Comment on Prolly won;t word this correctly. But when did the idea of a woman subservient to a man begin? And how come it seems its lasted longer that most relgions?

lemonhead2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  women are physically weaker on average. there was a time when physical strength was hugely important

  That’s only a small part of the equation, and is by no means the main reason for “subserviance,” altho I think @yesman@lemmy.world answers it pretty nicely, here.

  In reality, the “subserviant” thing is probably an extremely recent development out of the ~300Kyrs of modern human history and ~2.4Myrs of genus Homo history. It’s certainly not universal across the history we do know, but AFAIK is indeed heavily tied to concepts of agriculture, property, and the accumulation of lucre.

  For example, if you look at the other Great Apes, you won’t see anything resembling what humans have spiraled in to in terms of such control. Nor across most (or all) of the other observable animals.

  So the idea that this “subserviance” idea is traditional for humans is technically true across a very short time period, and near-complete nonsense on the whole. It’s mainly the controllers and elitists who have always always been trying to push that idea, from what I can tell.

  source
• AskewLord@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It still is in a lot of places in the world. Not everyone lives in a developed high skilled economy. In fact, only about 20% of the world population does.

  source
• starlinguk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Women were the “scientists” when men (and some women too!) were running after mammoths. Physical strength was irrelevant. If you wanted to figure out if you could eat that plant or how to prevent infection in that leg you weren’t going to ask a dude.

  source