Why Societies Have Generally Valued Men More than Women
Throughout history boys have generally been more valued than girls. I guess this proves that a sexist, patriarchal power structure has always existed. That would mean that at some point in time men got together and said "Hey, let's send those chicks back to the kitchen where they belong." And “Voila” the conspiracy of the patriarchy was born.
Apparently, this happened as soon as men and women became aware of their differences. And men, being the devious bastards that they, are, took full advantage. That would be one way to see it—and, many feminist scholars apparently do see it that way. Here's another theory. Way back, when people were likely to survive only when they had strength in numbers, having a healthy supply of of strong, fast, aggressive males was a serious tactical advantage over one's enemies. If they could take substantial punishment, all the better. Let's face it, you don't send out your daughters to face a blood thirsty Saber-toothed tiger, a Mastodon or a warring tribe of cannibals. In fact, the only way the the family group or tribe survived at all, was men. In particular, strong men.
Women mattered, too, of course. But, for different reasons. They were better suited to stay at home and take care of the kids and the household, while birthing as many males babies as possible. This they did while the men hunted, plowed the fields and went to war. That this is thought of sexist, is, for the most part, a recent phenomenon.
Admittedly, feminists have existed, at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. They were generally only found in wealthy, powerful cultures, though—where the wealth and power of the nation kept them safe from marauding bands of murderous, male-dominated scum. Eventually, after the hordes had been beaten back, often with considerable loss of life, did some vague notion of equality between the sexes slowly emerge. In other words, equality doesn't seem nearly so meaningful if everyone you know and love is equally dead.
Today, however, many feminists argue that men are the problem. And, if women were in charge, everyone would just share. But, sharing is what people do when they have more than enough. Not when they're barely subsisting as crude hunter gatherers, living in a world where virtually everything and everybody wants to kill you. As long as it's kill or be killed, those best adapted for violence as a means of resolution, tend to be the ones who ensure survival for the rest. The weak only endure in this kind of society because the strong make it possible. Not the other way around.
So, the process would seem to work like this; in a harsh environment where the survival of the group relies on physical attributes like strength and aggression, women have less value. And, long before you get to something like parity between the sexes, a lot of things have to happen. It isn't sexual equality first, then survival. Neither is it a conspiracy of man-pigs clinging to their patriarchal favor, just because they can, as some feminist would have us believe. And, last, but not least, changing ingrained cultural norms is no easy thing. In fact, it can take centuries, sometimes longer, just look at Islam, and you'll see what I mean. I'm just saying.
Mark Magula
Apparently, this happened as soon as men and women became aware of their differences. And men, being the devious bastards that they, are, took full advantage. That would be one way to see it—and, many feminist scholars apparently do see it that way. Here's another theory. Way back, when people were likely to survive only when they had strength in numbers, having a healthy supply of of strong, fast, aggressive males was a serious tactical advantage over one's enemies. If they could take substantial punishment, all the better. Let's face it, you don't send out your daughters to face a blood thirsty Saber-toothed tiger, a Mastodon or a warring tribe of cannibals. In fact, the only way the the family group or tribe survived at all, was men. In particular, strong men.
Women mattered, too, of course. But, for different reasons. They were better suited to stay at home and take care of the kids and the household, while birthing as many males babies as possible. This they did while the men hunted, plowed the fields and went to war. That this is thought of sexist, is, for the most part, a recent phenomenon.
Admittedly, feminists have existed, at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. They were generally only found in wealthy, powerful cultures, though—where the wealth and power of the nation kept them safe from marauding bands of murderous, male-dominated scum. Eventually, after the hordes had been beaten back, often with considerable loss of life, did some vague notion of equality between the sexes slowly emerge. In other words, equality doesn't seem nearly so meaningful if everyone you know and love is equally dead.
Today, however, many feminists argue that men are the problem. And, if women were in charge, everyone would just share. But, sharing is what people do when they have more than enough. Not when they're barely subsisting as crude hunter gatherers, living in a world where virtually everything and everybody wants to kill you. As long as it's kill or be killed, those best adapted for violence as a means of resolution, tend to be the ones who ensure survival for the rest. The weak only endure in this kind of society because the strong make it possible. Not the other way around.
So, the process would seem to work like this; in a harsh environment where the survival of the group relies on physical attributes like strength and aggression, women have less value. And, long before you get to something like parity between the sexes, a lot of things have to happen. It isn't sexual equality first, then survival. Neither is it a conspiracy of man-pigs clinging to their patriarchal favor, just because they can, as some feminist would have us believe. And, last, but not least, changing ingrained cultural norms is no easy thing. In fact, it can take centuries, sometimes longer, just look at Islam, and you'll see what I mean. I'm just saying.
Mark Magula