I should be doing something with it? How is this ancient Egypt, Feminist? What you described is not Feminist.
The first thing i note is that the Egyptian experiment of unrestricting an ancient culture has not carried on to its modern counter part. Why not?
When did these rights change and for how long and what was the effect on society?
Was there any counter forces to counter the dilemmas of disease, lack of social security for older people and such? What was it?
Was the interpretations correct in the first instance?
If you answer these questions then i actually have something to do something with. Otherwise at best you are giving me a failed experiment and touting it an alternative model and at worst a lie, all whilst calling my reasoning around why in every other culture the way to raise a society to equality is to remove the impediments that shackle it, through modernity, simplistic.
The answer to this is not to show me an obscure society but rather show me what i said was wrong or why this traditional roles has been the one adopted throughout history and throughout the world with communities with no relationship with each other? Not a giant male oppressive conspiracy but rather the most effective way to survive.
Ah, I thought you were questions were largely rhetorical; and i''m still not convinced that they were not intended rhetorically, because, if you had any interst in the actual answers, then you would have surely read the whole of that rather short article which I'd quoted, for a start. And
then you would have known better than to apply the term "failed experiment" to a society that was stable for milennia. Amongst other things. And
then you might have hit Google for most of the rest. Why not? Because you've already made up your mind how things work, and you're not open to reconsidering your social theories, just in playing ideological wargames with them. Or so it very much seems to me. And like i already said, I'd rather not. I'd rather use my time more constructively.
Your posts on this subject (including your questions and not to mentiion other subjects) are riddled with false assumptions. I don't have time to correct all those false assumptions, trawling the internet for supporting evidence from authorities that you're -hopefully- likely to both understand and respect, only to be knocked back by some other notion of yours that took you all of two seconds to formulate(even in the highly unlikely event that I suceed in the former) .
Nobody has that much time and patience, Al.
Like the rest of us, you obviously make ongoing efforts to educate yourself, but it very much looks to me as if your efforts are nigh-on exclusively focussed on shoring up your preconceptions, not in expanding or questioning the same. and so your POV on any damned thing is enormously resistant to change.
My Dad was just like that, TBH. He was fun to argue with... up to a point. But then. thinking back, I was the only person who ever found it
fun to argue with him. Everybody else would run for cover on account of his short fuse. (he could bark better than a Rottweiller, though i never, ever knew him to bite)
But, anyway *sigh* you r description of the abject conditions of the working class is a prime example . You consider that represents traditional labour division ? No, those conditions as described by yourself came about because of the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism; and before that, we (in the West , and some other plasces such as Japan) had Feudalism ,(which also had a negative impact on the lower classes' lives, and served to reinforce gender sterotypes, in a similar but, in many ways,
different fashion. ) And you're forgetting (if you ever learned it) that prior to modern legislation , there was nothing to prevent women from also working long hours in the factories, along with their children . Yes, they might well have ben worn out from producing those children, but that ddn't prevent them being exploited as cheap labour along with the children . That was great for the Economy, because it not only drove down wages, it made a lot of the men redundant, and liberated them for use as cannon fodder.
So you see , your picture of the 'traditional family' survuiving the best way they can was actually idealised? it was worse than that. though i'll certainly agree that the model where the man goes to work and the woman stays at home represents an improvement over what came before m a relatively good adaptabion to prevailing conditions . But it isn't traditional. Prior to mechanisation, the separation of family life and worklife was unusual , not the norm. A weaver, for example, would have his/ her her handloom loom at home in the loft. And whole families would pitch in with farm labouring at harvest time....but I'm speaking of Britain. The rest of the World had a whole variety of social traditions, some of which put most or even all the work (such as huntiing, gathering and farming) onto the women
How did women cope with bearing children
and doing so much work? well ypu forget that traditional societies, all over the world, were generally based around
extended families. and that tge women within those families were free to divide work between them as they fit, according to the needs of the moment, not according to some contract of employment. I'm not saying those cultures weren't sexist , of course, just that they worked rather better than the modern idea of the nuclear family does.
Of course, all the other traditional cultures in the world have been thoroughly screwed over, one way or another, by europeans and Modern western culture, to the point that most of the people are disp[placed and we only see a shadow of what they used to be; and we're apt to look at all that through a lens of modern Western assumptions and blame all failings on their "undeveloped" state; but enough survived into modern times to easily give the lie to many of your assumptions re. tradition Al.
If you want to know more about Ancient Egypt you can look it up FFS. We're not talking about an "obscure society" but something that fascinates much of the world, and is the subject of much ongoing research. We;re always tuning up new surprises there, eg, it turns out that the first labour strike in known history was by Egyptian tomb builders in 1159 BCE (
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/). as is common knowledge by now, for anyone who takes a bit of interest. They were remarkably similar to us.
Well, well, that's a
lot more explanation that i intended to indulge in. Must try harder to curb this penchant for futilty of mine. I'm a slow writer (unlike yourself) and could have read half a good book, or watched 2-3 interesting documentaries in the tiime it took me write this. What a waste eh?
