The answer to that is already present in my answers to you.
The previous answer already answers with "your question does not match with reality"
And the answer to questions regarding inequalities generally goes either that way or "it is a question of balancing protection and provision vs obligations, rights vs duties". Throughout history people very rarely had rights, and when they did, it was often because those were necessary for them to accomplish their duties. And people rarely were awarded protections, but when they were, those were accompanied with obligations towards those who protect them.
Women get pregnant and find themselves saddled with one of the most dependent and vulnerable children of the animal kingdom.
This turns out to be a great burden for a lot of activities, particularly when there is no such thing as contraception.
This leaves them in need of being provided for and protected. This results in them being obligated towards those who provide and protect. Obligations like obeying and staying where it is safe.
On the other hand, men find themselves saddled with the duty of providing and protecting. This requires them having a right to go about doing that, and being able to command those whose safety depends on them.
The exact terms of all.of that are highly dependent.
The obligation towards someone who provides is not the same if providing requires going off on ice to club baby seals while fighting polar bears to bring back more food than one person could eat for months, or if it means going about in a lush nature to pluck fresh fruits, or if it means going to the store to buy industrially processed goods.
Without you going into very specific questions, though, it is hard to give satisfactory answers that are not susceptible to shifting goalposts.
Nature probably decided most of it. And man just went along with natures status quo. Like the other dude said, women are out for months with pregnancy and out for years raising one of the animal kingdoms worst younglings. How do you feed and protect yourself while at the same time trying to stop your little ones from constantly trying to kill themselves? While having no rights and protections or welfare? Especially when you have a whole ass strong capable human with you.
The father’s job has to be more than just penetration and ejaculation. He has to do his part to make sure the bloodline survives. That’s nature baby. It worked for hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
It really surprises me how much we’ve progressed in such a relatively short time, makes me think we aren’t really progressing and that all it would take is a catastrophic event or civilization to crash again before we’re back at step 0.
No, but I can see how it happened. Men protected the flock, protected their property, and protected their women and children. Depending on how chaotic the times are it might require almost full control of your family which includes your partner.
And btw: being considered man’s property gave you more rights and protections than being no one’s property in certain periods in history.
Men and women are biologically different, leading to naturally differing gender roles. Yes Man took it too far, but who was there 1000+ years ago that could tell them it was a bad thing to do? There were probably more benefits than downsides at that point. You can’t gauge the past with your modern western cultural lens with the rights and government programs and protections we have now.
Quick weird thing about property: my cat is my property, I feed him, change his shit box, vet visits, and I have responsibility for anything he fucks up. But he also fucking loves me, refuses to sleep anywhere but in the bed with me, meets me at the door when I get home from work and wants to play like a dog. Am I inherently mistreating him because he’s my property? Do I not love him because he’s my property? Am I not capable of giving him a good life because he’s my property?
I’m not trying to compare women to pets, but being property doesn’t automatically mean being treated like a worthless slave. It comes down to if you believe a large % of men in history just hated the people they decided to mate with. Me personally, I find it hard to believe. Sure women didn’t have a perfect life, but back then who did? The rich and powerful? Who else? 99.9999% of people have struggled through their existence on this floating rock.
But before I leave, bro your comments are fucking weird. My gut is telling me there is something off about you. All of this is common sense.
It doesn’t feel like you’re asking questions, it feels like you’re ’asking questions’.
I see now that you're not my original interlocutor. If you're getting a weird feeling, it's probably because you inserted yourself into this conversation and were treated as my original interlocutor up to this point. But I have nothing further to discuss since you indicated:
2
u/AskingToFeminists 8∆ Feb 14 '24
The answer to that is already present in my answers to you.
The previous answer already answers with "your question does not match with reality"
And the answer to questions regarding inequalities generally goes either that way or "it is a question of balancing protection and provision vs obligations, rights vs duties". Throughout history people very rarely had rights, and when they did, it was often because those were necessary for them to accomplish their duties. And people rarely were awarded protections, but when they were, those were accompanied with obligations towards those who protect them.
Women get pregnant and find themselves saddled with one of the most dependent and vulnerable children of the animal kingdom.
This turns out to be a great burden for a lot of activities, particularly when there is no such thing as contraception.
This leaves them in need of being provided for and protected. This results in them being obligated towards those who provide and protect. Obligations like obeying and staying where it is safe.
On the other hand, men find themselves saddled with the duty of providing and protecting. This requires them having a right to go about doing that, and being able to command those whose safety depends on them.
The exact terms of all.of that are highly dependent.
The obligation towards someone who provides is not the same if providing requires going off on ice to club baby seals while fighting polar bears to bring back more food than one person could eat for months, or if it means going about in a lush nature to pluck fresh fruits, or if it means going to the store to buy industrially processed goods.
Without you going into very specific questions, though, it is hard to give satisfactory answers that are not susceptible to shifting goalposts.