is you husband the maternal, nurturing type?

This post made me think of how my two year old son points out two mommies every time he sees a picture of a family. Our family consists of my female self, my male husband, and the aforementioned two year old son. I have no idea where he got the notion that a family consists of two mommies and one baby, but I'm flattered, frankly.

I think we pretty much agree on this. When you say that gender inequality was the (social) contract we had until recently, I completely agree. And I would emphasize that women were part of that contract; they made and kept it the same as men did.

As to the need for labor contributing to the demand for gender equality, I also agree, but would add that that was only one factor. Others were industrial capitalism which produced surplus value which produced "service industries" and leisure time. Medical advancements which increased the likelihood that chidren would survive to adulthood were another factor and the resulting increase in population which obviated the need for continual pregnancy on the woman's part was another. The resulting medical advances in contraception were yet another.

One interesting thing about gender inequality that I think is particularly important today is that the history of family life shows that industrial capitalism is what took men away from their families. Under feudalism, men, women and children lived in the same place. The man typically did the farming and artisanry while the mother did most of the childcare, cooking and spinning and weaving. Men were very much part of the family and took part in childcare in a secondary capacity. Industial capitalism, because it organized a large labor force at a single location outside the home required that men leave home for many hours of every day in order to earn a wage which totally altered their relationship with their wives, children and homes. We're still dealing with that one.

Get over the partriarchy. It doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a very long time. I should have known you were old and from texas. If there is 1 location that should be given back to Mexico it is texas, a real shitstain. There were many things in the 1960's that were good and that were bad. We don't have "whites only" signs but racism still exists to varying degrees. Laws and policies don't exist prohibiting a woman under the age of 21 from purchasing a car without her father's approval anymore and haven't for a very long time.

Some people in this thread may be overlooking how men's control of property limited women's choices.

In the 1960s, when I was twenty, I paid cash for a car, but I could not take possession of it until my father signed for it. It was my money and I was not buying on credit but for some damn reason women my age were not allowed to purchase a car without their father's or their husband's agreement. My mother's signature would not have been sufficient. My brother was able to buy a car at eighteen with no one's signature.

It is really hard to go places in Texas without a car. Look at a map if you don't believe me.

For years men (or the Patriarchy, however you prefer it) controlled women by controlling money and the laws of property. In most nations, for most of history, men also controlled women through their children. Children, like women once were, counted as property. Since the man owned the property, he owned the children. If a woman left a man to pursue her own interests, he would keep the children. Divorce laws also made it nearly impossible to get a divorce without a charge of adultery against one of the parties. Even as men controlled women, the Church (or some religion) controlled both men and women.

In the early part of our nation's history, married women were not allowed to own property. When a father died, most often his property went not to a surviving wife, but to his sons. Daughters were expected to marry and thus be provided for.

I remember reading an article that during the witch trail era of our nation older women with property were often targeted as witches. The reason: Her neighbors wanted to seize her property.

I agree, plenty of men were burned at stakes throughout history. And, yes, most men were busy tilling the fields, tending the sheep, etc. But men as a segment of society had more opportunities than women as a segment of society.

And I certainly don't mean to say "men and only men prevented women from doing X". Most men, and most women, believed that women should stay at home, etc.

As another poster pointed out, yes, there are plenty of examples of women who did their own thing. But they were *exceptional* (as in exceptions to the rule). That's why we note them. These women, by and large, would not or could not marry and raise children. They were sometimes educated in defiance of common cultural practice. Or they were forceful enough personalities to keep their footing in a "man's world" (though I hate that term).

But, when a person's worth to a society is literally in her body: her sexual purity until marriage, her unconditional fidelity during marriage, and her ability to breed children, *most* of the population isn't going to risk the label of "whore" to have a career. And let's face it: this is an area where a double standard has, does and will probably continue to exist. Historically, a sexually pure adult male was considered unusual. A sexully impure woman was considered criminal. And, of course, prostitutes were considered "fair game" to any potential customer. So if a womn decided "I want to be a painter" and she got branded as "whore", she couldn't just toss her head and say "Who cares?" Men harassed her, women shunned her. How to paint, when no one will sut for you, and no one will buy your work, bcause you are a "whore"?

I'm not whining, I'm not saying men are bad, women are victims: this is the contract most societies made until very recently.

As for professional training/guilds, etc for women, I suppose one can look to nunneries. Some nunneries cultivated wine, created tapestries, pottery, etc. And nuns were, in theory, free from child bearing and child rearing. But the cost was, in theory, a sexual life. And of course, some nuneries, were "nunneries" if you get my drift.

I still maintain it was the rising demand for labor beyond the hearth and fields that prompted gender equality (or lurches towards it) in the workplace. Which also prompted greater freedoms andbenefits for men as well.

And I still think "Well, why didn't women just say f*ck it nd do what they want?" is the wrong question to ask. One person who stepped beyond the norm was tolerated, or subdued. A group of persons (the Hugenots, the gypsies, the Jews, the women's guild of architects) rebelling against the statusquo was a Threat to Society, and was crushed.