think one thing that's happened and I don't know if you'll mention this later is the idea that we've really wounded the feminine and masculine energy within ourselves and this has led to the wounded masculine feminine we see within each other. The Divine masculine is meant to organize and create structure for the divine feminine which is this creative but also chaotic. We see the divine feminine depicted in kali the Destroyer, in the phoenix character in comic books and other mythologies.
Do you believe that there actually exist gendered energy? Like there really is masculine and feminine energy out in the universe that we tap into? Or do you think that's all made up, a construction of our imagination?
I think the masculine and feminine exist in each of us, though the balance differs. Women have more feminine and men more masculine. But it exists in us. Jung called this the Anima and Animus and in religion and mythology we see it in the various gods, Zeus, Kali, Athena, Shakti, Dyionisus, etc.
Our work is to create balance within us. So for men, and I'm simplying here tremendously, it's to tap into our creativity and vulnerability, to surrender perspectives, belief, etc and to use our mind to organize those energies versus constantly suppressing them. We haven't really been taught how though because modern society thrives on a wounded masculine.
A book that talks about this which I think you would absolutely love if you haven't read it already is called King, Magician, Warrior, Lover. It's about the divine and wounded aspects of the most common male archtypes@@theblackponderer
More than a subordination of women, we've had a subordination of the divine femine and masculine. We still have the feminine, it being chaos, but not a creative rebirthing chaos, more of a chaos that's constantly controlled by the "patriarchy" which can be also thought of as a wounded masculine that wants to control all change (chaos) to the point of suffocating it. And men and women both participate in this, unconsciously or otherwise. @@theblackponderer
hello namaste from nepal..
Big fan! New to page. Anything on what got you into philosophy?
Thanks! I guess I've always been interested in philosophy but it was teachers that I had early on in life that recommended me philosophical texts which added a lot of fuel to my interest.
The Black Ponderer what you say our the top 10 philosophical books that a Christian (myself) should read?
I have just finished AntiChrist by Nietzsche.
I would say there is no universally top 10 list of philosophical books. This is because the field of philosophy is extremely diverse, even within the Christian aesthetic, so the top 10 books for you would be highly dependent on what is important and meaningful to you which could be very different from other people. So first consider what philosophical questions are most important to you. Perhaps I can provide recommended texts that address these questions.
The Black Ponderer well i am a fan of the existentialists, so i am listening to audio book of Karamazov.
I want to understand more of the fundamentals on how society should be run (political).
I guess i would be seeking where to start if to build a foundation to go further? Is it necessary to start with the Greeks?
Cool. Fyodor Dostoyevsky offers deep Christian existentialism. He confronts the philosophical dilemmas of Christianity by exploring human psychology. He specifically does this in the Brothers Karamazov but also in many of his other works.
Much of modern politics is rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, like that from Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics. Our government's modernization, however, was influenced by "The Age of Enlightenment" when philosophical texts like Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract are written. It's good to also check out philosophical texts about alternative forms of government or critiques of modern politics from philosophers like Karl Marx or Emma Goldman.
New sub.👍🏾
Very well explained! Only I didn't like the music in the background which seemed unnecessary.
Thanks for watching! Yeah, the background music is my style, kinda have to take it or leave it with me. Totally understand if ya leave it 👍🏾
"In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a women." Margret Thatcher
I will get this book!!!! THANKS. I read The Great Cosmic Mother you may like to read it and review it....please do. I will subscribe too as not to lose contact with this channel glad I found it.
He just like me fr
Yes! Yes! Yes! There are a lot of women who benefit from the construct of patriarchy!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.
A lot? Every human being on the planet benefits from the moment the first group of men got together and realized they could hunt predator animals, then set up communities in the land where they warded off said animals, and then decided that thr leaders of thr community should be the strongest and most able men.
Anything less than that would have resulted in human extinction. The patriarchy is the only anyone is able to complain about the patriarchy.
That’s like saying slaves have it made.
@@lbrowning2543 slaves came from self sustaining societies that were conquered and and the slaves were forced against their will to work.
Women on their own would fall victim to nature.
@@BarbaPamino That’s absurd. Women are independent human beings. You need to read the book he’s talking about. It goes through women’s history from. Neolithic up to modern times. It does t say patriarchy is good. Most primitive tribal organizations are matrilineal and egalitarian in social structure. We’re about due for a change.
@@lbrowning2543 you're completely wrong. No matriarchal human civilization ever existed. No free standing structures. No written language. No law. No order. A few maternal hunter gatherer societies existed and do now. But thye more closely resemble the bonobo (an actual matriarchal society) than a human civilization. I've studied this for decades. And I went in thinking like you
What if patriarchy was a tail-end extension of a spiritual matriarchy, where one could not exist without the other as they would follow one another throughout the course of all eternity?
Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchy can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld; her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
Mary's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as "Head to tail" (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12, verse 3)
To carry the Ankh (now the female symbol ♀️) was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. Ganesha (like the elephant) wears God's cyclical nature on his face.
A whole temple was dedicated to Hathor (ancient Egyptian diety), who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ruclips.net/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/видео.html
"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. when you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
Y he is laughing while telling his name
Y so serious
One day we will pay women who choose to stay home and raise a family because it is a job. In fact the existance of our race depends on women not getting fed up of doing this job for free😂
Unpaid labor is definitely an exploitation women continuously experience 😞
My Granny wasn't allowed a bank account of her own without her husband's permission. I have no right to my own body, whether to my own reproduction or to my right to physically defend myself from state assault. Mansplain more about how woMEN don't experience oppression though. By which I mean, leave your opinion on woMEN at the fking door. Stick to PATRIARCHY as the subject.
Sorry, I'm not following you. Women do experience oppression. That's the whole point of my explanation.
Yes, voluntary submission so that they can get benefits. That is correct. Well, most of the time.
The sexual thing is more complicated than that because usually there is a dominant man around and even married women are smart to mate with him. staying faithful to your husband while you have an emperor around is not necessarily smart.
What do you mean? Do you mean women chose the man with the most socio-economic privilege to subordinate to over other men? A sexual selection, like how certain female animals chose males that appear the most strong/capable (i.e. longest horns, brightest colors, most appealing mating call)?
@Black Knight Fool Your citation is off, bruh. The Nature article you posted doesn't refer to human killing percentages. Rather the article's conclusion is that lethal aggression in the genus Pan is more the result of adaptation than human influence. The article is not comparing human aggression with other animal aggression so your comparison is not supported by your citation.
@Black Knight Fool Bruh, your citation concludes that it is social norms and stereotypes which dictate gender bias. Societal norms and stereotypes are creations. These are constructs created culturally by society. They are not innate in human psychology. The article cited does not discuss the origin of the social norms that it concludes influence behavior, nor does it argue that such social norms are innate. The article's conclusion that moral chivalry governs how morally unacceptable it is to harm a female is in line with the idea that we live in a society that uses harm allotment to reinforce gender roles.
@Black Knight Fool LGBTQ+ identity is very important and I will certainly stand up and speak out for their rights but that's another discussion. You're getting sidetracked on what this text is actually about. I'm a heterosexual man. I'm assuming you are a heterosexual man too. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But from one heterosexual man to another I want to tell you that patriarchy hurts heterosexual men. Please listen. Patriarchy predefines masculinity and manhood. Before a man ever has the opportunity to discover who they truly are they are told by society who they must be. Then they must conform to this predefinition. If they do not adhere to what society tells them to be then society will punish them through societal restrictions, limitations and pressures. So a man cannot become the true person that they are because they are too busy adhering to a social standard. Society tells men that they are dominators, that they should subordinate women, and that manhood is expressed through violence. Not all men are innately dominators or are violent. Many men have characteristics outside that predefinition. However, men are not provided the chance to express manhood outside domination or violence because it is outside society's predefinition of masculinity. This predefinition is patriarchy and it is a lie. It prevents men, heterosexual or queer, to learn who they truly are.
@UC8nyMhBgUw_Lu5NIjRXQgMQ I can see the anger in your comments. Where does this anger come from? It comes from fear. What is this fear? Homophobia.
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." - Yoda, Star Wars: Episode I
I think I disagree that men are not naturally the dominant sex but I'm enjoying the video great response to the book and stimulating conversation!
Why do you disagree? Are you basing your disagreement only on your own personal observations and assumptions? Have you done any historic or sociological research to support your conclusion?
I haven't done any research at all. I'm very ignorant on the topic aside from, to answer your first question, my own personal observations and assumptions. I think patriarchy is a natural occurrence throughout history for one main reason: men are generally bigger and stronger than women. It's hard to be "dominate" if your "submissive" can easily kill or maim you.
Yet, from many ancient civilizations there has been discovered much anthropological and archaeological evidence which strongly indicate that men and women had different but equal roles in society. One sex was not dominant over another, despite men's general physical superiority. It was only during the time when humanity first began treating property and land as capital that we start seeing historical evidence of male social dominance over women in society.
@@webb4158 So you are trying to say that humans who are physically stronger and bigger are naturally accepted as the dominant. But look at the world now. Who are the most powerful people on earth? The one with the brains and not the body. The richest man on earth is Jeff Bezos and he is thin built and doesn't remotely strike as muscular. The most famous show on earth, i.e.Game of thrones earns billions and the highest paid actor is its female protagonist Emilia Clarke who earns $500,000 per episode. Walmart, a billion dollar industry has a woman as its head. Germany, which is one of the most progressive countries in the world, a country which always sends aid to poorer countries both in Europe and Africa has Angela Merkel as its Chancellor. She is deemed as one of the most powerful persons on earth. You see, muscles don't make you the most powerful person. Look around, then I need not tell you what matters. Because power doesn't discriminate between men and women.
@@sreeradhaseth176 It's been a long time since I watched this video, but I'm pretty sure that I was referring to humanity in it's "natural state". The Marxist theory that before modern civilization men and women were equal, and patriarchy only arose alongside property rights, seems nonsense to me. In reality the opposite is the case, women have only achieved equality of opportunity in modernity. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority of ancient societies were patriarchal. All of the examples you listed of politically powerful and wealthy women in today's world don't contradict what I'm saying, if anything you are contradicting the authors supposed claim that only the arise of capital has brought about the oppression of women. Patriarchy may be a social construct, but it is a social construct that arises fairly consistently from actual biological inequalities between men and women, not because of property ownership. Unfortunately, to acknowledge the reality of human sexual dimorphism in today's world is a serious sin. There are mountains of evidence to suggest that men are generally more assertive, risk-taking, and aggressive than women. Not to mention that they are physically stronger, larger, have faster reaction times, better motor skills, and spacial awareness. These are traits that, although not as important in a modern society where we have agreed to treat each-other as equals, throughout human evolutionary history have enabled men to generally maintain power over women.
I defiantly don't think the Patriarchy is fully a social construct. Especially in earlier civilizations where the biological strength played a huge role. Men are not in some cult together conspiring to push women down for socioeconomic power especially in modern american society. Women have the freedom to pursue as much power as they would like but just by nature the more men than women pursue power. This of course is an average, when it comes down to the individual of course some women are more aggressive and competitive than some men and vice versa. It is equal opportunity and not equal outcome and a lot of feminists or people who complain or blame "the Patriarchy" for this disproportion are confused. People always want to blame some outside force for their dissatisfaction or nonsuccesses. When the truth is women when given the choice don't actually pursue power and high risk competitive jobs as men do.
Okay, let's consider a very basic and well known example, women's suffrage. Specifically in the United States, women did not have the legal right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1920. So before then women literally did not have the legal freedom to be part of the democratic system while while men did (primarily only white men, in fact). Women did not choose not to vote, the United States government, consisting of men of elite class, chose for them.
You are exactly right. But that is not what i am talking about. What I am talking about is modern America where to my knowledge there are not any laws or institutions that are allowed to discriminate against women for being women. This is another thing people get caught up on when talking about this topic in the modern era which is they think we still live is the 1920's or something like that.
But the same oppressive, dominating, and discriminatory motivation that was behind the legal prevention of the woman vote still exists in modern society. We see it in the rampant instances of sexual harassment in and out of the workplace, the wage gap between men and women executives/professionals, and the government defunding of healthcare services used primarily by women like Planned Parenthood.
The Black Ponderer this is not true. If you actually look into it these are all misconceptions. Sexual assault is only done by a minority of men who lack self control or common decency, this does not apply to "all men" just a few. No different than any other crime. The wage gap is a myth. Men are in higher paying jobs because they work more and chose to take the more competitive risky jobs. There are no barriers for women to get these jobs they just have to actually go for them which they don't. The planed parenthood thing is more about religious reasons than sexual discrimination. There are no people saying planed parenthood is bad just because it is women haha. Women have the choice to live how ever they want and pursue any jobs they want. But when given the natural choice they don't. You see a bunch of women in colleges now going for useless women studies degrees or English instead of actually pursuing degrees like engineering or medical doctors. Again it is equal opportunity not equal outcome. If the statistics were exactly equal some type of unjust social engineering would have to happen like in a communist society.
Women's studies (a.k.a history) and English degrees are useless?