Ancient times
Life was short and brutal in ancient times. Sure, there were times of prosperity and famine, wealth and poverty, health and sickness, abundance and scarcity. However, nothing in the history of the world ever compared to the standard of living we enjoy today. Kings and Queens of just 200 years ago couldn't have even dreamt of living the life of a simple, average westerner today.
In a setting like that, it's of utmost importance to have social cohesion and conformity. The errors of an individual can easily wreak havoc on the entire community. Therefore, the community had to regulate the actions of the individual. This is the basis of government and by definition, it reduces the rights and freedoms of the individual. A government that takes this too far, will inevitably crush the spirit of the individual.
Gender roles are just one example of this rigid conformity, but there are many others. People were not free to do as they pleased. Therefore, anyone who thinks that men historically all the rights while they kept their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, is nothing but delusional. In ancient times, no one had the right to do whatever they wanted.
During these times, biological strengths and weaknesses were all that counted. There was little to no room for the idealism of personal freedom and liberty. Men had authority because they shouldered the responsibility for the protection of and provision for their families. This responsibility emanated from their superior strength, endurance, stamina and ability to perform under pressure. (In other words - from their biology).
Industrial revolution
The industrial revolution brought a lot of changes with it. The major changes that are relevant to this discussion are:
No longer was brute force necessary to get things done. With the progression of bigger, better and faster machines, brute force became even less necessary. Brute force is what men bring to the table for both protection of and provision for their families.
These new machines produced better and more efficient weapons which in turn, helped make the world a safer place. Sure, bad people can also use modern weapons and the gun debate doesn't belong here. The point that's relevant here is - the world has become increasingly safer as modern weapons became increasingly more lethal. (See next paragraph).
These machines also ushered in the Era of mass production of food which in turn drastically reduced starvation in the world. (another reason for increased safety). Additionally, keeping house was becoming increasingly easier for women, thanks to the same industrial revolution. Therefore, women had more time on their hands than ever before.
With easier access to food and other resources, with safer communities and less physical labor required - the role of men was naturally reduced. Men are no longer as needed by women as was the case throughout history. Women also had more time to think about life and thus, they began concocting ideas about male oppression and women's suffrage.
The women's suffrage movement was a direct result of the drastic upgrade in the standard of living brought about by the industrial revolution. This merely freed up the space for true female nature to emerge freely. The push for gender equality naturally emerged from this. If the physical differences between men and women are eliminated by machines, why should men have superiority over women? A woman can now do anything a man can do and therefore she doesn't need no man and the genders are equal. As a result of women not needing men as much as before, they concluded that they don't need men at all!
Biological differences
This thought process was a natural result of a better life. That's why it became so popular. However, it's mistaken because people are not born as a blank slate. If they were, anyone can excel at anything, given the opportunity. Governments and organizations have been giving such opportunities galore over the past few decades and the genders (and races) are still far from equal.
This is because people are not equal in their capabilities, not by a long shot. People pass genes to their children. Even two children of the same parents will not be identical even though they're similar. How much more so with regards to major differences in genes between men and women, different races and ethnicities where the differences are much greater. Not everyone is equally capable of everything if given the opportunity.
Biological differences include superficial things like skin and hair color as well as much more valuable traits such as intelligence etc. Fact is that generalizations can be made for good and for bad even though they don't hold true 100% of the time. As an example - men are generally taller than women but not every man is taller than every woman. We call them generalizations because they're generally true.
Thus, what was revealed through the long march towards gender equality (which is still going on) is that the genders are not equal at all. Therefore, gender equality is a myth. A myth that made sense 50 years ago for reasons explained above. A myth that has been revealed to be a myth to anyone who takes off the ideological cap and puts on his thinking cap and observes observable facts of reality.
Conclusion
Gender equality is a myth because men and women are biologically different. This results in masculine and feminine traits which are more dominant in most (but not all) men and women.
Gender equality is real only in areas of life where we are truly equal. As adults, we are equally capable of choosing right from wrong. We should therefore be equal before the law (we aren't at the moment). We're equally human and should therefore be treated with human dignity (however that's defined - is a discussion that isn't relevant here). Likewise with regards to any other area which isn't gendered.
Women got the equality they wanted and they absolutely hate it. Because while women don't need men as much as they did in ancient times, they still need men much more than men need them (even with the almighty male sexual desire). Thus - after decades of alienating men, the men are finally walking away - thus comes the heartfelt cry of - where are all the good men?!?!? I need a good man to take responsibility for me after all, where oh where can I find him?!?!?!?
Cheers!
[deleted] 5y ago
Despite what feminism would have you believe, power has always been shared.
Men had a monopoly on hard power. I.E. force.
Women had a monopoly on soft power. I.E. social pressure and persuasion.
Women have never been helpless slaves to men. Women used gossip and took advantage of men’s innate NEED for sex to secure privileges in ways men never could. This allows for hypergamy as any woman talented enough at manipulation could rise to the pinnacle of power.
In this way, soft power has always yoked hard power to its cause.
Sadly, what we see now is the supremacy of soft power over hard power.
Men are being controlled more and more by soft power. The use of force by the state, a “male” institution if you listen to feminism (I.E. patriarchy) is now completely hijacked to the female imperative. The state now bends to female social influence. This is the topic of a different article, but the point is this: women have always wielded as much power as men, but in a different sphere.
TheYekke 5y ago
Until the power goes off, the flood waters cut off your escape, and phones stop working, probably in that order. Or when the local public sector union ceases to keep the roads open in a snow storm.
IVIaskerade 5y ago
Back when, men used swift application of hard power to keep soft power in check - either disciplining their wives, or throwing disrutive unmarried women out of the community.
You may notice these things were the very first to go as soft power waxed.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
I don't believe this to be true as a generalization. Sure, some men beat their wives and some still do. Some societies and cultures allow or encourage physical violence against your wife as a means of discipline. However, I don't believe that most societies and cultures were like this.
There's a very simple reason I say this - men are hardwired to protect women and provide for them. It's against the natural male nature to hit a woman! Men will wrestle and fight with each other to establish the dominance hierarchy, but it's unnatural for men - as a group generalization - to hit women. The fact that you think otherwise is because you were raised with the feminist lie that men are violent towards women.
I don't blame you for this, we were all raised this way. However, if you think about and observe true male nature, you'll see the exact opposite of violence against women as a male character trait. On the contrary, white knighting is men risking life and limb for the protection of women.
[deleted] 5y ago
Much more succinct and organized than what I said. Good reply. See my post for the reasons why this power shift has happened though.
I don't think so. Any idea or concept that explains "Where the good men went/are" is good for discussion here, even if it doesn't exactly target points brought up in the OP.
itoshirt 5y ago
The way I describe this is that countries are ruled by patriarchies, but the people are ruled by the matriarchal women.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
Very good points.
And this enabled women to become takers instead of receivers
ElPolloLoco1977 5y ago
Soft power meaning... propaganda?
[deleted] 5y ago
Excellent observations. I think it should be noted that the industrial revolution was not the only source of paradigm shift in gender roles. There has always been a great financial force looking to enslave men and keep them from forming traditional households. The man that possesses ultimate dominion over his family and property does not allow himself to be used for the interests of foreign enemies. This is a problem for those enemies, so they systematically reduced mans' role to provider. They did this by creating massive national debt so that governments had no choice but to leverage man from his family, to invariably extract resources from him. Women, being the best manipulators of man to extract resources from as well as the most obvious social caretakers (a benefit to the tribe is a direct benefit to them) were used as pawns through promises of security and resources by that authority. Allowing women to decide how much and with what weapon to extract resources at their own peril caused the split of the traditional household, as men were removed from the process of providing and taking care of them directly. Since the state is a much more formidable caretaker than any 1 man could ever be, man is in constant flux to prove his self worth to women. But, it is a loosing game, because she doesn't need him like she did before, as you so elegantly stated.
Man, no longer having the capacity to provide as well as the state, but having all the liability and responsibility of providing for women and the state, causes him to slave away at both, reducing his ability to formulate his own principles and enact on them within his own household. If the woman doesn't like what the man is doing, she can separate her ideology from his or leave him entirely and the state will endorse this action.
The main reason why the State won the war against the people is because men stopped defending themselves. This was in part due to the reasons you outlined where they were allotted more luxuries than ever before in history, but the primary reason was due to his lack of diligence in study and practice of those defenses. The pressures of evil are great and constant, and so must be met by an even greater diligence of Good Men to be more formidable foes than the state can be, by owning only himself and trickling his power down into his family rather than allowing it to be extracted by the machine that women prefer, where no submission is required directly, but indirectly as part of their obligations and allegiance.
The rift of gender disparity was created by men's inability to defend themselves. As life became easier, less defenses were required, and so it became easier to subjugate him, and divide him from his House. That is why Good Men are fewer and fewer, because the oppression of their rights by lack of defending them, reduces their power and dominion over their family and in turn strengthens the oppression and corrupt mold over all of society.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
Another element to this equation is:
Humans are tribal. We are much better off when we are individuals who also belong to a larger group that represents a greater good of some sort. In ancient times, tribes were literally very large extended families that never married out. Some communities are still like this today. Other tribes are formed around ideas. Example: religious communities.
The ideal of equality preached that all humans are equal and the same. That tribalism is antiquated, racist, bigoted and must be done away with. That religion is silly and the "opiate of the masses". And many other such messages that are still alive and well today.
All this caused the breakdown of traditional values and any form of cohesion they brought. This left people as individuals only, bereft of the necessary community that comes with tribalism. Thus, you as an individual is left naked and bare before the almighty power of the state and popular culture. Most individuals don't have the emotional fortitude to stand up to this on their own.
Ironically though, in the void caused by the destruction of all old tribes, new tribes have formed. Example: the left who have been preaching tolerance for decades are now some of the most intolerant towards anyone who doesn't think like them. In their fight to dismantle the old tribes, they inevitably created new tribes because - as stated above - humans are tribal. It's in our DNA.
And because when you punish good man behavior and you reward bad man behavior for long enough, you'll get less and less good men. Incentives and disincentives work. People follow their best interests.
[deleted] 5y ago
Yep good point on tribalism and why the "tolerance" of the far left creates the most intolerant people in society.
BionicTransWomyn 5y ago
You've got some interesting observations, but I don't agree with this part.
And it's not really about the gun debate.
The chance to die from a violent death has been trending downwards roughly since the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the concept of the modern sovereign state after the 30 years war.
Studies have shown that the prime factor by which people decide whether or not to commit a crime is not the gravity of the punishment, but the likelihood that they will be caught.
As states became better able to assert the monopoly of violence within their borders, intra-societal violence, the bulk of violent actions, steadily decreased. Part of that is due to a shift in weaponry, that's true, but the greater cause lies in that centralization of the state.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
This was my point. That due to "reasons" the world has become safer. This was a side point within a series of points that show how life got better and easier for women at home and their absolute dependence on men became gradually less absolute.
Of course, there were several factors in the increasing safety of the world just as there are several factors at play in the increase or decrease in safety in any given area at any given time. That however, is a topic in its own right.
[deleted] 5y ago
I don't think he is saying that the physical ramifications alone are what deters crime, but that the ability to defend oneself from an unjust injury is what strengthened mans ability to protect his assets and family, which reduced pressures and paranoia and therefore increased prosperity, luxuries, and social trust.
The centralization of the state created a sanctioned mafia to extort the citizens of the state, while simultaneously providing favorites and benefits to corporate actors for their allegiance to it. If anything, this incentivized crime and criminal conduct through sanctioned corruption. The nail in the coffin was the ratification of the 17th amendment where the states lost their sovereign power to control/reduce this corruption.
BionicTransWomyn 5y ago
That's objectively wrong. There is no major change in weaponry before and after the Treaty of Westphalia, yet that is where the trend begins to reverse towards safety.
The collapse of the old feudal system, slowly but surely, reduced internecine warfare along with raids, vendettas and so on. The modern sovereign state is the primary reason we're able to lead relatively safe lives.
Go to Afghanistan and see what happens when the state does not have the monopoly of violence.
[deleted] 5y ago
Ok, fair enough point. I'll concede that the creation of the sovereign, but interdependent authorities are what minimized criminal conduct at that time, and not the introduction of modern projectiles.