Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:opinion:powerless.women [2025-04-30 17:34:48] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
+++ lb:opinion:powerless.women [2025-04-30 17:34:49] (current) – ↷ Page moved from playground:opinion:powerless.women to lb:opinion:powerless.women ninjasr
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Women in history were not powerless ======
+Due to a recent event that I experienced first-hand, I decided to write this article focusing on one claim in particular:
+<WRAP centeralign>
+Women in history held no power.
+</WRAP>
+I'll elaborate on this later, but let's get a few things out of the way first.\\  Also, while my main inspiration was that recent event...this is something I have been thinking about and wanting to put into writing for a long while now.
+{{tag>analysis opinion}}
+===== Notes =====
+==== What I am NOT arguing ====
+Here I'll list a few of the things I am **not** claiming, just to be clear.
+  * Women throughout history were equal to men.
+  * Women had just as many political rights as men.
+  * Women had the capacity to hold formal power to the same degree as men.
+  * Women are lesser than men.
+And to reiterate, these are things that I am **not** claiming and which I **don't** believe. Though I will note that both the claim I'm arguing against, these claims and the claims I am making...are generalizations.\\
+===== My thoughts =====
+Now, ignoring the obvious fact that the exemplary time period used to point out that women were powerless was the Victorian Era which is suspiciously named after a ruling monarch who had breasts, I'm going to tackle this in an alternate form.\\  This claim is utterly undefendable because it's way too broad and way too generalized which means that, if you want to defend it, you'll find yourself shifting the goalposts //a lot// (as happened during a real conversation I had). It's the Motte and Bailey fallacy, basically.((:fn:>It's kinda disturbing that the humanities don't teach logical fallacies and good faith argumentation.))\\  Generally, my focus will fall onto //political// power but it should be noted that when people argue the above, they are usually referring to //**formal** political power// which isn't the same as //**informal** political power// and is not equivalent to //political power// and, importantly, isn't the same as //[[merw>power|power]]//.((:fn:>It was suggested to me that I spend some extra time on the semantics here...but I think, overall, it's //okay//. Though I'll dedicate this footnote to that. Formal Power ≠ Hard Power. Hard Power is powered derived from force. Soft Power is derived from...well, not force, but cultural/economic influence instead. Formal/Informal are mostly tied to official designations. It was suggested that I specify this as //apparent// and //subtle// power/influence instead. I'll just end this by saying I don't //currently// have the motivation to spend the time on adding all this directly.))
+==== Formal Versus Informal Power ====
+The difference between these two is that formal power is power that is //formally held//: such as by a head of state, a bureaucrat or legal office. Informal power is power that is //not// formally held. The latter is much broader than the former, but a good example would be a celebrity. Celebrities have influence over the public as a result of their fame and (theoretical) popularity.\\  Informal power is more fluid than formal power which is why, generally, people probably prefer sticking to formal power. Who actually //holds// all the offices in the government, who passes the laws and so on.\\  But informal power doesn't stop existing just because it's harder to see...or just because we ignore it.
+==== Women's Informal Power ====
+An unavoidable fact is that the people around you tend to influence you even if you don't see those influences directly.\\  Going off of that logic...those politicians that hold all those offices and pass all of those laws typically have women in their immediate vicinity. Y'know...wives, daughters, mothers and even mistresses...all of whom influence that politician. That influence can vary from ‘please pass this law’ to ‘are you really sure about this?’ though both cases are influence. They don't even need to //talk//, really, as they can simply be observed.\\  It sounds silly, but that is how it is.\\  Though we can be less pretentious about it too: women have immense power over their own children. They're the ones who raise them, while the man goes off to work (this applies generally throughout history).\\  While this power is wielded directly...it doesn't really have to be? The influence they hold alone (and informal power by extension) is already immense.
+==== ‘Not formal political power’ ====
+The disagreement I had in real life ultimately boiled down to this one crucial fact: I was wrong because women did not hold formal political power, even if they held informal political power (as Queen-Dowagers for example) or influence over men (as their wives).((:fn:>Though I should note it was told to me, directly, that in the 17th-19th centuries (approximately as I remember it) women //did// technically have influence over their politically powerful husbands but due to the circumstances of the era that had men dismissive of women...practically speaking, they had zero influence. This is also one of the most bullshit claims that I think I've ever heard and, consequently, completely invalidates the entire Women's Rights movement. It could be true in individual circumstances, but this is a case of over-generalization.))\\  This is a fair-ish point because it //is// true that women usually didn't have the same formal political rights as men, but this is also moving the goalposts.\\  The difference between formal and informal power is, practically speaking, actually pretty meaningless. To give a hypothetical example: are we going to argue that a bandit lord is powerless because he doesn't hold the official position of ‘lord’ within the area he controls? That is absurd and I argue the same should be extended towards these examples.\\  Are we //really// going to argue that Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, Empress-Dowager Cixi, Queen Victoria, Catherine of Russia, Empress Theodora, Cleopatra and so on didn't hold //real// political power because their positions were dependent upon a man? That is, quite bluntly, pretty sexist.
+=== Minor aside: blame game ===
+This is a minor aside and more something amusing that I realized.\\  If women were truly a non-factor in political life...how, then, could women find themselves being blamed for major political issues? Daji is pointed at as one of the more influential reasons for the collapse of the Shang Dynasty.\\  Now, I consider this a weak argument on my part because there can be any number of reasons why women are blamed for problems - in Daji's case, you could argue that she was simply ‘hot woman’ who was argued over but if you //are// arguing that, you //don't know who Daji is//.
+==== Armchair Psychology ====
+Putting aside the fact that feminist history((:fn:>I'm noting this in a footnote, but if you are a historian that prefixes ‘history’ or ‘historian’ with an ideological label, you are automatically disqualified as a historian due to the simple fact you are admitting to and flaunting bias. Clearly more concerned with ideology than the pursuit of truth. This also applies to ‘capitalist’, ‘anarchist’, ‘socialist’, ‘marxist’ history as well.)) has an inherent bias in portraying women as victims, I think that the idea that women historically held no power stems from two (three including the victim mentality) main currents.\\  The first is the belief that men and women are equal. The second is the belief that women should be independent from men.
+=== Equality ===
+This one seems pretty unassuming on the surface. Men and women should be treated equally, right? This is a modern and //very// liberal belief which is almost certainly tied to the Christian soul, but that's not relevant right now.((:fn:>Basically...individualism wasn't really a thing for most of history. You were rarely looked at as an individual, but rather as a member of a certain clan. This also leads to the hard to conceptualize fact that men and women were often seen as a unit rather than as two people working together, if that makes sense.))\\  The question that gets raised here is why should they be treated equally and, while I'm not gonna go in-depth on that whole thing,((:fn:>I think men and women should have equal rights in //most// cases though I haven't thought too deeply about it. It just seems like common sense to me.)) I //will //focus on the main argument raised to counter this idea that men and women should be equal: men and women are inherently different.\\  This is an unavoidable biological fact that also extends into psychology, though it's up for debate how much that is. Although, just for fun, I'll bring up one biological fact that does determine gender dynamics a little: labor. A pregnant woman is undeniably weaker than a man, who lacks the capacity to become pregnant and, when going into labor, a woman requires protection and help. This immediately places her in a position where, well, she will have to rely on the man for help. I don't think it's necessary to bring anything else up, as this proves my point enough.((:fn:>Though it should also be pointed out that she wouldn't have been pregnant in the first place without that man.))\\  The deal here is that the differences between men and women mean that they cannot be equal in //all matters// but what all those matters //are //is up for debate - and, crucially, was up for debate throughout history as well. The idea that men and women are //entirely equal// and //should be treated equally// is a //very// modern invention. This modern invention, in turn, clouds modern perceptions of the past.\\  There's also a certain irony in the fact we are looking at periods in history where the majority of people - female and //male// - lacked formal political rights. A nobleman could murder you in medieval Europe and all he had to do was pay a fine.
+=== Independence ===
+This is the feminist ideal that everyone makes fun of: ‘a woman don't need no man!’. While I agree with that on the surface, it's clear that the ideal is a bit more than the simple acknowledgment that a woman doesn't need a man to live.\\  This ideal has shifted from ‘she //doesn't// need’ to ‘she //shouldn't// need’ which is a key difference. The ‘shouldn't’ attitude expresses itself in analyses of the past where women are pointed to as being powerless. The labor example I gave above actually exemplifies the ultimate counter to the idea that women don't need men...although a woman doesn't necessarily need a man in that example, her husband is the most convenient helpful person in her vicinity to provide what she needs.\\  Let's take the example of Empress-Dowager Cixi, probably the forefront example of a very powerful woman. Now, ignoring the fact her position of power //could// be considered //informal //rather than //formal//, she would be discounted due to the keyword ‘**Dowager**’ in her royal title. Her position of power was still directly dependent on an official male ruler and, thus, this can't be considered a valid counter to the claim that women were politically powerless. She was, effectively, still politically powerless and exploited a loophole. Marrying up in society, being the influential wife of a ruler and being related to a ruler are all thus invalid counter-arguments to the claim...because in all those situations, the woman is still dependent upon a man.\\  Even an example like Catherine of Russia wouldn't be considered valid under this logic as, while she took control of Russia from her husband...she was still married to her husband and wouldn't be in that position if she didn't marry him. Actually, even Queen Victoria might not be considered a valid counter-example, because she wouldn't have held that position if it weren't for her father dying, right?\\  The absurdity here should be self-evident, but the logic can be flipped as well. Is a man considered ‘effectively powerless’ if he marries a rich noblewoman and then, via her position, starts influencing society?\\  It's //also// the case that men's power was oft directly dependent upon women...try being a King without a Queen, see how that goes.
+=== All three together: Conclusion First ===
+Taking these biases into account, I think I can say that the claim that women were powerless is a conclusion that was reached before the evidence was analyzed. Instead, history is being used to justify and support the pre-made conclusion.\\  The claim that women were powerless throughout history falls apart under actual scrutiny. Individual counter-examples of overt political power (Catherine of Russia, Queen Victoria, Empress-Dowager Cixi) already make the claim sound ridiculous...and that's not even getting into more subtle influence, which is how the majority of women projected power. The very fact that the over examples are dismissed indicates that people making this claim made their minds up beforehand.\\  These biases do something even worse though in that they eliminate all nuance from history.
+==== Food for thought: Equivalent, not Equal ====
+My thinking as to the power dynamics between men and women, throughout history, is that they were not //equal// but usually //equivalent//.((:fn:>And, though I forgot to note it, symbiotic. It's way more reasonable to look at the power dynamics as a symbiotic relationship where men and women performed slightly different functions.)) The difference being that equality suggests they're the same, while equivalent suggests they are not //the same// but...well, equal in a different sense.\\  Because men and women are different (biologically)...they approach problems differently and, consequently, they will project power in different ways as well. Women, in particular, prefer to be more subtle: as the //wives//, //mothers//, //daughters// and //mistresses// of the more overt men.\\  Even if we consider historical realities...well, take the right to vote. From a modern perspective, it just makes sense that women should have been allowed to vote and this was simply a means to deprive them from political power. Counter-argument: the draft.\\  Part of the justification for why women couldn't vote is because the right to vote was tied directly to the draft. Men could vote, but they could also be drafted in times of war. This was the //duty// that came together with the vote. In fact, some women opposed the right to vote specifically to avoid being drafted. The matter was eventually settled by making an exception for women: women could vote, but they wouldn't be drafted. I could be annoying and point out how this is a case of unequal treatment, but I digress.\\  It's possible that a lot of rights throughout history relating the men and women were based around these kinds of practical concerns, alongside the simple fact men and women are different. Men ruled, sure, but women guaranteed the continued rule of the dynasty, for example.\\  Biases just cloud the truth that women //did// project power throughout history in many different forms...even if it wasn't as overtly visible.