The role of women in western society? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14688987
Women's position in the social, economic and political spheres of the nation, in western states in particular, but not exclusively, has undergone profound transformations since the conclusion of the 19th century.

Women have always played a role in the life of the state, wether in public or private life, in the arts and sciences. Women have often functioned as powerful agents "behind the scenes" influencing profoundly historical developments, often frustratingly so- for the historian- considering the opaqueness of their influence, even when significant.

In the last 100 years women have taken a more active role in society, and have generally met with encouragement by the state for doing so, wether in the form of subsidies for female leaders in industry and science, or in broader terms such as the winning of the franchise by female political activists. Women are now widely accepted, for example, as leaders in the political, economic and military classes, wether holding cabinet office, leading large multinational corporations, or commanding warships during fleet deployments.

How do you think the role of women in society has changed in the last century, and what changes do you foresee in the future?
#14688992
Women have become a dominant force in Western politics. Women were always the socially dominant gender, and their lesser status equalized them to men. But now that that's gone, women are both the dominant voice and the dominant vote of politics. The image of the median voter in America, Canada, and most of Europe, is a middle-aged Suburban mom.

Whether this change has been for better or worse is debatable, but the transformation is undeniable.
#14689035
Women in the west have been subjected to liberal masculinisation, that is to say they have become more alike to the ideal male subject in liberalism.

Autonomous, driven by competition and eschewing concepts of interdependence and interconnection, that previously would have characterised their femininity
#14689042
I agree. Liberal feminism, in admirably pushing for workplace equality as a part of providing more avenues for women to find fulfillment and empowerment, has not actually equalized the genders.

What it's done is opened up a dichotomy where women can either be a demure and mostly-powerless submissive housewife (patriarchal values) or behave competitively, in a power-seeking and aggressive way (liberal feminist values). It's ignored the broader question of equalizing masculinity and femininity in social organization, which is a socioeconomic question of shifting to a system of greater cooperation.

Most women are caught somewhere between those false-dichotomy poles, leaning slightly further with each generation towards the liberal feminist end.
Last edited by Luna on 13 Jun 2016 14:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14689044
The demure and powerless housewife is pretty much a myth. Women have always had the command and charge of the household (traditionally European and European-descended women control the budget for example), and their strength or weakness is related to their personal presence as opposed to social norms. Most women are actually quite powerful within their households, and have had a significant influence on the men in their lives. Not least because they collude together more effectively than men are capable of, and have a firmer grasp of linguistics and social nuances.
#14689048
Even living in a pattriarchal society(Thailand) where women are "supposedly" demure and submissive, I have quite the opposite to be true...

Dr House wrote:The demure and powerless housewife is pretty much a myth.
and
Dr House wrote:Most women are actually quite powerful within their households, and have had a significant influence on the men in their lives.
QFT.
#14689051
Dr House wrote:Women have always had the command and charge of the household

The practice of male-preference primogeniture through most of the world should nakedly show that's not the case. The eldest son inherited. Then his brother. Then his brother. Then the daughter, even if she was older than all of them, might in some systems get a holding. Or might just be married off to someone to secure an alliance (for a noble) or business partnership (for not) for dad and in the future for his eldest son.

(traditionally European and European-descended women control the budget for example),

Based on what?

and their strength or weakness is related to their personal presence as opposed to social norms.

:eh: If I go around flouting social norms left and right, I'm going to have a pretty weak social station.

Even the trappings of femininity are social norms, the expectation of being polite, attentive, calm, not loud, smiling. Otherwise, a girl is "mannish," or worse, a "bitch." It's like putting on a public mask whether one feels like the mask suits them at that point in time or not.

Not least because they collude together more effectively than men are capable of, and have a firmer grasp of linguistics and social nuances.

And less physical strength. Under feudalism, that's the one that matters the most. The changing realities of human existence under capitalism have shaken that up to where title isn't everything and individual networking skills matter more. Thus the reactionary-patriarchal vs. liberal-feminist dichotomy.
#14689054
Luna wrote:The practice of male-preference primogeniture through most of the world should nakedly show that's not the case. The eldest son inherited. Then his brother. Then his brother.
Such is most definitely NOT the case everywhere. In Thailand, for instance, the daughter is the prime inheritor, regardless of the birth order.

I often get a good chuckle when Western people try to tell me that I went after Asian women because they are passive, submissive and demure. :lol: The are the BOSS of the household or, as my wife likes to say, "The wife is in charge of the house 80%.".
#14689057
Godstud wrote:Such is most definitely NOT the case everywhere. In Thailand, for instance, the daughter is the prime inheritor, regardless of the birth order.

There are exceptions everywhere. ;) Male-preference primogeniture was practiced, though, in Europe and Northeast Asia at the very least. And I'd also be surprised if Thailand lacks a cultural legacy of it, inheritance for their throne is a male-preference primogeniture system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeni ... mogeniture
#14689064
Goldberk wrote:Women in the west have been subjected to liberal masculinisation, that is to say they have become more alike to the ideal male subject in liberalism.

Autonomous, driven by competition and eschewing concepts of interdependence and interconnection, that previously would have characterised their femininity


Definitely agree here, there's a drive towards an androgynous norm for both sexes, which has seen Western men become more and more emasculated in behavior, and women the opposite, like you have pointed out. Conversely the traditional male archetype does not make for a good consumer, so that has to go. I can't imagine the society of men 30-40 years ago willingly accepting the sort of mass-migration that European men today have taken lying down.

If Japan is any indication of the future, this trajectory ends with the "herbivore men" that plague their society, men reduced to NEETs who have minimal interaction with the outside world.
#14734406
I'd say that on the whole, women are the internal guardians of society, and the more moral of the sexes. Men are the protectors against external threats.

In more primitive times where physical labor and conflict were larger occurrences, men had more political power, and gender roles were more pronounced; in societies with easier lifestyles and less need for labor or physical combat, women's political power increases and gender roles become less pronounced.

While the West has seen increases in women's legal rights, in many ways modern Western "feminism" is not liberation, and if anything is patriarchal, as it centers on encouraging women to be sexually 'easy' and immodest, and to equate slaving for a corporation owned by wealthy, white male shareholders - it's essentially a trick played on naive women to voluntarily subjugate them; in spite of lacking many legal rights, a modest Muslim woman is much more sociologically liberated in daily life.

Likewise, females of ancient hunter-gatherer tribes did more physical work than modern "liberated" women do.

Godstud wrote: Such is most definitely NOT the case everywhere. In Thailand, for instance, the daughter is the prime inheritor, regardless of the birth order.

I often get a good chuckle when Western people try to tell me that I went after Asian women because they are passive, submissive and demure. :lol: The are the BOSS of the household or, as my wife likes to say, "The wife is in charge of the house 80%.".

Except demureness is a trait, not a 'social position'. A woman can be a strong leader yet demure in mannerisms and personality.

Likewise a man can be in a position of 'authority' yet still be weak in character.

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]