Were women suppressed?

Historical Fact or Historical Fiction?

I am stating a hypothetical for the sake of generating interesting discussion. It is not my belief, but it is an interesting thought, I think 😉 Please don't get all feminist and attack me about this, it is actually a more feminist attitude than the current one that says all the women throughout history up until recently were not intelligent, and that it took women thousands of years to gain basic rights 😉

Assumptions:

1) Women are intelligent, and have always been intelligent. I think we can agree that women are very often more intelligent than most men.

2) Women understand the aspects of being a woman that make them valuable, and have understood these things since the beginning.

3) Women often are more than slightly capable at manipulating men into doing anything they want us to do, and again this has existed forever.

4) Women have always understood intrigue and politics better than they let on, throughout history.

Hypothesis:

Now, given our assumptions, we will reinterpret the state of women through history including the past century or so.

At some point in the ever distant history women were also hunters (and probably survived more frequently than men.) At some point following this women stopped being hunters. Why did they stop? Because they found that if they crooned over some dumb caveman's hunting prowess the stupid man would do it, and they wouldn't have to risk their lives to get meat.

Thus mating for longer periods of time, and to an individual man began to be a good idea. Why was it a good idea? Easy, if you told a man you liked him long enough you could eventually tell him to do anything, given proper phrasing of the desired act. If you told some other dumb caveman he was great you would undermine the brainwashing you had been doing to your main man, so one man was a good idea.

So women did most the rest of the work, men just killed big dangerous animals and brought it back to the waiting woman. Women thought about this, and decided "Hey, why not get him to do everything that I don't really enjoy doing?" So they, the women, start slowly getting men to do more. Now the men are gutting and cleaning their kills before bringing them home. Suddenly men start doing the gathering of fruits, and farming. Women were smart, they had reduced men to little more than trained beasts of burden.

Some men started thinking that women should be doing more, that they should work outside the home as well. So women described the work necessary around the home, and explained to the men that they did not like to do this work, that it was demeaning. They utterly convinced men that the gender roles were his idea, that he forced her to stay at home, she would love to go work outside the home, but she had to stay and do the household work. So now she was able to stay at home, and do all the work she needed to at home without having to travel to a place of work.

Then over time women forgot their intelligent, cunning, plan. Eventually women decided that it really was men that forced them into this state. They forgot that life really sucks, and it is awful nice to work in the home compared to outside the home. And so, in less than a century, women undid the careful work their predecessors had done.

Originally posted by Regret
Historical Fact or Historical Fiction?

I am stating a hypothetical for the sake of generating interesting discussion. It is not my belief, but it is an interesting thought, I think 😉 Please don't get all feminist and attack me about this, it is actually a more feminist attitude than the current one that says all the women throughout history up until recently were not intelligent, and that it took women thousands of years to gain basic rights 😉

Assumptions:

1) Women are intelligent, and have always been intelligent. I think we can agree that women are very often more intelligent than most men.

PEOPLE are intelligent or not. Why do you think “we” can agree that women are often more intelligent than men??

Originally posted by Regret

2) Women understand the aspects of being a woman that make them valuable, and have understood these things since the beginning.

What makes you assume this? As opposed to what?

Originally posted by Regret

3) Women often are more than slightly capable at manipulating men into doing anything they want us to do, and again this has existed forever.

Again: What is this assumption based on? Have you considered that women, being unable to beat a man, have found it necessary to use “other weapons”?

Originally posted by Regret

4) Women have always understood intrigue and politics better than they let on, throughout history.

Again: What is this assumption based on?

Originally posted by Regret

Hypothesis:

Now, given our assumptions, we will reinterpret the state of women through history including the past century or so.

At some point in the ever distant history women were also hunters (and probably survived more frequently than men.)

According to anthropologists MEN were usually the hunters and WOMEN the gatherers, camp-defenders and child-tenders. Both “jobs” were equally dangerous. So on what do you make the assumption that women survived more often than men? Survived what?

Originally posted by Regret
At some point following this women stopped being hunters. Why did they stop? Because they found that if they crooned over some dumb caveman's hunting prowess the stupid man would do it, and they wouldn't have to risk their lives to get meat.

See above. It’s very difficult to hunt while carrying children of different ages that will make noises and scare off the game. On what do you make the assumption that women stopped anything which you have not proven they ever did?

Originally posted by The Omega
PEOPLE are intelligent or not. Why do you think “we” can agree that women are often more intelligent than men??

What makes you assume this? As opposed to what?

Again: What is this assumption based on? Have you considered that women, being unable to beat a man, have found it necessary to use “other weapons”?

Again: What is this assumption based on?

According to anthropologists MEN were usually the hunters and WOMEN the gatherers, camp-defenders and child-tenders. Both “jobs” were equally dangerous. So on what do you make the assumption that women survived more often than men? Survived what?

See above. It’s very difficult to hunt while carrying children of different ages that will make noises and scare off the game. On what do you make the assumption that women stopped anything which you have not proven they ever did?

The assumptions are based on the fact that it is possible, didn't look for support. I believe that women are and always have been equal to men in genetic makeup.

Your perception of women throughout history is based in original archaeology. The early theories of men and women and their roles were created during a period when women were more "suppressed" by men who believed that men were superior. Newer theories are based somewhat in the older theories. Is it possible that the theories are wrong? Is it possible that we have interpreted much of history from our perspective, especially archaeological history? Look at the animal kingdom, are females helpless with children? Written history was written, for the most part, by whom? Men or women?

This isn't a statement of fact. It is a statement saying "what if?" What if the general interpretation of history is not correct? What if? Is your stance on this based in fact, or the perspective that we see things? We do not know what history was like, archaeologists make extremely educated inferences and guesses as to things like this topic based in large part on the world they live in. I believe they are probably right, I won't second guess them, they have a lot more education on the subject than I. But, it is an interesting thought. I prefer to believe that women chose the roles they filled. I have difficulty believing women were forced to do things they did not want to do. I believe that women are smarter, stronger, and more capable than it seems many people say they were. So yes, I do dislike the typical picture painted of the historical woman. I did not set out to prove anything, just to say "what if?"

Originally posted by Regret
The assumptions are based on the fact that it is possible, didn't look for support. I believe that women are and always have been equal to men in genetic makeup.

Your perception of women throughout history is based in original archaeology. The early theories of men and women and their roles were created during a period when women were more "suppressed" by men who believed that men were superior. Newer theories are based somewhat in the older theories. Is it possible that the theories are wrong? Is it possible that we have interpreted much of history from our perspective, especially archaeological history? Look at the animal kingdom, are females helpless with children? Written history was written, for the most part, by whom? Men or women?

This isn't a statement of fact. It is a statement saying "what if?" What if the general interpretation of history is not correct? What if? Is your stance on this based in fact, or the perspective that we see things? We do not [b]know what history was like, archaeologists make extremely educated inferences and guesses as to things like this topic based in large part on the world they live in. I believe they are probably right, I won't second guess them, they have a lot more education on the subject than I. But, it is an interesting thought. I prefer to believe that women chose the roles they filled. I have difficulty believing women were forced to do things they did not want to do. I believe that women are smarter, stronger, and more capable than it seems many people say they were. So yes, I do dislike the typical picture painted of the historical woman. I did not set out to prove anything, just to say "what if?" [/B]

Yes. But we could also assume that reindeers could fly… You need to make a case for your assumptions first, I’d say. No, the male and female are NOT equal in genetic make-up. Men usually have the capacity of being stronger, women of being more enduring. Intelligence-wise men are generally better at focused single-mindedness while women are better at multi-tasking. Neither is better than the other.
The anthropological sources I mention are NOT from a time were women were “suppressed.” They made their conclusions based on findings, on how “original” and isolated tribes live today and on psychological differences between men and women.

You seem to somehow assume I found pre-historical women helpless, despite me writing that early women were – among things – defenders of the camps against predators. A woman with a newborn CANNOT go hunting, simple fact. If YOU find camp-protection, gathering and child-raising as less valuable than hunting than YOU are showing a prejudice there already, based on current values?

There are most certainly instances were the “woman was behind the man” up until a certain point in history. Newer accounts of the “Father of Chemistry” Lavoisier now makes mention of his wife who contributed as much as he did.

You must remember that women have always been physically inferior to men. And with the threat of physical violence hanging over their heads… well then… ? Then you must also remember that most major religions make a CASE of fearing women to the point of making them inferior to men, Satans tools, to be kept our of decision-making etc. Perhaps your first jobs should be to ask why THIS happened?

Originally posted by The Omega
Yes. But we could also assume that reindeers could fly… You need to make a case for your assumptions first, I’d say. No, the male and female are NOT equal in genetic make-up. Men usually have the capacity of being stronger, women of being more enduring. Intelligence-wise men are generally better at focused single-mindedness while women are better at multi-tasking. Neither is better than the other.
The anthropological sources I mention are NOT from a time were women were “suppressed.” They made their conclusions based on findings, on how “original” and isolated tribes live today and on psychological differences between men and women.

You seem to somehow assume I found pre-historical women helpless, despite me writing that early women were – among things – defenders of the camps against predators. A woman with a newborn CANNOT go hunting, simple fact. If YOU find camp-protection, gathering and child-raising as less valuable than hunting than YOU are showing a prejudice there already, based on current values?

There are most certainly instances were the “woman was behind the man” up until a certain point in history. Newer accounts of the “Father of Chemistry” Lavoisier now makes mention of his wife who contributed as much as he did.

You must remember that women have always been physically inferior to men. And with the threat of physical violence hanging over their heads… well then… ? Then you must also remember that most major religions make a CASE of fearing women to the point of making them inferior to men, Satans tools, to be kept our of decision-making etc. Perhaps your first jobs should be to ask why THIS happened?

😉 Alright, I'll concede then. Still, I like the idea that women controlled the direction gender roles took. I also do not believe that women were always inferior in the strength department, or that either gender was as to any other genetic difference. I believe that evolution may have occurred, but that roles taken probably influenced both gender's evolution, males being the larger/stronger of the two may have been due to the fact that males took the role they did. Evolution is blind, but it is directed by the actions a species takes.

well im stronger than my gf but she always makes me do stuff with emotional blackmail and i done it to her and she ended it up working out for her WOMEN GRRRRRR 😠

too much writing to read, but

Do you believe that God is a she?

some women are like lionesses

Originally posted by Regret
Assumptions:
1) Women are intelligent, and have always been intelligent. I think we can agree that women are very often more intelligent than most men.
2) Women understand the aspects of being a woman that make them valuable, and have understood these things since the beginning.
3) Women often are more than slightly capable at manipulating men into doing anything they want us to do, and again this has existed forever.
4) Women have always understood intrigue and politics better than they let on, throughout history.

Hypothesis:
5. At some point in the ever distant history women were also hunters (and probably survived more frequently than men.) At some point following this women stopped being hunters. Why did they stop? Because they found that if they crooned over some dumb caveman's hunting prowess the stupid man would do it, and they wouldn't have to risk their lives to get meat.
6. Thus mating for longer periods of time, and to an individual man began to be a good idea. Why was it a good idea? Easy, if you told a man you liked him long enough you could eventually tell him to do anything, given proper phrasing of the desired act. If you told some other dumb caveman he was great you would undermine the brainwashing you had been doing to your main man, so one man was a good idea.
7. So women did most the rest of the work, men just killed big dangerous animals and brought it back to the waiting woman. Women thought about this, and decided "Hey, why not get him to do everything that I don't really enjoy doing?" So they, the women, start slowly getting men to do more. Now the men are gutting and cleaning their kills before bringing them home. Suddenly men start doing the gathering of fruits, and farming. Women were smart, they had reduced men to little more than trained beasts of burden.
8. Some men started thinking that women should be doing more, that they should work outside the home as well. So women described the work necessary around the home, and explained to the men that they did not like to do this work, that it was demeaning. They utterly convinced men that the gender roles were his idea, that he forced her to stay at home, she would love to go work outside the home, but she had to stay and do the household work. So now she was able to stay at home, and do all the work she needed to at home without having to travel to a place of work.
9. Then over time women forgot their intelligent, cunning, plan. Eventually women decided that it really was men that forced them into this state. They forgot that life really sucks, and it is awful nice to work in the home compared to outside the home. And so, in less than a century, women undid the careful work their predecessors had done.

Many of your assumptions are iffy (which is good that you presented them as assumptions). Some of your hypotheses also seem to be more assumption than testable statement.

Regardless, your overall position seems to be this: throughout history, the Smart Scheming Woman (SSW) has manipulated the Big Dumb Man (BDM) into doing what she wants, the BDM having no clue about this and just lumbering along his merry way. The SSW got so good at this that, eventually, she screwed herself over.

Sounds like a soap opera. IMO, men and women are both smarter, more caring about each other and more cooperative than your assumptions present. Your assumptions also seem to be more reflective (again, as you stated) of perhaps the last 30-40 years, in lieu of "feminism" and our hypercompetitive, everyone-out-for-themselves society.

Forgive me if, in my brevity, I've oversimplified. But I didn't want to write as much.

Men and Women have their strong qualities as well as weak.........It's just a gift each sex seems to have more of then the other........I believe that women have a knacked for getting her way much of the time with that little "eye batting"..... 😉 .........But not all guys fall for it......

Women in history had very predominate positions in Pagan belief systems, which the Church turned around and made everything associated with them evil...........

Originally posted by Mindship
Many of your assumptions are iffy (which is good that you presented them as assumptions). Some of your hypotheses also seem to be more assumption than testable statement.

Regardless, your overall position seems to be this: throughout history, the Smart Scheming Woman (SSW) has manipulated the Big Dumb Man (BDM) into doing what she wants, the BDM having no clue about this and just lumbering along his merry way. The SSW got so good at this that, eventually, she screwed herself over.

Sounds like a soap opera. IMO, men and women are both smarter, more caring about each other and more cooperative than your assumptions present. Your assumptions also seem to be more reflective (again, as you stated) of perhaps the last 30-40 years, in lieu of "feminism" and our hypercompetitive, everyone-out-for-themselves society.

Forgive me if, in my brevity, I've oversimplified. But I didn't want to write as much.

No, you have not oversimplified 😉 And really, your summarization is what I was stating 😉 The exercise was not meant to be taken as fact, or even evidence based. Between yourself and Omega I believe the purpose of this thread is being taken the way I meant it to be. Although it did seem that Omega took me too literally and responded with more fact and science than I had intended. This is merely a philosophical exercise in possibility, not an attack on the scientific fact that does exist. The discussion as I saw it should have been lighter than Omega's and more along the lines of your post.

Well, I'm gonna throw a blind thought into the discussion. Quite frankly when I read any feminist propaganda I just turn off the switch and let them believe whatever the hell they think...."I'm a woman hear me roar....blah..blah..blah.."

Anyways, female hunters? absolutely I agree they could have existed...not all females were mommies cleaning the hut and washing the garments...some of them were probally orphans or even self indenpendants. OR they were cast out of the tribe and had to depend on themselves for survival. For that same reason I believe there were female warriors fightin along side with the male warriors. Did they get much recognizition as the males? That's were I think females were excluded from history texts. Sure! we've had a fair share of quite a few female warriors in history...but I don't think those were the only ones. There must have been many MANY females that fought for causes and their names were not included.

As for the idea that women are not as strong as males....I just don't subscribe to that...for a simple fact...birth...I never given birth to a child nor can I even experience such a thing. But from what I've seen women can take the pain...and is very tough pain from what I've seen. There is no way I could possibly tolerate that pain....as a male...I don't think I can.

Originally posted by Regret
😉 Alright, I'll concede then. Still, I like the idea that women controlled the direction gender roles took. I also do not believe that women were always inferior in the strength department, or that either gender was as to any other genetic difference. I believe that evolution may have occurred, but that roles taken probably influenced both gender's evolution, males being the larger/stronger of the two may have been due to the fact that males took the role they did. Evolution is blind, but it is directed by the actions a species takes.

What makes you like the “idea” that women controlled the direction gender roles rook? I for one find the idea ludicrous, seeing as how women have been treated politically and religiously throughout modern ages.
We’ve been urbanized for approximately 12.000 years. This is far too short a time span for any significant evolutionary changes to take place in our genetic make-up. Thus, our current genetic make-up is that which developed during the some million years homo sapiens existed as hunters and gatherers.
Also looking at the animal kingdom, among mammals it is exclusively the female that cares for newborns, being the one that produces the milk. So obviously our forefathers and mothers had the same division of roles and responsibilities.

Originally posted by A.J
well im stronger than my gf but she always makes me do stuff with emotional blackmail and i done it to her and she ended it up working out for her WOMEN GRRRRRR 😠

THAT, my friend, is utter BS. She cannot MAKE you do anything. WHAT you do is your choice. Don’t be a coward and blame your girlfriend for YOUR actions.

Again – I’m an avid opponent of the gender dichotomy. The idea that what men are and have as traits women do not. And vice versa. Male chauvinists and hardcore feminists are each as bad as the other, and neither do their gender ANY service.

You guys are forgetting that not all women are the same, as not all men are the same.

Some men are stronger than women, some women are stronger than men. Some women are better parents than men, and some men are better parents than women.

Some men are more hateful than women, while some women are more hateful than men...and so on and so on.

Every individual is different, and thier gender only plays a fraction of a role in thier being.

Originally posted by The Omega
Again – I’m an avid opponent of the gender dichotomy. The idea that what men are and have as traits women do not. And vice versa. Male chauvinists and hardcore feminists are each as bad as the other, and neither do their gender ANY service.

Oh God, I totally agree. 👆

These kind of people don't beleive in the notion of equality, they beleive that superiority of gender exists, and it's so destructive to think that way.

Originally posted by The Omega
I’m an avid opponent of the gender dichotomy. The idea that what men are and have as traits women do not. And vice versa. Male chauvinists and hardcore feminists are each as bad as the other, and neither do their gender ANY service.

Woot! agreed there 😉

Gender is a socialy constructed idea based on sex.

Male and female having these fundamental differances are again, socially constructed. The belief that one is superiour to another based on their sex is so utterly ridiculous once one begins to think about it.

How can your reproductive organ determine your intelligance and your capcacity?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You guys are forgetting that not all women are the same, as not all men are the same.

Some men are stronger than women, some women are stronger than men. Some women are better parents than men, and some men are better parents than women.

Some men are more hateful than women, while some women are more hateful than men...and so on and so on.

Every individual is different, and thier gender only plays a fraction of a role in thier being.

Absolutely.

Hell hath no fury, like a woman scorned.

Although in the human sense at least, the male side is larger and sometimes more muscular in most cases and the female side is smaller, and weaker, that is the stereotypical view but still men fear a woman's wrath like nothing else, when they are angry they are angry its something that no one likes, we burn their supposed power over us by eliminating their possible involvement with politics, we create supperstitions such as it is bad luck to have a woman aboard a ship so that the men on the ship dont have to deal with the woman, who wont like the way they live, and will try to change that, which the men will not like and so the fire burns from there, but men fear women, as women fear men, women can twist the minds of the men manipulation, which sometimes doesnt work and those who abuse their wives manipulate through force, it is the same basic ideal, we are equal with two opposite forces, the stereotypical man will be strong and demanding, while the stereotypical woman will be quick and decisive, while the man will spend his time doing the more physical, the woman will tend to the children and will cook and clean, which they will both complain about doing and will insist that the other do some of the others "job" and so the anger ensues, weve also made sayings and such, for example the quote above, to warn men not to anger a woman.

I've always found that statement exceedingly sexist.

Its warning men to stay on top and in control. The only thing the average man fears about women is not getting some, imo.

And its always seems to be muttered by cocky old white farts....why is that?

No, idea.

And the "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned" is probably invented by some idiot man, who was a total coward and just didn't tell the truth.

What about the hell that breaks loose when you scorn a man??? Seriously...

So maybe the sentence should be
"Hell hath no fury like SOME PEOPLE scorned"?