The root of female oppression?

[femfortheday]

Hi. I've always been of the general belief that the root cause of women's oppression was our female bodies - that we are on average smaller, slower and weaker, our reproductive capacity or our perceived reproductive capacity, that we are uniquely vulnerable because of sex, pregnancy and breastfeeding.
But I've seen this mentioned as being false. I don't want to derail into more trans stuff, as I just don't have the energy for it St the minute if I'm honest. But is there something else? Something that makes men hate us, either consciously or subconsciously? Another reason we end up where we do? Any links or book titles even would be appreciated too, for further reading.

I've read a few things around the hypothesis that before humans became civilised (I just mean when they live in towns, not the implied morality the word sometimes means) the nomadic group was likely to have been a mix of women and men, and children were reared collectively. It was with civilisation through agriculture that the family began to exist in the way we understand it today, and with land ownership, and the ability to own all the new things we were creating, that led to the paternity of children being much more important than it had been, and the fact that while aspects of life became easier - ability to store food to see you through the hard times that would previously have meant starvation, human labour actually increased so more people were needed to farm. This trapped women into constant reproduction and saw men trying to control this resource.

As a side point, many religions have a belief in a glorious past in paradise, before humans had to labour, and many people connect this idea with our memories of the great shift from nomads to settlers.

I have been wondering about this for a while in the context of trans stuff, but I'll leave that out of it. This is pretty woolly. What I was wondering about was why some gay men (in particular) I have come across hate women / see us as lesser beings, etc. And I have been wondering what the parallels between racism and women's oppression are (not to get into the whole intersectional debate either). What is striking me from some particular gay men who I interact with is that although they do not desire women / wish to breed with them they still expect some privileges that straight men get from women. For example, they expect to be fawned over, mothered, put first, treated like special snowflakes and the like. In conversation it is all about them and their needs come first. (Caveat - I'm referring to a particular group I interact with and not making this claim about all gay men - this is about how my thinking evolved). Watching this, I wondered if on some level there was jealousy that straight men get the 'use' of women's physical / emotional labour in ways that they don't. I was also thinking about how racism evolved and looking at explanations that went along the lines of how some humans saw others as things in order that they could appropriate their bodies / children / labour, etc. Watching some other threads on other parts of MN and having to constantly go for little walks to work off my anger, it seems that het men in relationships with women still feel entitled to women's bodies, labour, time, etc. and feel cheated if they do not get these goods. So, I'm wondering if this part of the picture? Not so much why women are oppressed, but why men not so much hate us, but see it as in their interests to oppress us? It's not all about sex / reproduction, in other words. Sorry if this is unclear. I'm still thinking through it.

Some really interesting thoughts, thanks.
I hadn't thought about it in the context of the stick from nomadic life, to current living.

One thing I would like to say is that women want to have children too.

Obviously now and in the past women were trapped into constant reproduction. But women (not all women) do want children too.

From success in terms of evolution you are only successful if you have children and some of you children go on to have children. So the system where more children are produced (agriculture) was always going to favour a nomadic one which supports less people.

YetAnotherSpartacus
Your comment about gay men has struck a chord with me.
It's something that I've noticed both among the gay men that I know personally and gay men in the media. They hate women either more virulently or more openly than straight men do (maybe straight men hate us the same amount but keep it hidden cos they know that would shut down the access to sex?) .

I thought it was a power thing. The patriarchy being run by and for straight men means that anyone who isn't (straight or a man or white) is part of a lesser power outgroup.

One of the ways to co-opt power (if you are a member of an outgroup) is to co-operate in the marginalising of other 'lesser' outgroups. So if I am a gay man, with all of the hate that attracts (historically), then I can console myself that "at least I'm not a woman".

I'm still trying to figure this out, so excuse me if not clear.

Your comment
that although they do not desire women / wish to breed with them they still expect some privileges that straight men get from women is thought provoking. It makes total sense to me- the emotional care taking that men take for granted from women.

So even if I am a gay man, my primary identity is as a man, and I deserve/am entitled to that care taking by women. Otherwise, what are women for?

Dominance and superiority to women is a central theme in masculinity

If you have a high drive to be dominant then you are constantly having to assert yourself and respond to challenges, its very handy and saves hassle for men if they can arrange things so that half the population (ie the women) can be permanently oppressed and made to serve the needs of men

Shining I think dominance and superiority is a central theme to humanity, actually.
I've noticed that the more self-powerful an individual is, the less misogynistic/racist they tend to be.

I think it's an indication that if a person feels competent and powerful in themselves, then they have less need to dominate another person or group.
There's less fear about where they stand in the 'pecking order'.
Women are perfectly capable of being misogynistic, particularly if they are concerned with their own status.

Less powerful men, ones who don't feel secure, who have a complex about their weight or intellect or sexuality or size...those are the men who most hate on women, and other groups. (clears throat DonaldT)

So even if I am a gay man, my primary identity is as a man, and I deserve/am entitled to that care taking by women. Otherwise, what are women for? hmm

Yes MrsHaveNaiceHam - and thank you for putting it so eloquently. I agree with your other comments too.

I think we could be in for interesting times as women increasingly see that their best bet in life is to focus on earning capacity and financial independence
Unwillingness to jeopardize this by having children will have govt alarmed at precipitously dropping populations, and they will go into freefall once birthrates drop below replacement levels

Do a lot of gay men hate women? I'm sure some do. I must have been very fortunate because all the gay men I've met haven't hated women.

Is it really all that common for gay men to hate women?

Just to clarify my own position - my claim was that I think that some do, but I was primarily referring to a situation where I am in where the gay men very much demand 'male privilege', instead of (say) being on the side of feminists who question patriarchy. They do question dominant masculinity, but not gendered power.

Shining
I totally agree....I think women are starting (or maybe just me cos I am old) to see that financial independence is achievable both because women are educated and it is now mandated socially (Lean-In anyone?)

In my mother's and grandmothers' time, their university education was rather like a finishing school- it made them more marriageable (the phrase 'laying hen' is one I've heard), but their primary role was still to get married and have babies.

Now, women can be educated AND use that to propel themselves to high-paying positions.
There are all the underlying issues around who will take care of children, and unequal pay rates, but that's a separate discussion.

What if...instead of women worrying about having children and who will care for them, what if women instead decided NOT to have children, and took the big bucks.....just for themselves???
What if (gasp) we arrived at a situation, where women earning their equivalent salaries, spent that money on themselves, used men for sexual fun, with no commitment.
What if, in fact, women treated men as men do with women?

Personally, I think some of the #strongsexy trend and the contouring make-up trend and the shellacked nails trend, is a way of raising the bar on acceptable femininity, so women spend more of their (almost at the same level) pay on appearance.
Another method of subjugation.

(I may be overthinking this)

I'd also say that they (referring to the group in question) are very much aware of their own place in the patriarchal pecking order and are more resentful of this than they are inclined to challenge patriarchy per se. In other words, as MrsHaveNaiceHam put it they "deserve/am entitled to that care taking by women. Otherwise, what are women for?".

MsHave it seems to me that there is a shift going on and women are starting to use men for sexual fun, and objecting to the orgasm gap:
medium.com/@laureningram/come-again-orgasm-privilege-casual-sex-and-female-pleasure-98dab59cfe7d?source=placement_card_footer_grid---------1-43

There is the 'principal of least interest' to consider, the person with the greatest need has the least power, IMO in modern times men need women more than vice versa, women potentially have more power.
Obviously it is in the interests of men to prevent us from being fully conscious of that

Society continues only because women willingly bear most of the cost of creating new humans, if we en mass were no longer willing to sacrifice our mental, physical and financial well being....if we want to live our lives for ourselves
What then?

WhenSheWasBad
I didn't see your comment.
I don't think all gay men hate women, but I do think many do.
I also think being a gay man (until quite recently) has been a marginal, scary place to be. One way to dispel that fear, is to join the dislike of women. Yes, I do see that with many gay men.
I do see that with many women also. It's quite disheartening to see women using social force to join in subjugating a woman who is trying to challenge male power.

To go back to the OP; I do think there are issues in how our bodies operate that leave us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis men.
But the question was - is there something that makes men hate us, either consciously or subconsciously?

My feeling is that there are many factors at play, but one has to be about power.
And my non-researched, non-academic, personal view is that a man who hates women is also going to hate some combination of: Jews/Mexicans/Catholics/ Germans/Irish/Dutch/ Roma/Travellers/ Indians/Protestants/Whites/ Blacks/Asians etc

The common factor is always going to be: the person who hasn't the wit or the will to look at why he needs to hate anyone, and what how that hatred serves him.

Oh Shining I think I could have a great pub chat with you

The "principle of least interest" is fascinating to me...in terms of every relationship really, not just "romantic" ones. At work and in friendships.
It has been my experience that if I can detach from needing a relationship, then the power shifts to me.
I don't mean that in an exploitative way- though many people have experienced being exploited by people who instinctively get that point and exploit it.

Ultimately, marriage should be identified as a power and financial engagement, rather than the "romantic", happily ever after codswallop that I bought into.

if we want to live our lives for ourselves....aha! yes. Instead of living it with a Dily Mail commentary in our heads (strutting/parading/revealing bulls*t).

What if...instead of women worrying about having children and who will care for them, what if women instead decided NOT to have children, and took the big bucks

Of course some women do this already and lots and lots of women don't.

So then you get a situation the more educated and empowered a woman is the less likely she is to have kids. So the next generation of kids tend to have mums who are less empowered and who are more likely to be comfortable with the woman being the primary care giver.

You will never get women on mass deciding to stop having kids. I would rather see a men stepping up more and parenting being done more equally.

Imo economic power is a key thing in the modern world, if women can be financially independent of men then they have no need to enter into domestic partnerships where they find themselves doing the lions share of the donkey work

Men used to be useful because of superior physical process, this is no longetr the case, increasingly we have machines to do the hard work.

Prowess, not process!

I agree WhenShe...not all women think like that.
I have children, best thing I have ever done with my life, 6 figure salary would never compare with the joy and completion in my life as a result etc etc.

Not all men think like that....I work with 2 men who I deeply admire as being thoughtful, considerate, servant leader types. One straight, one gay. Both in leadership positions in mainly female professions. Both get the dynamics of power, whether that is related to gender or race or nationality.

I cannot see a situation emerging where men or women decide not to have children- it's not going to happen. It's contrary to our biology...like expecting our lungs to breathe under water.

But I think the question is; how has that biology been used as a way to justify a power hierarchy with the child-bearers are at the bottom?

By any logic, it should be the reverse.

But the same logic would say that a fire-fighter is paid and valued more than an actuary. They're not. So what can I do about that?

You will never get women on mass deciding to stop having kids
OK, hyperbole from me, but it doesn't even have to happen 'en masse' for a population to shrink alarmingly in a couple of generations

As populations grow exponentially so they also shrink exponentially

It interesting to see that the idea of women choosing not to have children is unthinkable to some
As with all our behaviour the drive to have children is culturally mediated, it feels instinctive becuase it is strongly internalized and culturally reinforced in multiple ways

Having children (and wanting children) make us vulnerable.
And that narrow window to have children compounds the problem and creates other problems such as objectification and older women being less valuable.

Imo economic power is a key thing in the modern world, if women can be financially independent of men then they have no need to enter into domestic partnerships where they find themselves doing the lions share of the donkey work

I kind of agree with this - sort of except that. A lot of women will still want to be in a relationship with a man. If you can manage your relationship so that there is a pretty decent split between you in terms of donkey work (and it's a loving relationship) it's great.